Texas Law Case Study

1610 Words7 Pages
1. Pursuant to Texas Law under what circumstances will both ArchiteXX’s educators and medical personal be required to report incidents of suspected abuse? 2. Under Texas Law, would ArchiteXX’s employee’s failure to report create criminal liability for ArchiteXX’s? 3. Under Texas Law, would ArchiteXX’s employees be immune to prosecution in incidents of reports made in good faith?
Facts
ArchiteXX’s is a New York based organization that is hoping to build a “sex bus” that will provide medical and educational services regarding sexual and reproductive health in the state of Texas. Lori Brown, ArchiteXX’s project director for the bus, is hoping to be able to provide these services in abstinence-only communities and is seeking advice on the
…show more content…
Danny R. Veilleux, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statute Requiring Doctor or Other Person to Report Child Abuse, 73 A.L.R.4th 782, §3 (1989). However, while Texas statutes expand universally it does specifically place a higher burden on professionals and clearly states that a professional is defined by different professions: specifically doctors, nurses, and employees of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 261 (2005).
Texas code requires a stricter standard of reporting for professionals requiring them to report suspected abuse no later than 48 hours and forbidding delegating the report. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 261 (2005). These regulations clearly define as to who is a mandatory reporter. However, the statute is unclear as to the definition of “cause to believe” as it pertains to abuse. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.§ 261 (2005). Many state courts have wrestled with similar language and it has continuously been challenged in the courts as constitutionally vague. Danny R. Veilleux, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statute Requiring Doctor or Other Person to Report Child Abuse, 73 A.L.R.4th 782, §3 (1989). However, state and federal courts maintain that the statutory language is not a violation of constitutional rights despite the vagueness of the language and tests of reasonableness have been used to clarify what is meant by cause to
Get Access