Carla Doe v. Dist. of Columbia

Decision Date01 August 2013
Docket NumberCiv. No. 05–1060 (TFH).
Citation958 F.Supp.2d 178
PartiesRobert and Carla DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John M. Clifford, Stephanie J. Bryant, Clifford & Garde, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Kerslyn D. Featherstone, Office of Attorney General, Brant W. Martin, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.

This case involves the one-day removal of two young children from an abusive home by an agency specifically tasked with protecting abused children. This removal is the locus of Plaintiffs' myriad constitutional and common law claims and the following motions currently pending before this Court: Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment (collectively, Defendants' Motions for Judgment or “Defs.' Mots. for J.”) [Docket No. 186], Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Delores Williams [Docket No. 201], Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum in Response to Questions Raised in Oral Argument [Docket No. 206] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 182].

After considering the parties' arguments, submissions, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that, for the reasons below, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment are granted, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Delores Williams and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum in Response to Questions Raised in Oral Argument are denied as moot.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs Robert and Carla Doe (collectively, the Does), individually and as parents and guardians of their minor children, brought this suit against Defendants District of Columbia, former Mayor Fenty, and individually named employees and former employees of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA): Brenda Donald, Sarah Maxwell, Sandra Jackson, Heather Stowe, Terri Thompson Mallet, Rebekah Philippart, and Daphne King. The Does' claims arise out of their interactions with CFSA and the agency's removal of their adopted children from their home. These interactions are described in detail below.

The Does are the adoptive parents of Ann and Oliver Doe and have one biological child, Emma Doe. In 2001, Robert and Carla adopted Wayne and Sara Doe (collectively, “Twins”) after serving as their foster parents. Pls.' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue ¶ 1 [Docket No. 182–2].1 A District of Columbia contractor, Board of Child Care (“BCC”), handled the adoption. See Dep. of Carla Doe at 36:8–16 [Docket No. 191]. Prior to adopting the Twins, Carla Doe knew several unfortunate details about the Twins' lives from “birth to about five years of age.” See id. at 57:18. For example, she knew that the Twins did not live in a stable home, were hungry and homeless for some time, did not receive appropriate medical care, had a drug-abusing mother, had been in weekly therapy “for years,” and were put by their mother in “inappropriate situations, unsafe and unhealthy environments for children,” including “drug environments.” Id. at 57:5–59:3, 53:8–12. She also knew that at the Twins' previous foster home (“the Daileys”), their birth mother acted inappropriately with the Twins during visits. Id. at 49:21–50:2.

When the Twins moved into the Doe home, they began to sexually abuse both Ann and Oliver Doe. Ann stated that the abuse began when she was three. See Dep. of Ann Doe [Docket No. 191–1] at 7:22–8:18. According to Oliver, the abuse began about a month after the Twins arrived and only ended when the Twins left the house. See Dep. of Oliver Doe [Docket No. 191–2] at 25:1–12. The Does did not learn of the abuse until Sara told Carla Doe that she had inappropriately touched Oliver at some point a few days before September 27, 2004. See Dep. of Carla Doe at 86:20–22 [Docket No. 191]; Letter Dated Sept. 27, 2004 at 3 [Docket No. 188–2].2

On September 27, 2004, the Does sent a letter to CFSA Director, Brenda Donald, and Adoption Services Program Manager, Sharon Knight, informing CFSA that the Twins had been abusing Ann and Oliver and requesting support services. See Letter Dated Sept. 27, 2004. The letter stated that Sara was still residing in the Doe home at the time, though at some point she moved out of the home to live with her maternal grandmother. See id. at 3. Wayne had already been moved out of the home in August or September into a therapeutic respite home with a provider named Deborah Bobbitt to deal with his anger and other issues. See id.; Dep. of Robert Doe at 88:9–89:16 [Docket No. 191–4].

Robert Doe met with several CFSA representatives on October 1, 2004, including Defendant Sandra Jackson, the CFSA Administrator of Permanency and Family Resources Administration, Dr. Tracey Campfield, a CFSA psychologist in the Office of Clinical Practice, and Sharon Knight, the Program Manager for Adoption Services. Id. at 102:18–104:4. Also present in the meeting were two therapists from Adoption Attachment Partners who provided therapy for the Doe children and family. See id.

Four days later, on October 5, 2004, CFSA received a follow-up letter from Robert Doe. See Letter Dated Oct. 4, 2004 [Docket No. 191–7]. That letter stated that the Does could not afford to keep Wayne in his out-of-home placement and Sara's maternal grandmother could not house her much longer. Id.

On October 6, 2004, Dr. Campfield called the CFSA hotline to officially report the abuse in the Doe home. See CFSA Referral Report [Docket No. 191–8] at 2. Around October 7, 2004, CFSA discussed with Robert Doe their plan for services for the Does, including voluntary placement of Wayne and Sara in therapeutic foster care, as well as CFSA's investigation. See Jackson Timeline 3 at 2 [Docket No. 191–5]; Dep. of Robert Doe at 112:2–16 [Docket No. 191–4]; Letter Dated Oct. 14, 2004 [Docket No. 191–11]. CFSA agreed to pay for therapeutic foster care but did not agree to provide transportation and payment for Wayne's therapy with the specific provider he was then seeing because the provider was not an approved service provider. See Letter Dated Oct. 14, 2004; Dep. of Sandra Jackson at 68:8–13 [Docket No. 191–6]. According to CFSA, post-adoption services support was typically available only within the first six months or a year following adoption. See Dep. of Brenda Donald at 35:8–18 [Docket No. 191–12].

On October 7, 2004, CFSA Social Worker Delores Williams began her investigation of the Doe home and spoke with Robert, Carla, Ann, and Oliver, following the official hotline report. See CFSA Referral Report at 2. On October 8, 2004, Williams participated in a forensic interview with Ann and Oscar at Safe Shores, the District of Columbia Child Advocacy Center, during which Ann and Oliver stated they were both abused by Wayne and Sara, and that Oliver participated in victimizing his younger sister. See id. at 12.

Based on her two days of investigation, Williams reported that there were “one or more signs of present danger” to Ann and Oliver Doe and that their risk level was “moderate.” Id. at 7. However, she did not assess them to be in “immediate danger” because Wayne and Sara were then living outside the home, the Does had installed an alarm system on Ann and Oliver's doors, and the Does had increased supervision of Ann and Oliver. See id.

On October 14, 2004, CFSA received another letter from the Does regarding CFSA's offers of assistance. The letter recalled CFSA's offer to place Sara and Wayne in therapeutic foster care and raised several concerns about this offer. See Letter Dated Oct. 14, 2004 at 2. The Does requested the agency provide additional services to the Doe family, reminding CFSA that it maintained obligations under the LaShawn decree and that it bore responsibility for failing to fully investigate the history of abuse the Twins suffered prior to adoption. See id. at 2. The Does proposed that CFSA pay for Sara to attend the Phillips School, a private school that the Does selected, as well as therapy; pay for Wayne to continue to stay with Ms. Bobbit; pay for both Twins' transportation; and pay for family therapy. See id.

On October 19, 2004, CFSA called Mr. Doe and informed him that they had safety concerns regarding Ann, Oliver, Sara and Wayne and that he needed to cooperate in placing the children into voluntary care pending further investigation. See Dep. of Sandra Jackson at 16:11–16. Mr. Doe agreed to call CFSA back. See Dep. of Robert Doe at 136:6–15. The Does' then attorney, Harvey Schweitzer, called CFSA back and proposed alternative plans for Ann and Oliver. See Jackson Timeline at 3. Schweitzer also informed Defendant Mallet that CFSA needed a court order to remove the children. See Aff. of Harvey Schweitzer ¶ 10 [Docket No. 188–8].

On October 20, 2004, Defendant Brenda Donald, Director of CFSA, determined that Ann, Oliver, and Sara were in immediate danger and needed to be removed from the Doe home. See Dep. of Brenda Donald at 60:11–61:10 [Docket No. 191–12]. The following concerns held by the CFSA team motivated this decision:

• The Does' “failure to protect” their children during the four or more years the children abused each other in the Doe home. As a result, CFSA was also concerned that the Does would be unable to properly protect Ann and Oliver even with the safety plan. See Dep. of Sandra Jackson at 23:2–3; Dep. of Brenda Donald at 43:1–11; Dep. of Michele Jones–Brigman at 56:4–19 [Docket No. 191–9]; CFSA Referral Form at 12 [Docket No. 191–8].

• The inability of the Does' safety plan to adequately protect the younger children. Dep. of Brenda Donald at 60:21–61:10. Specifically, CFSA was concerned that the plan allowed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Doe v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • August 11, 2015
    ...mother in inappropriate situations, unsafe and unhealthy environments for children, including drug environments.”Doe v. District of Columbia, 958 F.Supp.2d 178, 183 (D.D.C.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When the twins arrived, the Does began receiving monthly adoptio......
  • Keepseagle v. Vilsack
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 7, 2014
    ...be able to sue to protect that benefit." SEC v. Prudential Sec., 136 F.3d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also Doe v. District of Columbia, 958 F. Supp. 2d 178, 203 (D.D.C. 2013); Ekwem v. Fenty, 666 F. Supp. 2d 71, 81 (D.D.C. 2009). "To prove intended beneficiary status, the third party mus......
  • Carla Doe v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 05-1060 (TFH/RMM).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 31, 2017
    ...¶ 96.2 Judge Hogan dismissed the complaint in its entirety, and the Doe Plaintiffs appealed that decision. See Doe v. District of Columbia , 958 F.Supp.2d 178 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd in part, vacated in part, Doe v. District of Columbia , 796 F.3d 96 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ; Doe v. District of Colum......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT