Doe v. State, 22815

• Decision Date: 20 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 22815,22815
• Citation: 294 S.C. 125,363 S.E.2d 106
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Jane DOE, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Charleston County Department of Social Services, and Nancy Worley, and Deborah B. Rodwell, in their official capacities as social workers for the Charleston County Department of Social Services, Defendants, of Whom State of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Charleston County Department of Social Services and Deborah B. Rodwell are Appellants-Respondents, and John DOE, a minor under the age of fourteen (14) years, by his Guardian ad Litem, Jane Doe, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Charleston County Department of Social Services, and Nancy Worley, and Deborah B. Rodwell, in their official capacities as social workers for the Charleston County Department of Social Services, Defendants, of Whom State of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Charleston County Department of Social Services and Deborah B. Rodwell are Appellants-Respondents. . Heard

Page 106

363 S.E.2d 106

294 S.C. 125

Jane DOE, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Social

Services, Charleston County Department of Social Services,

and Nancy Worley, and Deborah B. Rodwell, in their official

capacities as social workers for the Charleston County

Department of Social Services, Defendants,

of Whom State of South Carolina, South Carolina Department

of Social Services, Charleston County Department

of Social Services and Deborah B.

Rodwell are Appellants-Respondents,

and

John DOE, a minor under the age of fourteen (14) years, by

his Guardian ad Litem, Jane Doe, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Social

Services, Charleston County Department of Social Services,

and Nancy Worley, and Deborah B. Rodwell, in their official

capacities as social workers for the Charleston County

Department of Social Services, Defendants,

of Whom State of South Carolina, South Carolina Department

of Social Services, Charleston County Department

of Social Services and Deborah B.

Rodwell are Appellants-Respondents.

No. 22815.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 20, 1987.

Decided Dec. 7, 1987.

Joel H. Smith and Arthur L. Coleman, both of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellant-respondent South Carolina Dept. of Social Services.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. B.J. Willoughby, and Jane McCue Johnson, Columbia, for appellant-respondent State of South Carolina.

E. Jeannette Heyward, of Long, Smith and Jordon, Charleston, for appellants-respondents Charleston County Dept. of Social Services and Deborah B. Rodwell.

Tony R. Megna, of Cooper, Coffas, Heizer, Studemeyer and Megna, Columbia, for respondents-appellants.

NESS, Chief Justice:

Appellants-Respondents Jane and John Doe (Doe) brought this action against Respondents-Appellants (DSS) seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and monetary damages. Doe alleged S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-610 (1985) is unconstitutional; DSS had violated common law and statutory duties in removing John Doe from the custody of Jane Doe; and, the actions of DSS constituted a violation of their constitutional rights to due process and privacy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Doe. We reverse.

On April 27, 1984, Rodwell (worker), an employee of Charleston County DSS (County) went to a local school in response to a report of an abused child. The child had a bruise on its back. Worker contacted the police and the child was placed in the emergency protective custody of County. Mother, Jane Doe, was contacted by worker prior to the removal and did not deny beating the child.

On April 30, 1984, DSS filed a removal petition. On May 10, 1984, thirteen (13) days after the removal, a probable cause hearing was held. The family court judge concluded there was probable cause to take the child into emergency custody. No appeal was taken from this order.

On June 5, 1984, forty (40) days after the removal, a merits hearing was held on the DSS petition. The parties had reached a compromise agreement and the order of the family court judge held the discipline Mother administered was excessive in manner and degree. Custody was returned to Mother and counseling and supervision ordered. This order was also not appealed.

DSS argues the present action,...