Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.135 (2026)

Immunity from liability, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

210.135. Immunity from liability, when — exception — preliminary evaluation required, when. — 1. Any person, official, or institution complying with the provisions of sections 210.110 to 210.165 in the making of a report, the taking of color photographs, or the making of radiologic examinations pursuant to sections 210.110 to 210.165, or both such taking of color photographs and making of radiologic examinations, or the removal or retaining a child pursuant to sections 210.110 to 210.165, or in cooperating with the division, or any other law enforcement agency, juvenile office, court, or child-protective service agency of this or any other state, in any of the activities pursuant to sections 210.110 to 210.165, or any other allegation of child abuse, neglect or assault, pursuant to sections 568.045 to 568.060, shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that otherwise might result by reason of such actions. Provided, however, any person, official or institution intentionally filing a false report, acting in bad faith, or with ill intent, shall not have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal. Any such person, official, or institution shall have the same immunity with respect to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report.

2. An employee, including a contracted employee, of a state-funded child assessment center, as provided for in subsection 2 of section 210.001, shall be immune from any civil liability that arises from the employee's participation in the investigation process and services by the child assessment center, unless such person acted in bad faith. This subsection shall not displace or limit any other immunity provided by law.

3. Any person, who is not a school district employee, who makes a report to any employee of the school district of child abuse by a school employee shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that otherwise might result because of such report. Provided, however, that any such person who makes a false report, knowing that the report is false, or who acts in bad faith or with ill intent in making such report shall not have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal. Any such person shall have the same immunity with respect to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report.

4. In a case involving the death or serious injury of a child after a report has been made under sections 210.109 to 210.165, the division shall conduct a preliminary evaluation in order to determine whether a review of the ability of the circuit manager or case worker or workers to perform their duties competently is necessary. The preliminary evaluation shall examine:

(1) The hotline worker or workers who took any reports related to such case;

(2) The division case worker or workers assigned to the investigation of such report; and

(3) The circuit manager assigned to the county where the report was investigated.

Any preliminary evaluation shall be completed no later than three days after the child's death. If the division determines a review and assessment is necessary, it shall be completed no later than three days after the child's death.

--------

(L. 1975 H.B. 578 § 6, A.L. 1980 S.B. 574, A.L. 1982 H.B. 1171, et al., A.L. 1993 H.B. 170, A.L. 1998 H.B. 1556, A.L. 2011 S.B. 54, A.L. 2012 H.B. 1323, A.L. 2020 H.B. 1414)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: D.L.C. v. Walsh, 908 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

D.L.C. v. Walsh, 908 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “§ 210.135 RSMo 1986; K.S.A.1986 Supp. 38-1522a.”

Comstock v. Walsh, 848 S.W.2d 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 15× “That issue is whether Section 210.135, RSMo 1986, 1 gives Dr. Walsh and Children’s Mercy Hospital immunity from liability for alleged negligence in the diagnosis of “suspected child abuse.”

Hester v. Barnett, 723 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “The immunity from liability that statute grants is not absolute, however, as the pleading implies. It is qualified and conditional.”

Bosley v. Kearney R-1 Sch. Dist., 904 F. Supp. 1006 (W.D. Mo. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 210.135. Def. Suggestions at 27. Plaintiff responds that Logerwell did not comply with the former statute, § 210.”

Shurn v. Monteleone, 769 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “Defendant moved to dismiss Count II for failure to state a cause of action because: (1) defendant is protected by immunity, § 210.135 RSMo 1978; and, (2) the statutory affirmative duty to report suspect child abuse does not create a private cause of action of invasion of privacy.”

Nelson Ex Rel. Wharton v. Freeman, 537 F. Supp. 602 (W.D. Mo. 1982). · cites it 2× “(1978) immunizes the defendants from liability, and (3) the plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, under applicable Missouri law, the defendants, as officials and employees of the State of Missouri, owed no specific duty to…”

Hawley v. Nelson, 968 F. Supp. 1372 (E.D. Mo. 1997). · cites it 2× “See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 210.135 (1986). Upon receiving such a report, the PCDFS was required to undertake "a thorough investigation.”

Voepel ex rel. Voepel v. Cardinal Glennon Mem'l Hosp., 743 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “115 in that there was (a) no reasonable cause to suspect child abuse, and (b) said report was by someone given to persons other than the Division of Family Services; and Defendants did not have immunity under § 210.135 because someone disseminated *601 the information to the…”

Harmon v. Preferred Fam. Healthcare, Inc. (E.D. Mo. 2022). · cites it 3× “114, and (2) they are also immune under § 210.135. The Court has insufficient information to dismiss on that basis.”

Thomas Hernandez v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs., Child.'s Div. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Further, under Section 210.135, any person cooperating with the 9 According to the guidelines of Hernandez’s profession, therapeutic communication should have been the only purpose for those contacts.”

Harvey v. Great Circle (E.D. Mo. 2019). “114 and § 210.135. The parties acknowledge that Harvey previously filed a similar action against Defendant Great Circle alone and this Court granted Great Circle’s motion to dismiss based on immunity under these same statutes.”

J.P. v. Belton Sch. Dist. No. 124 (W.D. Mo. 2021). “§ 210.135 when they had reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.