“Mathews v. Harris Case Analysis: Examination of Privacy Rights in the Context of Mandatory Reporting Requirements established under CANRA.”

In Mathews v. Harris, 7 Cal.App.5th 334, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 547 (2017), the plaintiffs, William Owen a certified alcohol and drug counselor who works with sex addicts, and Don Mathews and Michael Alvarez who are licensed marriage and family therapists, and clinical counselors, challenged the provisions of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA). This law mandates that certain professionals report any disclosures made by their patients regarding the possession or access of child pornography through digital means. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement infringes upon their patients' constitutional right to privacy, as protected under both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. They claimed that this mandatory reporting could potentially discourage individuals from seeking necessary treatment for their issues, ultimately harming the therapeutic relationship, as this law could have a retroactive effect on patients' willingness to disclose sensitive information, hindering their progress in therapy. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that the mandatory reporting of viewing pornography could stigmatize individuals seeking help for a common issue; and emphasized the importance of maintaining trust and confidentiality in therapy to ensure effective treatment outcomes. Mathews is the founder and director of the Impulse Treatment Center, which is recognized as the largest outpatient facility for the treatment of sexual compulsion and addiction in the United States, and Alvarez operated a private practice that focuses on various addictions, including sexual addiction. The plaintiffs asserted their standing as taxpayers in California, aiming to halt the improper use of taxpayer funds.

On the other hand, the Defendant Kamala D. Harris, served as the Attorney General of California, was tasked with the enforcement of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA). She oversaw the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), which functioned as a comprehensive statewide repository for child abuse reports, and was responsible for distributing information from this database to various government entities and law enforcement agencies. (§§ 11165.9, 11166.3, 111170.) Defendant Jackie Lacey, the District Attorney for Los Angeles County, holed the duty of prosecuting therapists or counselors who neglect to report the viewing or downloading of child pornography as instances of child abuse.

The case was brought before the California Court of Appeal after the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the reporting requirements of CANRA were unconstitutional. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, asserting that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state’s interest in protecting children from abuse and exploitation. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision, leading to a review by the appellate court. The plaintiffs initiated legal action on the grounds that CANRA establishes an exception to the patient-psychotherapist privilege by designating licensed psychologists and therapists as "mandated reporters." These professionals are obligated to report any known or suspected instances of child abuse to law enforcement agencies. Failure to fulfill this obligation may result in criminal penalties as well as the suspension or revocation of their professional licenses.

The primary legal issue in this case revolves around whether the mandatory reporting requirements imposed by CANRA violate the constitutional right to privacy of patients, as "'fundamental privacy right in nondisclosure of personal medical information' as a personal liberty guaranteed by the federal Constitution,” and California Constitution. The plaintiffs contended that the law's obligations to report disclosures of child pornography undermine the confidentiality of the therapist-patient relationship, potentially deterring individuals from seeking help.

The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the reporting requirements of CANRA do not violate the constitutional right to privacy. The court found that the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse and that the reporting obligations are a necessary measure to achieve this goal. The court also emphasized that the reporting requirements are narrowly tailored to serve this important government interest, striking a balance between protecting children and respecting individual privacy rights. Additionally, the court noted that the statute includes safeguards to prevent unnecessary disclosures and limit the scope of information reported, and this obligation does not infringe upon the state constitutional privacy rights as established in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633 (Hill), which stipulates the necessity of a legally recognized privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy given the circumstances, and a significant intrusion into privacy. Moreover, AB 1775 does not infringe upon the federal constitutional right to privacy as defined by the United States Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe (1977) 429 U.S. 589, 591–606, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (Whalen). The AG maintained that the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) represents a legitimate exercise of the state's extensive police powers aimed at addressing child sexual exploitation. Furthermore, the AG argued that the requirement for reporting instances of teenage "sexting" under CANRA does not render AB 1775 unconstitutional in its application to minors.

The court reasoned that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be limited when there is a significant state interest at stake. The court emphasized that the protection of children from potential harm is a compelling state interest that justifies the reporting requirements. Furthermore, the court noted that the law includes provisions to protect the confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship, thereby balancing the need for reporting with the rights of patients. The decision underscored the importance of safeguarding vulnerable populations while recognizing the complexities of privacy rights in the context of child protection. Overall, the ruling clarified that while confidentiality is crucial in therapeutic settings, it must yield to the greater goal of ensuring the safety and well-being of children. By striking this balance, the court set a precedent for upholding reporting requirements in cases where public interest and protection of vulnerable individuals are paramount. 

In summary, the court determined that AB 1775 does not infringe upon patients' privacy rights as outlined in the California Constitution. Firstly, there is no established fundamental right to possess or view child pornography, which is deemed criminal under California law and lacks constitutional protection. (§§ 311.11 & 11164 et seq.; Luera, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 522, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 438.) Secondly, individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding psychotherapy or any other form of treatment. The concept of a "zone of privacy" does not apply to illegal activities, and legally, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to the distribution of obscene materials. Furthermore, the required disclosures indicating that patients have accessed child pornography online do not constitute "a significant invasion of privacy." California possesses a strong and valid public interest in uncovering and prosecuting offenses related to child pornography.

References:

Mathews v. Harris, 265990. (n.d.). FindLaw.

Mathews v. Harris. (n.d.). Justia US Law.