skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 148850 Find in a Library
Title: Case Notes: Parental Immunity Doctrine - Rourk v. State of Arizona, 170 Ariz. 6, 821 P.2d 273 ( ); Doe v. Holt, 332 N.C. 90, 418 S.E.2d 511 (1992)
Journal: Journal of Juvenile Law  Volume:14  Dated:(1993)  Pages:202-211
Author(s): C S Steinberg; M D Finley
Date Published: 1993
Page Count: 10
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Two cases involving the parental immunity doctrine are discussed.
Abstract: In Rourk v. State of Arizona, the Arizona Court of Appeals was asked to consider, for the first time, whether the parental immunity doctrine applies to foster parents in an action for negligent supervision. The Court held that the parental immunity doctrine does not apply to foster parents in an action for negligent supervision of a foster child, and the foster parents may be held liable in tort, so long as the foster parents are not related to the child through blood, marriage, or adoption. A brief factual and procedural history of this case is provided. In Doe v. Holt, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether the parent-child immunity doctrine barred a tort action by unemancipated minor children against their father for damages allegedly resulting from the children's repeated rape and sexual molestation by their father. The Court found that the parent-child immunity doctrine does not bar tort actions of unemancipated minors against their parents for damages resulting from the parent's willful and malicious misconduct. The Court determined that rape and sexual molestation are clearly willful and serious misconduct. Footnotes
Main Term(s): Juveniles
Index Term(s): Courts; Parental liability; Parental rights
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.