Skip to content
A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel signaled skepticism toward granting a retrial to a mother who alleges that her daughter endured severe emotional and psychological abuse while enrolled in a residential boarding school program in central Arizona, the Tuscon Sentinel reported.
Kimberly Sweidy argued before the three-judge panel that her daughter was isolated from her for weeks and subjected to coercive practices while attending Spring Ridge Academy, a now-closed behavioral treatment program for teenage girls in Mayer, Arizona. However, the judges questioned whether the alleged conduct meets the legal threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Arizona law.
“This was an attempt at parental alienation and severance of the parent-child relationship,” Sweidy’s attorney told the panel during the Phoenix hearing. “Under Arizona law, we believe that’s enough at least to be taken to the jury.”
Sweidy alleges that her daughter experienced “ritualized shaming, being singled out and blamed for a divorce and coercive exercises dressed up as treatment” while attending the program. Spring Ridge Academy was part of what is widely known as the troubled teen industry, a network of private youth residential treatment and behavior-modification programs that has drawn national scrutiny over allegations of abuse and neglect. Before closing permanently in 2023, Spring Ridge had been the subject of multiple state health department investigations, including reports that it failed to prevent repeated suicide attempts by a student.
Attorneys for the defendants argued that the conduct described in the case does not meet the legal standard required to move forward on emotional distress claims. A defense attorney told the court that there was no evidence demonstrating lasting psychological harm.
“It is not simply some insults that somebody suffered, a strong disagreement with the therapy and education that was provided to the plaintiffs’ daughter,” the defense attorney said. “It is something that truly shocks the conscious. And the facts here don’t support that.”
Under Arizona law, intentional infliction of emotional distress requires behavior that “go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be utterly intolerable in a civilized society.”
Members of the panel suggested that disputes between parents and youth treatment programs do not automatically rise to that level. U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith Jr. said, “It seems to me that if we rely upon these conclusions, no academy would survive. It’s distressing, but it’s more ordinary.”
Sweidy enrolled her daughter at Spring Ridge Academy in 2019, but removed her after six weeks upon learning more about the facility’s practices. In her complaint, she alleges that the program had been marketed as structured, “evidence-based” care, but instead relied on punitive and degrading treatment. Among the allegations are public shaming, deprivation of food and bathroom access, isolation, forced physical outbursts, and group confrontation exercises.
Sweidy also alleges that after she withdrew her daughter from the program, Spring Ridge collaborated with her ex-husband to obtain a California family court order returning the child to the facility, cutting off her access to communication. “To this day, she is mentally and emotionally in their grasp,” Sweidy said. “My relationship with my daughter is not existent today because of them.”
Sweidy filed suit in federal court in 2021, bringing claims including fraud, negligence, racketeering, breach of contract, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. U.S. District Judge Steven P. Logan granted summary judgment for the defendants on most counts except fraud, and dismissed all individual defendants except former admissions director Kate Deily. A jury later found in Sweidy’s favor on the fraud claims and awarded more than $2.5 million in damages.
Sweidy is now appealing the dismissal of the remaining claims, seeking a new trial. If the Ninth Circuit grants the request, only the fraud-related claims would be retried.
During arguments, Judge Smith suggested that elements of the dispute belonged before California family court rather than federal court in Arizona. U.S. Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson agreed, stating, “The fact remains that the California court ordered her back.” The panel also includes U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins. A decision has not yet been issued.
