Herzfeld v. Herzfeld
2001 WL 252252, 781 So. 2d 1070 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The parental immunity doctrine does not bar a minor child's claims for damages arising from intentional sexual abuse perpetrated by a parent, as the public policy justifications for immunity are diminished when family harmony has already been tragically disrupted by such egregious misconduct.
Facts:
- Frank Herzfeld placed the plaintiff, a minor child, in his care as a foster child in 1988.
- Frank Herzfeld adopted the plaintiff three years later when the plaintiff was sixteen years old.
- On June 5, 1997, the plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Frank Herzfeld, alleging repeated sexual abuse.
- The plaintiff's complaint included allegations of intentional torts (assault and battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and negligence.
Procedural Posture:
- A minor child (the plaintiff) was adopted by Frank Herzfeld (the defendant).
- The minor child filed a civil complaint against Frank Herzfeld in a Florida trial court, alleging repeated sexual abuse, including intentional torts and negligence.
- The trial court granted Frank Herzfeld's motion to dismiss the intentional tort claims (Counts I-III) based on the parental immunity doctrine.
- The trial court also granted Frank Herzfeld's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim (Count IV), finding parental immunity applicable.
- The minor child appealed the trial court's orders to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (3d DCA).
- The 3d DCA reversed the trial court's dismissal of the intentional tort claims, holding that parental immunity does not bar actions for sexual abuse.
- The 3d DCA acknowledged that its ruling created a direct conflict with a prior decision from the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, Richards v. Richards.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the parental immunity doctrine continue to apply to bar claims of intentional sexual abuse brought by a minor child against a parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Anstead, J.
No, the parental immunity doctrine does not bar an action by a minor child against a parent for damages arising from intentional sexual abuse. The Court found that the public policies traditionally invoked to support parental immunity—preserving family harmony, preventing fraud and collusion, and protecting family resources—are not served, or are severely diminished, in cases of intentional sexual abuse. The primary rationale of preserving family harmony is rendered moot because such heinous acts tragically disrupt the family fabric. Concerns about fraud and collusion are no more prevalent in these cases than in any other litigation, and the depletion of family resources argument is unpersuasive as it applies to any lawsuit not covered by insurance. The Court affirmed its judicial authority to abrogate common law doctrines when public policy or fundamental rights demand it, citing previous decisions like Waite v. Waite concerning interspousal immunity. While declining to completely abrogate the doctrine for all torts or simple negligence at this time, the Court emphasized the significant distinction between intentional and negligent acts, preserving parental discretion in the latter. Therefore, the Court approved the Third District's decision and disapproved Richards v. Richards.
Concurring - Harding, J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's decision to abrogate the doctrine of parental immunity for sexual abuse claims. This Court has the prerogative to alter the common law when public necessity or fundamental rights demand it, as established in cases like In re T.A.C.P. and Waite v. Waite. Parental immunity, unlike interspousal immunity, did not originate in English common law but was a judicial creation in American courts; thus, judicial abrogation is even more appropriate. The Court's prior partial abrogation of parental immunity in Ard v. Ard (for negligence in accident cases with insurance) and complete abrogation of interspousal immunity in Waite demonstrate a judicial trend and precedent for such action. When intentional and malicious sexual abuse occurs, family harmony is already tragically disrupted, negating the primary rationale for parental immunity. I believe the time has come to completely abolish parental immunity for intentional sexual abuse claims in Florida.
Dissenting - Wells, C.J.
No, the parental immunity doctrine should continue to bar claims of intentional sexual abuse, consistent with prior precedent. I would quash the Third District's decision and approve Richards v. Richards. This Court's precedent, established in Ard v. Ard, limits exceptions to family immunity, and there is insufficient justification to disturb this long-standing policy. I am concerned this decision will encourage litigation primarily driven by disputes between parents, rather than genuine claims. Judge Cobb's opinion in Richards wisely noted that civil recovery without insurance diminishes assets for other family members, and that punitive damages largely benefit the state, not the family. Furthermore, the criminal justice system is better suited to address charges of parental abuse, and the Legislature, not the judiciary, is better equipped to consider the complex social issues surrounding parental immunity and craft comprehensive solutions through statutes, as opposed to a single case.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant judicial abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in Florida, creating a specific exception for intentional sexual abuse. It underscores the judiciary's willingness to re-evaluate and adapt common law principles when their underlying public policy justifications are no longer valid due to the severity of the alleged conduct. The decision provides a pathway for child victims of severe abuse to seek civil redress, highlighting the protection of fundamental rights over the traditional, but now deemed inapplicable, goal of preserving family harmony in such circumstances. It reinforces a national trend towards limiting or abolishing parental immunity, particularly for intentional torts, while carefully distinguishing it from claims of simple parental negligence.
