The opinion
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
Attorney General
______________________________________
OPINION :
: No. 89-601
of :
: OCTOBER 24, 1989
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP :
Attorney General :
:
RONALD M. WEISKOPF :
Deputy Attorney General :
:
__________________________________________________________________
THE HONORABLE ARLO SMITH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, has requested an opinion on the following
question:
Is a ballet teacher employed by a private ballet school
required to report instances of child abuse under the Child
Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act?
CONCLUSION
A person who teaches ballet at a private ballet school is
required to report instances of child abuse under the Child Abuse
and Neglect Reporting Act.
ANALYSIS
The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Pen. Code,
§ 11165 et seq.) creates a system whereby "child protective
agencies" (i.e., police and sheriff's departments and county
welfare and probation departments) can be promptly notified of
suspected instances of child abuse so that they can take timely
action if necessary to protect the children.1 (65
1
The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (the "Act") is
codified as article 2.5 (§§ 11165-11175.5) of chapter 2 of Title 1
of Part 4 of the Penal Code. Before 1987, when it received its
current name (§ 11164 added by Stats. 1987, ch. 1444, § 1.5), it
was sometimes referred to as the Child Abuse Reporting Law. (See
e.g., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181
Cal.App.3d 245, 255; 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 235 (1984); 65
1. 89-601
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 347 (1982); cf., Planned Parenthood
Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 258, 267, 272,
279; see also, Krikorian v. Barry (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1211, 1216
1217.) The Act does this by requiring certain categories of
persons whose occupations place them in contact with children to
report to a "child protective agency" when, in the course of their
work, they come to know or reasonably suspect that someone under
the age of eighteen has been a victim of child abuse. (§ 11166,
subd. (a).) These persons are provided with an absolute immunity
from any civil or criminal liability in connection with any report
they are required or authorized to make under the Act (§ 11172,
subd. (a); cf., Krikorian v. Barry, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1211,
1215), but their failure to make a required report is a
misdemeanor, carrying a maximum punishment of six months in jail
and a $1,000 fine. (§ 11172, subd. (e).)
Among the persons who are required to report instances of
child abuse are "child care custodians" (§ 11166, subd. (a)), a
broad category that includes teachers, day care workers, and a
variety of public health and educational professionals.
(§ 11165.7; cf., § 11166.5, subd. (a); Planned Parenthood
Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, supra). We are asked whether a ballet
teacher who teaches ballet at a particular private ballet school is
included among them. We conclude that such a person is included in
the category of persons who must report instances of child abuse
under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
Since the nature of the position and the school has
prompted the request for this Opinion, we describe it here as it
has been described to us in information accompanying the opinion
request: The San Francisco Ballet School is an arm of the San
Francisco Ballet Association, a private non-profit organization
which operates independently from the City and County of San
Francisco. The School derives operating revenue from student
tuition for its classes and from funds provided by the Ballet
Association. The Ballet Association does not receive general fund
revenue from the City and County of San Francisco, but it does
receive a grant award as a non-profit private entity from the
latter's Publicity and Advertising Fund which is established
through the collection of hotel tax revenue.
The Ballet School holds an "Authorization to Operate As
a Private Postsecondary Educational Institution" issued by the
State of California Department of Education because it has been
accredited for its nondegree objective by a national accreditation
agency (the National Association of Schools of Dance) recognized by
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 345 (1982).) All unidentified statutory
references herein will be to the Act as codified in the Penal Code.
2. 89-601
the U.S. Department of Education. (Ed. Code, § 94311, subd. (c)2;
see generally, 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 278 (1985); 67
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 250 (1984).) The school may participate in the
Student Tuition Recovery Fund", and since it meets the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare's definition of an institution of
higher education, it is eligible to apply for participation in
various student financial assistance programs administered by the
Federal Office of Education.
The teaching staff of the Ballet School is composed
primarily of former professional ballet dancers. These teachers
are not trained as academic personnel in the traditional sense, but
rather are performing artists who have studied at some of the most
prestigious ballet institutions around the world. They do not hold
academic degrees in education and they do not necessarily possess
teaching certificates or credentials from the State. (Cf., Ed.
Code, §§ 44001-44005, 44250.)
The School accepts students beginning at eight years of
age, and provides instruction and performance opportunities
(including performances with the Ballet Company) that prepare them
for careers as professional ballet performers. [The School also
provides adult classes for persons who are not artists or
performers.] The School does not provide "academic" instruction
(except as it may bear on dance history and performance technique),
and attendance at it is not mandatory as it is in public or private
educational schools. (Ed. Code, §§ 48200, 48220, 48222.)3
2
Section 94311 of the Education Code provides that no
postsecondary educational institution may offer courses of
education leading to educational, professional, technological, or
vocational objectives unless it has been approved or authorized by
the Superintendent of Public Instruction. One of the bases on
which that approval/authorization is given is where "an institution
... has accreditation of the institution, program or specific
course of study ... by a national or applicable regional
accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of
Education...." (Ed. Code, § 94311, subd. (c).)
3
Under California's Compulsory Education Law (Ed. Code,
§ 48000 et seq.), every person between the ages of 6 and 16, not
otherwise exempt, is required to attend public full-time day
school. (Ed. Code, § 48200.) However, that obligation may be
satisfied, inter alia, by attending a private full-time day school
that meets certain statutory standards. ( Id., § 48220.) Among
them is that the private schools "offer instruction in the several
branches of study required to be taught in the public schools of
the state." (Id., § 48222; cf., 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 282, 284-285
(1987.)
3. 89-601
In addition to regular classes held at the School, the
Ballet School conducts a local outreach program in the public
schools in San Francisco. This consists of introductory dance
sessions or classes in those schools at which the regular public
school teachers are always present. The Ballet School teachers who
attend this activity are considered to be guest artists or
performers. Student attendance at the sessions and classes is
required as part of the regular public school arts educational
program. A public school student may go on to take dance lessons
at the Ballet School itself, but that would not be a mandatory part
of his or her regular public education.
It is patent from the foregoing that in the course of his
or her profession, a ballet teacher at the San Francisco Ballet
School is in daily contact with persons under the age of eighteen.
It would also seem fair to say that because of the nature of ballet
classes, the ballet teacher would be in a special position to
observe instances of child abuse. To return to our question then,
when he or she comes to know or reasonably suspect that a student
at the School has been a victim of child abuse, must he or she
report it under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act?
Our task in answering the question is to ascertain the
intent of the Legislature: Did the Legislature intend for such
private school ballet teachers to be included in the class of
persons for whom reporting child abuse is compulsory under the
Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act? (Cf., Planned Parenthood
Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 267; Select
Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645.)
To ascertain that intention we turn first to the words of the
statute itself. (People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical
Clinic, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 225, 235; Moyer v. Workmen's
Compensation Appeals Board (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230; Rich v. State
Board of Optometry (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 591, 604.)
Section 11166, subdivision (a) of the Child Abuse and
Neglect Reporting Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
"[A]ny child care custodian, health practitioner, or
employee of a child protective agency who has knowledge
of or observes a child in his or her professional
capacity or within the scope of his or her employment
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
immediately or as soon as practically possible by
telephone and shall prepare and send a written report
thereof within 36 hours of receiving the information
concerning the incident.... For the purposes of this
article, 'reasonable suspicion' means that it is
objectively reasonable for a person to entertain such a
suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable
4. 89-601
person in a like position, drawing when appropriate on
his or her training and experience, to suspect child
abuse...." (Emphasis added.)
For purposes of the Act, the term "child care custodian" is defined
in section 11165.7, subdivision (a), to mean:
"a teacher; an instructional aide, a teacher's aide,
or a teacher's assistant employed by any public or
private school, who has been trained in the duties
imposed by this article, if the school district has so
warranted to the State Department of Education; a
classified employee of any public school who has been
trained in the duties imposed by this article, if the
school has so warranted to the State Department of
Education; an administrative officer, supervisor of child
welfare and attendance, or certificated pupil personnel
employee of any public or private school; an
administrator of a public or private day camp; a
licensee, an administrator, or an employee of a licensed
community care or child day care facility; [a] headstart
teacher; a licensing worker or licensing evaluator; [a]
public assistance worker; an employee of a child care
institution including, but not limited to, foster
parents, group home personnel and personnel of
residential care facilities; a social worker or a
probation officer or any person who is an administrator
or presenter of, or a counselor in, a child abuse
prevention program in any public or private school." (§
11165.7, subd. (a), as amended by Stats. 1987, ch. 1459,
§ 14; emphases added.)
Looking at the words and phrases, and the punctuation (cf.,
Wholesale T. Dealers v. National Etc. Co. (1938) 11 Cal.2d 634,
659; Paris v. County of Santa Clara (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 691, 699)
of subdivision (a) of section 11165.7, we see that the Legislature
has now used semicolons to designate distinct subcategories of
persons within the overall category of "child care custodians" who
must report instances of child abuse. With respect to those who
are involved with students in school they include
-- teachers;
-- instructional aides, teacher's aides, or teacher's
assistants employed by any public or private school, who have been
trained in the duties imposed by the Child Abuse and Neglect
Reporting Act, if their school district has so warranted to the
State Department of Education;4
4
Subdivision (b) of section 11165.7 details they type of
training contemplated. The Legislature has provided that
5. 89-601
-- classified employees of any public school who have
been trained in the duties imposed by the Act, if the school has so
warranted to the State Department of Education;
-- administrative officers, supervisors of child welfare
and attendance, or certificated pupil personnel employees of any
public or private school;
-- headstart teachers; and
-- persons who are administrators or presenters of, or
counselors in, a child abuse prevention program in any public or
private school.
A ballet teacher at the San Francisco Ballet School would
not fall in any of the last four of these subcategories. Neither
would he or she fall into the second category --that of aides and
assistants, because he or she would have primary responsibility for
instruction in his or her ballet class and so would not be an aide
or assistant to someone else. And even when he or she appears at
a public school, he or she does so as a guest performer and not as
a teacher's aide or assistant regularly employed at that school.
Thus if the ballet teacher is to fall in any of the subcategories
of "child care custodians" who must report child abuse under the
Act, it would have to be in the first, as a "teacher". The
question thus becomes whether he or she is a "teacher" within the
meaning of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
The term "teacher" is not defined in the Child Abuse and
Neglect Reporting Act or elsewhere in the Penal Code. Absent that,
the word as used in the Act should be interpreted according to its
usual, ordinary and generally accepted meaning. (Cf., People v.
Craft (1986) 41 Cal.3d 554, 560; People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d
301, 310; People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 884; Palos Verdes
Faculty Assn v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) 21
Cal.3d 650, 658; Great Lakes Properties Inc. v. City of El Segundo
(1977) 19 Cal.3d 152, 155-156.) There, reference to the dictionary
is helpful to understand the common generally accepted meaning of
the term. (Cf., People v. Spencer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 563, 565;
People v. Medina (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 473, 479; People v. Johnson
"[t]raining in the duties imposed by [the Act] shall include
training in child abuse identification and training in child abuse
reporting" (§ 11165.7, subd. (b)) and that "[a]s part of that
training, school districts shall provide to all employees being
trained a written copy of the reporting requirements...." (Ibid.)
It has also provided that "[s]chool districts which do not train
the employees specified in subdivision (a) [of section 11165.7] in
the duties of child care custodians under the child abuse reporting
laws shall report to the State Department of Education the reasons
why this training is not provided." (Id., subd. (c).)
6. 89-601
(1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 417, 419.) Indeed, in a recent Opinion, 70
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 139 (1987), we looked to the dictionary to
discern the meaning of the phrase "teaching staff". (Id. at 144.)
Doing so here, we see that the term "teacher" is defined,
inter alia, as "one whose occupation is to instruct", as for
example "a driving teacher." (Webster's Third New Intn'l. Dict.
(1971 ed.) at p. 2346.) And the term "teach", we are told, "is a
general term for causing one to acquire knowledge or skill,
usu[ally] with the imparting of necessary incidental information
and the giving of incidental help and encouragement", as in
teaching "boys how to swim." (Ibid.)
There is nothing in the definition of "teacher" or
"teach" to suggest that either is in any way limited to particular
subjects, knowledge, or skills. It seems clear that one whose
occupation is to instruct others in the skill of dance is a
"teacher" in the ordinary use of the word, and we thus consider the
ballet teacher here to be a teacher within the common meaning of
the term.
We are to construe the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting
Act "according to the fair import of [its] terms, with a view to
effect its objects and to promote justice." (Pen. Code, § 4.) In
looking at "the ordinary import of the language used in framing
[it]" (Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 10 Cal.3d 222,
230; In re Alpine (1928) 203 Cal. 731, 737) "[a] narrow or
restricted meaning should not be given to a word, if it would
result in an evasion of the evident purpose of the act, when a
permissible, but broader, meaning would prevent the evasion and
carry out that purpose." (In re Reineger (1920) 184 Cal. 97, 103.)
The purpose of the Reporting Act is to detect and prevent
child abuse, an objective in which the State of California has a
significant state interest. ( People v. Stritzinger (1983) 34
Cal.3d 505, 511-512; People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical
Clinic, Inc., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d 225, 241; Planned Parenthood
Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 258, 279; 65
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 347, supra.) As noted at the outset, the
primary means in which the Act's purpose of protecting victims from
child abuse is attained, is to have child abuse agencies promptly
notified of its occurrence. (Cf., People v. Stritzinger, supra, at
511-512; People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control Medical Clinic, Inc.,
supra, at 241; Krikorian v. Barry, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1211,
1216-1217; Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, supra, at
258-259, 267, 272, 279; 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345, 347, supra.) To
ensure that that occurs, the Legislature has decided that when
persons engage in certain callings which bring them into contact
with persons under eighteen years of age, they must assume a
responsibility to report instances of child abuse that they come to
know about or suspect through that contact. (§ 11166,, subd. (a);
7. 89-601
cf., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, supra, 181
Cal.App.3d 245, 272.)
Originally, reporting was required only of physicians
(former § 11161.5 added by Stats. 1963, ch. 576, § 1, p. 1454),
reflecting a belief that they "were in a unique position to
discover child abuse and particularly the battered child syndrome."
(Comment, Reporting Child Abuse: When Moral Obligations Fail
(1983) Pacific L.J. 189, 213; fn. omitted.). But over the years
the Legislature has expanded the categories of persons who have a
duty to report. 5 (Cf., Kimberly M. v. Los Angeles Unified School
Dist. (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1326, 1333; see also, Comment, supra,
15 Pacific L.J. at 213-214 & 213 fn. 223.) School superintendents
and principals became mandatory reporters in 1966 (Stats. 1966,
First Ex. Sess., ch. 31, § 2, p. 325), and the law was amended in
1971 to include school teachers. (Stats. 1971, ch. 1729, § 7, p.
3680). "Thus school teachers and administrative officers [became]
designated 'child care custodians' charged with mandatory reporting
duties, the violation of which is a misdemeanor." (Kimberly M. v.
Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at 1333.)
If we look at the 1971 amendments to the statute which
originally imposed the duty on teachers to report child abuse under
the precursor of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, former
section 11161.5 of the Penal Code, we see that it imposed that duty
on "any teacher or [sic, of] any public or private school."
(Stats. 1971, ch. 1729, § 7, p. 3680.)6 The Legislature thus
5
Over the years the Legislature also lessened the degree of
certainty in the basis upon which a report would have to be made
and increased the degree of civil and criminal immunity afforded
mandatory reporters. (See Krikorian v. Barry, supra, 196
Cal.App.3d 1216-1217.) This was done to rectify the problem of
inadequate child abuse reporting by removing two of the impediments
which deterred professionals from reporting suspected cases of
child abuse. (Ibid.)
6
As amended in 1971, section 11161.5 provided in pertinent
part that:
"...in any case in which a minor is observed by ...
any teacher or [sic, of] any public or private school ...
and it appears to the ... teacher ... from observation of
the minor that the minor has physical injury or injuries
which appear to have been inflicted upon him by other
than accidental means by any person, he shall report such
fact by telephone and in writing to the local police
authority having jurisdiction and to the juvenile
probation department. The report shall state, if known,
the name of the minor, his whereabouts and the character
and extent of the injuries. [¶][¶] No person shall incur
8. 89-601
clearly included persons who taught in private schools among those
who would have a duty to report. But in so doing the Legislature
did not impose any restriction or limitation on the types of
private school teachers who would have that duty, based either on
what they taught, or on the types of private schools at which they
might teach. (Cf., Emmolo v. Southern Pacific Co. (1949) 91
Cal.App.2d 87, 92; 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 192, 202 (1981); 62
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 394, 395-396 (1979); 20 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 31, 33
(1952): [effect of the use of the indefinite adjective "any"].)
The plain wording of the statute which imposed the reporting duty
on "any teacher of any public or private school" thus included
among those upon whom it imposed the reporting duty, persons who
might teach ballet at a private non-academic ballet school.
In 1980, the child abuse reporting laws were
substantially recast and collected into article 2.5. (Stats. 1980,
ch. 1071, §§ 1-4, p. 3420; 4 Stats. 1980 [Sum.Dig. SB 781] at p.
333; cf., Krikorian v. Barry, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1211, 1216
1217.) The language of former section 11161.5, which imposed the
duty to report child abuse on "any teacher ... of any public or
private school", was carried through to the definition of "child
care custodian", which was now set forth as section 11165,
subdivision (h). (Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 4, p. 3421.) 7 "Child
care custodian was defined to mean-
"a teacher, administrative officer, supervisor of
child welfare and attendance, or certificated pupil
personnel employee of any public or private school; an
administrator of a public or private day camp; a licensed
day care worker; an administrator of a community care
any civil or criminal liability as a result of making any
report authorized by this section." (Stats. 1971, ch.
1729, § 7, supra.)
In 1973 the technical correction was made to have the section read
"any teacher of any public or private school." (Stats 1973, ch.
1151, § 1, p. 2380; cf., 2 Stats. 1973 [Sum.Dig. SB 398] at p.
182.)
7
Before 1980, the number of different callings on which
section 11161.5 imposed a duty to report child abuse had grown to
twenty. (Stats. 1978, ch. 136, § 1, p. 358.) The 1980 amendments
repealed that section (Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 1, supra) and
adopted a new section 11165 which defined the mandatory reporters
in broad categories --i.e, "child care custodian[s]" (subd. (h)),
"medical practitioner[s]" (subd. (i)), "nonmedical practitioner[s]"
(subd. (j)) and employees of "child protective agenc[ies]" (subd.
(k)). . (Id., § 4, pp. 3421-3422; see, 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 345,
346, supra; cf., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp,
supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 258.)
9. 89-601
facility licensed to care for children; headstart
teacher; public assistance worker; employee of a child
care institution including but not limited to, foster
parents, group home personnel and personnel of
residential care facilities; a social worker or a
probation officer." (Former § 11165, subd. (h), as added
by Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 4, supra; emphasis added.)
Section 11165 was repealed in 1987 (Stats. 1987, ch. 1459, § 1)
when the definition of "child care custodian" was transferred to
newly adopted section 11165.7, where it appears today. (Stats.
1987, ch. 1459, § 14, supra.)
However, as it appears today, the definition of "child
care custodian" no longer speaks of "a teacher ... of any public or
private school" as it did until 1987. It speaks merely of "a
teacher" without any qualification. Thus any reason to exclude
persons who might teach in particular types of private schools is
even less compelling than before. We thus are reinforced in our
conclusion that the definition of child care custodian found in
section 11165.7 includes persons who teach ballet at a private
ballet school.
It has been suggested that our reading of the meaning of
"teacher" is too broad. It is pointed out that if the term were
indeed so encompassing, there would have been no need to include
"headstart teachers" among the occupations listed as "child care
custodians" in 1980 (Stats. 1980, ch. 1071, § 4, p. 3421) because
the subcategory of "teacher[s] ... of any public or private school"
would have already sufficed to include them. That would have made
the addition of the subcategory of "headstart teachers"
unnecessary, and statutes are supposed to be interpreted to avoid
surplusage. (Cf., City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 47, 55; California Mfgrs. Assn. v. Public
Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 844; Fields v. Eu (1976) 18
Cal.3d 322, 328.)
The suggestion is that the term "teacher" should only
apply to persons who teach in those K-12 public and private schools
which a pupil must attend under the Compulsory Education Law.
(Cf., fn. 3, ante.) After all, those schools and teachers already
have broad authority over children and a concomitant duty and
responsibility for their care and supervision. (Cf., Kimberly M.
v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. , supra, 209 Cal.App.3d 1326,
1331-1332, 1337-1338). And public school teachers, at least, are
specifically given training in the detection of child abuse (Cf.,
§ 11165.7, subds. (b), (c); Ed. Code, § 44691.) As the argument
goes, ballet teachers at private ballet schools would not be the
type of trained "professionals" upon whose judgment and experience
the Legislature relied "to distinguish between abusive and
nonabusive situations" when it adopted the Child Abuse and Neglect
10. 89-601
Reporting Act. (Cf., Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp,
supra, 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 258-259, 272.)8
We reject the position and the associated suggestion that
the term "teacher" as used in the Act only applies to persons who
teach in public and private K-12 schools. First, we do not view
the addition of "headstart teachers" as in any way derogating from
the basic meaning of "teachers." That category is used without any
qualification, which means any kind of teacher. We believe
"headstart teachers" were specifically mentioned as "child care
custodians" to make sure that those pre-school teachers were
included among those who would have a reporting duty under the Act.
Their addition could not have been meant to limit the existing
subcategory of "teachers" as "child care custodians" for to turn
the argument about: what types of teachers would have then been
excluded, because "headstart teachers" were now included in the
definition of "child care custodian"?
Without intending to suggest that the meaning of the word
"teacher" as found in the Act is without bounds and mandates a
reporting duty on any person who happens to impart some knowledge
or skill to a child, we do not accept the proffered limitation that
it applies only to teachers in K-12 schools. We find nothing in
the statutory language of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act
to support such a limitation on the plain meaning of the word
"teacher". Second, it bears noting that the particular private
Ballet School that has been described does not operate free from
all governmental oversight. It is "licensed" by a state agency to
operate as a Private Postsecondary Educational Institution in
California (cf., Ed. Code, § 93411, subd. (c), supra, fn. 2), and
its credentials permit it to participate in the Student Tuition
Recovery Fund and to apply for other student financial assistance
programs. In its operation, it deals with students as young as
eight years of age, whom it owes as much a duty of care and
supervision as does a public or private K-12 school. (Cf., Hoyem
v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 518-520;
Kimberly M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 209
8
In support of this argument attention is also drawn to
subdivision (a) of section 11166.5 of the Act which requires "any
person who enters into employment on and after January 1, 1985, as
a child care custodian, health practitioner, or with a child
protective agency, prior to commencing his or her employment, and
as a prerequisite to that employment, [to] sign a statement ... to
the effect that he or she has knowledge of the [mandatory
reporting] provisions of sections 11166. It is claimed that the
Legislature would not have meant to impose such a precondition of
employment on those in the private sector. This much of the
argument we reject on the basis that the definition of child care
custodian itself includes persons in the private sector.
11. 89-601
Cal.App.3d 1326, 1337 fn. 10; see generally, Comment, supra, 15
Pacific L.J. 189, 202-207.)
But most important, we cannot accept the notion that a
ballet teacher at the School would not be a type of trained
"professional" upon whose judgment and experience the Legislature
relied to report known or suspected instances of child abuse. Such
a person is professionally in contact with children on a regular
and continuous basis (cf., Ed. Code, § 44690), and deals with them
in a setting where evidence of child abuse may be uniquely readily
apparent. We do not believe that "drawing when appropriate on his
or her training and experience" (§ 11166.5, subd. (a)) he or she
would be unqualified to make informed judgments regarding child
abuse from empirical observation. (Cf., Planned Parenthood
Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, supra, 181 Cal.App.3d at 259; Comment,
supra, 15 Pacific L.J. at p. 214.) In this vein we note that the
Act has imposed the obligation to report known or suspected
instances of child abuse on other persons in the private sector,
such as administrators of private day camps, employees of child day
care facilities, and foster parents. (§ 11165.7.) We do not think
it incongruous for the Legislature to have intended that ballet
teachers at private ballet schools have that duty as well.
The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act imposes a duty
on "teachers" to report instances of child abuse that they come to
know about or suspect in the course of their professional contact
in order that child protective agencies might take appropriate
action to protect the children. We are constrained to interpret
the language of the Act according to the ordinary meaning of its
terms to effect that purpose. Doing so, we conclude that a person
who teaches ballet at a private ballet school is a "teacher" and
thus a "child care custodian" as defined by the Act, and therefore
has a mandatory duty to report instances of child abuse under it.
* * * * *
12. 89-601