Babcock v. State By and Through Dept. of Social and Health Services
| Decision Date | 02 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 53376-8,53376-8 |
| Citation | 768 P.2d 481,112 Wn.2d 83 |
| Parties | Rudolph BABCOCK, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Washington, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Ken Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Owen F. Clarke, Jr., Spokane, and Michael E. Grant, Olympia, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
We affirm a trial court's grant of summary judgment and its dismissal of all plaintiffs' claims for negligence, alienation of affections and outrageous conduct arising out of the foster placement of four minor girls. Both the State and individual caseworkers for the Department of Social and Health Services are immune from suit. There is no triable issue of outrageous conduct or of alienation of affections.
Rudolph and Ann Long Babcock were married in 1970. Ann was the mother of two children from a prior marriage, Angela Long and Aryn Long. Rudolph and Ann later had On August 28, 1978, Ann Babcock, the mother of the four girls, committed suicide. Rudolph was apparently unable to care for the four girls himself, and in July 1981, the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources (hereinafter DHHR) obtained an order of dependency mandating their removal from his care and custody. Following a 4-day hearing in July and August 1981, the Louisiana court ordered DHHR to place the girls with the parents of Rudolph Babcock, Willis and Elizabeth Babcock. The elder Babcocks were residents of Richland, Washington, and the court's order directed DHHR to transfer the case to Washington under the interstate compact on the placement of children, codified in this state at RCW ch. 26.34. The girls arrived in Richland approximately 3 weeks later. Rudolph also moved in with his parents.
two other daughters, Erika and Beth. Rudolph and all the girls but Aryn are plaintiffs in the present suit
On October 7, 1981, the Louisiana court ordered Rudolph to leave his parents' home and to reside apart from the girls. He did so, traveling to Wisconsin, where he established a new residence. On the same date, the Louisiana court formally relinquished jurisdiction under the interstate compact on the condition that Washington accept jurisdiction over the case. The juvenile division of Benton County Superior Court accepted jurisdiction on November 5, 1981.
DSHS assigned caseworker Wanda Tyler to the case of the Long and Babcock girls. During October 1981, Aryn Long ran away from the elder Babcocks' home twice. Following these incidents, Tyler placed Aryn in a licensed foster home under the supervision of Marilyn Wallace. Wallace was a secretary at the school attended by the girls. Angela Long asked to be placed in the Wallace home with her sister. Tyler acquiesced, and in December 1981, Angela also moved out of the elder Babcocks' home.
In February 1982 Rudolph Babcock removed his daughters Erika and Beth from his parents' home, taking them to his new home in Wisconsin. DSHS, acting in conjunction with the Prosecuting Attorney of Benton County Meanwhile, following Washington's acceptance of jurisdiction, a dependency disposition hearing under RCW 13.34.110 was held on March 31, 1982, in Benton County Juvenile Court. Rudolph Babcock was represented by counsel at that hearing, and his counsel moved for a continuance of the hearing. The juvenile court granted the continuance as to the Babcock girls, and made a "temporary order" that the Long girls should be transferred to the custody of Lee and Janet Michael. Janet Michael is the sister of the Long girls' natural mother, Ann Long Babcock. Upon the return of the Babcock girls from Wisconsin in late April, they too were placed in the Michael home.
obtained a warrant for Rudolph's arrest on charges of custodial interference and an order of requisition for the Babcock girls. The warrant was later quashed. At a hearing held on April 14, the Wisconsin court granted full faith and credit to the Washington order of requisition and remanded the girls to the custody of Mark Bronson, who had replaced Tyler as the DSHS caseworker responsible for the Long/Babcock case. On April 19, 1982, Erika and Beth returned to Washington
On May 4, 1982 a second hearing was held in the Long/Babcock case. As required by RCW 13.34.120, DSHS submitted a report and recommendation to the juvenile court. In her report, Wanda Tyler recommended that all four girls remain in the custody of the Michaels. Tyler's report also recommended that the court consider reuniting the girls with Rudolph when he could show steady employment and success in psychological counseling. Rudolph Babcock was present at the May 4 hearing and again was represented by counsel. Babcock objected to the recommendation of DSHS on the ground that the Michaels had petitioned the Louisiana court for custody of the girls, and had been refused. Babcock also contended that the Michaels would interfere with his relationship with the girls, making reunification of the family impossible. Finally, Babcock contended that the conditions which led the Louisiana court to declare the girls The next hearing in the matter was heard on August 12, 1982, on Rudolph Babcock's motion to dismiss the girls' dependency cases. The motion was denied.
in need of care no longer existed. Responding to a question from the bench, Babcock indicated that he was employed. Without taking further evidence, the juvenile court continued the matter on the ground that the record from Louisiana was incomplete. The court ordered that the girls should remain with the Michaels during the continuance
A third disposition hearing was held on August 26 and 27, 1982. The DSHS offered extensive expert testimony by Maureen Shenker, the Long girls' therapist, and Elaine Adolph, the Babcock girls' therapist. Both experts described their evaluations of the girls, and both expressed the opinion that, to the extent the girls remained troubled, it was probably attributable to their lack of a permanent home. Both experts expressed the opinion that the Michaels were providing a stable, nurturing environment for the girls. Rudolph Babcock was represented by counsel at the hearing, and his attorney cross-examined both experts thoroughly, particularly as to the Michaels' influence over the girls' views of Babcock.
At the August 1982 review hearing, the court also heard testimony from Mark Bronson, the DSHS caseworker responsible for the Long/Babcock matter and a defendant here. Bronson testified that, based on the report prepared for the court under RCW 13.34.120, the DSHS recommended making the Michaels guardians of the Long girls. The attorney for Daniel Long, the girls' father, joined in that recommendation. As to the Babcock girls, the DSHS recommended continued dependency placement with the Michaels on the ground that keeping the sisters together was preferable to attempting to reunite the Babcock girls with their father, especially given residence in another state. Bronson, too, was cross-examined at length by counsel for Rudolph Babcock.
Counsel for Babcock then introduced expert testimony giving a psychological profile of Rudolph and recommending that the Babcock girls should be reunited with their father rather than to remain with the Michaels.
Lee Michaels testified on the second day of the August, 1982 hearing regarding his relationship with the girls and his hostile relationship with Rudolph Babcock. Babcock's counsel cross-examined him extensively. Janet Michael, the girl's aunt also testified and was also cross-examined by Babcock's counsel.
The court also heard testimony from Rudolph Babcock on the second day of the August hearing. Babcock was examined in regard to his relationship with the Long girls, his stepdaughters. He testified concerning his finances and employment history, his family situation in Wisconsin--he was living with a woman with four children of approximately the same age as his own daughters--the circumstances of his taking Erika and Beth from Washington to Wisconsin without authority and his hostile relationship with Lee Michael. Babcock stated his desire that his daughters be placed in foster care in Wisconsin under the interstate compact.
In closing statements, counsel for DSHS recommended that the Long and Babcock girls remain with the Michaels in a dependency placement under RCW 13.34.130. Guardianship proceedings would be begun in the Long girls' case, but that with regard to the Babcock girls, psychological and home studies of Rudolph Babcock should be commenced in Wisconsin under the interstate compact, with a view toward reuniting the Babcock girls with their father.
Counsel for Rudolph Babcock asked the court to turn all four girls over to the jurisdiction of Wisconsin under the interstate compact, where they would remain in foster care until they could be reunited with Rudolph by the courts of that state.
The juvenile court ordered that all four girls should remain with the Michaels, but that the Babcock girls On November 2, 1982, following the receipt of the Wisconsin reports, a review hearing under RCW 13.34.130 was held as to the Babcock girls alone. The Wisconsin caseworker reported that, because of insufficient information, she could not make a recommendation regarding Rudolph Babcock. The court heard argument of counsel, including counsel for Babcock, and ordered that, because of the inconclusive report, no final action could be taken. The Babcock girls therefore remained in the Michaels' care.
should be reunited with their father as soon as positive psychological and home studies could be completed and submitted.
On November 11, 1982, Babcock moved for the transfer of his daughters to Wisconsin. No further information had been received from Wisconsin and Wisconsin had not agreed to accept jurisdiction under the interstate compact. The court heard arguments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10
...a cause of action for alienation of a child's affections, but did not suggest that the cause of action had been abolished. 112 Wash.2d 83, 107–08, 768 P.2d 481 (1989), modified on recons ., 116 Wash.2d 596, 809 P.2d 143 (1991). Instead, the court stated that Washington courts “repeatedly” h......
-
Babcock v. State
...Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Michael E. Grant, Asst., Olympia, for respondent. UTTER, Justice. In Babcock v. State, 112 Wash.2d 83, 768 P.2d 481 (1989) (hereinafter Babcock I), this court granted the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and its caseworkers absolu......
-
Mahler v. Szucs
...resources and to ensure repose for parties who have already responded adequately to the plaintiff's claims." Babcock v. State, 112 Wash.2d 83, 93, 768 P.2d 481 (1989).8 "Usually, subrogation allows an insurer to recover what it pays to an insured under a policy by suing the wrongdoer. The i......
-
Barr v. Day, 11856-8-III
... ... Barr retained the services of attorney Gerald Day to pursue a claim for ... Barr's health problems. Nor was he requested to calculate the ... Grimsrud v. State, 63 Wash.App. 546, 548, 821 P.2d 513 (1991); ... (1989) and judicial immunity discussed in Babcock v. State, 112 ... Page 845 ... Wash.2d 83, ... San Diego Cy. Dep't of Social Servs., 691 F.Supp. 238 (S.D.Cal.1988) (guardian ... ...
-
Washington State's 45-year Experiment in Governmental Liability
...(1977), the courts can take custody of abandoned, abused, or neglected children who are defined as "dependent." 189. 112 Wash. 2d 83, 768 P.2d 481 190. Id. at 87, 768 P.2d at 483. 191. Babcock v. State, 112 Wash. 2d 83, 90, 768 P.2d 481, 486 (1989). 192. Id. at 91, 768 P.2d at 486. 193. Id.......
-
Where the Reason Stops: Babcock v. State Establishes an Unjustified Immunity for Foster-care Placement
...Troubled Children: Wards of the State, Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 27, 1988, at B2, col. 1. 2. Babcock v. State, 112 Wash. 2d 83, 768 P.2d 481 (1989); later proceeding, Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 3. Babcock, 112 Wash. 2d at 104, 768 P.2d at 493. 4. Id. 5. See Block, Stump......
-
Table of Cases
...Babbitt, In re Marriage of, 50 Wn. App. 190, 747 P.2d 507 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.05[8] Babcock v. State, 112 Wn.2d 83, 768 P.2d 481 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.06[2][a][ii] Baby Boy C, In re Adoption of, 31 Wn. App. 639, 644 P.2d 150 (1982) . .......
-
§75.06 The Third Party and the Marital Community
...damages from the state, but characterized malice as a factual issue not able to be resolved on summary judgment. In Babcock v. State, 112 Wn.2d 83, 107-08, 768 P.2d 481 (1989), aff'd in part on rehearing, 116 Wn.2d 596, 809 P.2d 143 (1991), parents claimed that state social service casework......