People ex rel. Eichenberger v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical Clinic, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1988
• Docket Number: No. C000142,C000142
• Citation: 249 Cal.Rptr. 762,203 Cal.App.3d 225
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STOCKTON PREGNANCY CONTROL MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. *

Page 762

249 Cal.Rptr. 762

203 Cal.App.3d 225

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STOCKTON PREGNANCY CONTROL MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. ^*

No. C000142.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

July 28, 1988.

Sanguinette, Willett & Seligman, Inc., and Howard L. Seligman, Stockton, for defendants and appellants

Richard W. Eichenberger, Dist. Atty., Stephen E. Taylor, Deputy Dist. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Scott Thorpe, Janet G. Bangle, and James Ching, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Margaret C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser, and Abigail English, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and appellants.

SIMS, Associate Justice.

Defendants Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical Clinic, Inc. (Clinic), Kenneth W. Shunk, M.D., Christopher R. Mills, M.D., and Annette Beck, R.N., appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction. Clinic was enjoined from violating the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Pen.Code, § 11164 et seq., hereafter Act) by failing to report, as child abuse, instances where minor patients under the age of 14 years are diagnosed as being pregnant, as having a sexually transmitted disease, or as suffering from complications of an abortion. (Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.) Clinic contends the injunction is overbroad. Clinic asserts the Act does not require the reporting of voluntary, consensual sexual conduct of minors. Clinic and amicus curiae contend the reporting law would substantially infringe the affected minors' constitutional rights to privacy if the law were construed to require reporting of the minors' consensual sexual activity.

We conclude the Act does not currently require the reporting of voluntary sexual conduct between minors under age 14 where both are of a similar age. The injunction is therefore overbroad.

However, we also conclude that reasonable suspicions of voluntary sexual conduct between a minor under age 14 and a person of disparate age constituting a violation of section 288, subdivision (a), must be reported. We conclude such reporting to a child protective agency serves a compelling state interest and therefore does not violate the state or federal constitutional privacy rights of affected minors. We also conclude that the retention of substantiated reports of child abuse by the Department of Justice also serves a compelling state interest and therefore does not violate affected minors' rights to informational privacy under our state Constitution.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November of 1984, minor V.R., age 13 years, began a voluntary sexual relationship with her 21-year-old boyfriend, J.C. On January 23, 1985, Dr. L., diagnosed V.R. as being pregnant. Dr. L. referred V.R. to Clinic for treatment. Clinic performed the requested medical care.

Clinic did not report V.R.'s pregnancy to any child protective agency.

On February 21, 1985, V.R.'s pregnancy was called to the attention of the San Joaquin County Sheriff-Coroner's office. V.R.'s mother reported the pregnancy to the sheriff and demanded that V.R.'s boyfriend be "brought to justice."

Following an investigation, the San Joaquin County District Attorney filed a civil complaint against Clinic alleging that its failure to report V.R.'s pregnancy to a child protective agency violated section 11166. The district attorney sought civil Following a hearing, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Clinic from violating section 11166. Evidently relying on a 1984 opinion of the Attorney General (67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 235 (1984)), the trial court enjoined Clinic from "Violating Section 11166 of the Penal Code by failing in the future to report as child abuse, instances where minors under the age of fourteen (14) are diagnosed as being pregnant, as having a sexually transmitted disease, or as suffering from complications of abortion."

penalties and a permanent injunction enjoining Clinic from violating section 11166.

Clinic appeals. (Code Civ.Proc., § 904.1, subd. (f).)

DISCUSSION

I Reporting Duties Under the Act

Clinic contends the Act does not require the reporting of a minor's voluntary sexual conduct regardless of the age of the minor or the minor's partner.

In Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361, the court summarized reporting duties under the Act. (Pp. 256-260, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361.) We shall not duplicate that discussion here. Rather, we shall assign Planned Parenthood as required reading for this opinion.

In a nutshell, the reporting at issue here is mandated by section 11166 which provides in pertinent part, "(a) ... any ... health practitioner, ... who has knowledge of or observes a child in his or her professional capacity ... whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse shall report the known or suspected instance of child abuse to a child protective agency...."

Section 11165.6 defines "child abuse" as, among other things, "the sexual abuse of a child...." (Stats.1987, ch. 1459, § 13.)

The term "sexual abuse" is defined in section 11165.1, which provides in pertinent part: " 'sexual abuse' means sexual assault or sexual exploitation as defined by the following: [p] (a) 'Sexual assault' means conduct in violation of ... subdivision (a) ... of Section 288 (lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years of age), ..."

Clinic contends the voluntary sexual conduct of minors is exempt from reporting pursuant to Planned Parenthood, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361. There, the court held that the Act did not require the reporting of voluntary sexual conduct between minors under age 14 where both were of a similar age. (Id., at pp. 255, 256, 276, fn. 14, 280, fn. 16, 282, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361.) ¹

Whether we would have arrived at this conclusion in 1986, as did the Planned Parenthood court, is now immaterial. We are satisfied that the Act does not currently require the reporting of voluntary sexual conduct between minors under age 14 where both are of a similar age. During 1987, the Legislature amended the Act in various respects effective January 1, 1988. (Stats.1987, ch. 1459.) These amendments are germane to our case for two reasons. First, even though the Legislature considered and enacted the amendments after the opinion in Planned Parenthood became final, ² the amendments reflect no disavowal of Planned Parenthood's interpretation of the Act. The Legislature is deemed to have approved the interpretation, because " ' "Where a statute has been construed by judicial decision, and that construction is not altered by subsequent legislation, it must be presumed that the Legislature is aware of the judicial construction and approves of it." ' (Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 353 [211 Cal.Rptr. 742, 696 P.2d 134], quoting People v. Hallner (1954) 43 Cal.2d 715, 719 .)" (In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283, 292, 243 Cal.Rptr. 224, 747 P.2d 1152; see Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 734-735, 180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, cert. den. (1982) 459 U.S. 858, 103 S.Ct. 129, 74 L.Ed.2d 111; Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 692, 698, 241 Cal.Rptr. 108; In re Cindy B. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 771, 777-778, 237 Cal.Rptr. 677.) The 1987 amendments are also relevant because an order granting or denying an injunction is to be evaluated in light of the law which is current at the time of review. (Hays v. Wood (1979) 25 Cal.3d 772, 782, 160 Cal.Rptr. 102, 603 P.2d 19; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 773, fn. 8, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222; Sullivan v. Fox (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 673, 683, 235 Cal.Rptr. 5.)

However, contrary to Clinic's argument, the Act as construed by Planned Parenthood does not exempt all voluntary sexual conduct of minors under age 14 from reporting. The Planned Parenthood court emphasized, "We ... do not decide the question of whether the reporting law applies to the de facto voluntary conduct of a minor under 14 whose partner is subject to criminal liability under section 288: the minor over 14 or the adult." ( Planned Parenthood, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 276, fn. 14, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361; see also id., at p. 280, fn. 16, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361.) In practical effect, the Act, as construed in Planned Parenthood, exempts from reporting as "child abuse" the voluntary sexual conduct of sexually mature boyfriends and girlfriends and the conduct of younger children of similar ages who voluntarily play doctor or otherwise engage in sexual experimentation. ( Id., at p. 276, fn. 14, 226 Cal.Rptr. 361.)

Clinic's claim that all voluntary conduct of minors under age 14 is exempt from reporting cannot be reconciled with the plain command of subdivision (a) of section 11165.1, which defines as a "sexual assault" conduct in violation of subdivision (a) of section 288. ³

In enacting section 11165.1, the Legislature is presumed to know the meaning given statutes by the courts. (People v. Overstreet (1986) 42 Cal.3d 891, 897, 231 Cal.Rptr. 213, 726 P.2d 1288.) Consequently, the Legislature is presumed to know that, "It is settled that consent of the child is no defense to a charged violation of [section 288,] subdivision (a). (See People v. Toliver (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 492, 496 ; People v. Showers (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 248, 253 ; 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1st ed. 1963) Crimes Against Decency and Morals, § 546, p. 498; CALJIC No. 10.30 (1980 rev.).) The prohibition on consent to a violation of [section 288,] subdivision (a) is grounded in salutary judicially created public policy 'for protection of infants or children as to whom persons commit lewd and lascivious acts at their peril.' ( People v. Toliver, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d 496 .) The law simply outlaws sexual conduct with children under the age of 14 under all circumstances." (People v. Cicero (1984) 157...