Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** FRANCISCO J. MORALES v. CAROL M. KAGEL (AC 19029)
Spear, Hennessy and Shea, Js. Argued January 14--officially released July 18, 2000

John F. Morris, with whom, on the brief, were Raynald B. Cantin and A. Alan Sheffy, for the appellant (plaintiff). Susan L. Miller, with whom, on the brief, was Robyn L. Sondak, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

SHEA, J. The plaintiff, Francisco J. Morales, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Carol M. Kagel, a psychologist.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion because the defendant did not have ``reasonable cause to suspect or believe'' a claim of alleged child abuse, and did not report it to the department of children and families (department) in good faith, pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1995)

Download Morales v. Kagel.pdf

Connecticut Law