B.S v. Somerset County, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-30
| Decision Date | 16 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-30 |
| Parties | B.S. and B.S. as guardian and parent of T.S., G.S., and N.S., Plaintiffs, v. SOMERSET COUNTY, SOMERSET COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, JESSICA ELLER, JULIE BARTH, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) (the "Plaintiffs' Motion" or the "Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment"), and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) (the "Defendants' Motion" or the "Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Each party opposes the other party's motion for summary judgment. Doc. 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 75. For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
This case arises from a custody dispute between Plaintiff B.S., the natural mother of a minor child ("B.S." or "the Natural Mother"), M.N., a minor child ("M.N." or "the Minor Child"), and E.N., the natural father of M.N. ("E.N." or "the Natural Father"). Doc. 1.
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Count II of the Complaint ("Count II") (Doc. 1). CountII alleges that the transfer of the custody of the minor child, M.N., from the Natural Mother to the custody of the Natural Father was based on Defendant Eller's ex parte communications with a judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, without a "timely" hearing or opportunity for Plaintiff B.S. to defend her custody rights. Doc. 1 at 22-23. Thus, Count II alleges, Plaintiffs' procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution were violated. Id; Doc. 59 at 1. Plaintiffs argue that there are no disputes of material facts about the removal of the Minor Child from the Natural Mother's custody, nor any material disputes regarding the absence of a pre-or post-deprivation hearing, therefore summary judgment on Count II of the Complaint is appropriate. Doc. 59 at 2.
Defendants seek summary judgment on all counts (Doc. 50), arguing that Ms. Eller and Ms. Barth, as employees of a local government agency, have qualified and absolute immunity. Defendants also argue that Defendants Somerset County and Somerset County Children and Youth Services would only be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they were responsible for a custom, policy or practice which violates constitutional rights, and that in this case they are not. Doc. 50 at 12-14.
The Court's jurisdiction has been invoked over Plaintiffs' federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the factual allegations at the heart of this complaint concern events occurring in Somerset County in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
This case involves the transfer of custody of the Minor Child from the Natural Mother to the Natural Father pursuant to a court order which was entered after an ex parte meeting between a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County and a Somerset County Children and YouthServices ("CYS") caseworker, Defendant Jessica Eller, during which ex parte meeting Ms. Eller provided the judge with her findings and conclusions based on her investigation of the Minor Child's home environment. From the time of the Minor Child's birth until May 6, 2006, the Minor Child was in the custody of her Natural Mother, at which time she was transferred to the custody of her Natural Father, pursuant to the aforementioned court order. There are no assertions or evidence in the record that there was any formal custody arrangement between the Natural Mother and the Natural Father prior to that point.1 Doc. 13 at 4. CYS did not take custody of the Minor Child at any time nor did it conduct a dependency hearing seeking to make the minor child a dependent of the state.
The pleadings indicate that the Minor Child was bom in June 2004 with a tumor on her back; after its removal, she was slow to gain weight during her infancy and was diagnosed and treated for failure to thrive by Dr. Douglas Lindblad, a pediatric gastroenterologist, at Children's Hospital. Docs. 1, 51, 59. According to Defendants' pleadings, after many tests and office visits, and a week-long hospital stay, during which M.N.'s weight gain was markedly greater than her weight gain while in the care of the Natural Mother, Dr. Lindblad concluded that the failure to thrive was not organic, but rather was based on factors in the home. Doc. 51 at 5-8. Further, Dr. Lindblad suspected that the Minor Child's Natural Mother had Munchausen by Proxy. Doc. 51 at 6-7. .
In early December, 2005, B.S. made two requests for the services of Somerset County Children and Youth Services ("CYS"), claiming that she believed the Minor Child's Natural Father was notfeeding the Minor Child during the times that he had custody, and also reporting what she believed to be a suspicious bruise on the Minor Child's chin after a visit with her Natural Father. Doc. 51 at 8-9; Doc. 56 at 2; Doc. 59 at 3-4. CYS was given permission by B.S. to consult with M.N.'s physicians and have access to M.N.'s medical records. Doc. 51 at 10-11. At some point between mid-March, 2005 and early May, 2005, Dr. Lindblad advised CYS caseworker Defendant Jessica Eller of his failure to thrive diagnosis and his suspicion of Munchausen by Proxy, which he believed was having deleterious effect on the Minor Child's health. Doc. 51 at 11-12; Doc. 59 at 4. On April 7,2006, Tom Horave of Child Custody informed Ms. Eller of CYS that Child Custody had done an assessment of the home of the Natural Father of M.N. and there were no concerns regarding M.N. being in her Natural Father's home. Doc. 51 at 13.
Throughout their pleadings, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Eller's actions were motivated by a personal animus and/or vendetta towards Plaintiff B.S., although they do not identify the alleged reason for this animus.
On May 4,2006, Dr. Lindblad filed a report with ChildLine regarding his concerns. Doc. 51 at 12. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Eller coerced Dr. Lindblad into filing the report. Doc. 56 at 3; Doc. 59 at 4. Defendants claim that Dr. Lindblad had the prior intention of filing the report, and had informed Ms. Eller of this intent prior to the date of his actual filing, May 4, 2006, but had been delayed in his filing until that date due to other responsibilities. Doc. 51 at 12.
According to Defendant's pleadings, on May 5, 2006, Ms. Eller made her report to ChildLine based on her investigation and her communications with Dr. Lindblad. Doc. 51 at 12. Plaintiffs contest this and state that Ms. Eller "made a referral to ChildLine on her own behalf before Dr. Lindblad filed his report/made his referral (Doc. 56 at 3) and that Ms. Eller "directed Dr. Lindblad to make a ChildLine referral." Doc. 59 at 6. As stated previously, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Eller'sfindings were the result of a personal animus between Ms. Eller and B.S., but do not explain the source of this alleged bias. Docs. 56, 59,76.
On May 5, 2006 the Somerset Court of Common Pleas entered an order (prepared by Ms. Eller of CYS) that the Minor Child was to reside with her Natural Father until the completion of the investigation, and that all contact and visitation between the Natural Mother and the Minor Child be supervised (the "Emergency Custody Order"). Doc. 51 at 14; Doc. 52-11,
The Emergency Custody Order read as follows:
AND NOW, THIS 5 DAY OF MAY 2006, DUE TO ALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL NEGLECT WHICH ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION BY SOMERSET COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT ALL CONTACT AND VISITATION BETWEEN THE ABOVE NAMED CHILD AND HER NATURAL MOTHER, [B.S.], BE SUPERVISED BY SOMERSET COUTNY [sic] CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION. IT IS ALSO ORDERED THAT [THE MINOR CHILD] SHALL RESIDE WITH HER FATHER, [E.N.J, UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION AND [B.S.] SHALL CONDUCT HERSELF APPROPRIATELY IN ALL VISITATIONS WITH [THE MINOR CHILD], INCLUDING NO BADGERING OR HARASSING THE AGENCY STAFF, BELITTELING [sic] ANY SERVICE PROVIDERS OR THE NATURAL FATHER.
Plaintiffs allege that this Emergency Custody Order was entered after an ex parte meeting between Ms. Eller and the judge in the case, Judge Cascio, and therefore violated due process. Doc. 56 at 4, 14. Plaintiffs further allege that a '"summary"' prepared by Ms. Eller, which commenced the case with the Court of Common Pleas on the Juvenile docket on May 5, 2006, contained either purposeful falsehoods and/or dated information, specifically a misrepresentation as to the Minor Child's weight, and that a copy of this summary was not given to B.S., nor to her counsel. Doc. 56 at 5, 13-15; Doc. 59 at 5-6, 10-11. Plaintiffs refute the findings of Dr. Linblad of failure to thrive, and argue that Dr. Lindblad was pushed into the referral to ChildLine by Ms. Eller, and that had Dr.Lindblad had more information regarding the Minor Child's weight, he would likely not have made the referral. Doc. 56 at 6-7. Plaintiffs contend that Doc. 59 at 6-8; see also Doc. 56 at 8.
On May 5, 2006, police officers, accompanied by CYS, removed the Minor Child from the home of her Natural Mother and delivered her...
To continue reading
Request your trial