Gedrich v. Fairfax County Dept. of Family Services
| Decision Date | 12 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 02-1708-A.,CIV.A. 02-1708-A. |
| Citation | 282 F.Supp.2d 439 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Kara GEDRICH, a minor by her next friend, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Defendants. |
Patricia Payne, Payne & Associates, Washington, D.C., Jacqueline May Reiner, Wright Robinson Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, VA, James Edward Wilcox, Jr., Office of the County Attorney, Thomas M. Wochok, Hamilton Altman Canale & Dillon LLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendants/Respondents.
In this action, plaintiffs, a mother, daughter and stepfather, assert federal statutory and state law claims against eighteen defendants based on allegations that the mother and stepfather were separated from the daughter for a period of approximately three months owing to defendants' false allegations of sexual abuse against plaintiff stepfather. Threshold dismissal motions by all defendants and defendants Alternative House, El-Sayed, and Raphael's motion for summary judgment in the alternative raise a variety of dispositive issues, which are addressed here.
Plaintiffs Darlene Gedrich-Lenz ("Gedrich-Lenz"), Enrique Lenz ("Lenz"), and Kara Gedrich ("Kara") are respectively mother, stepfather, and daughter and are citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The eighteen defendants are:
(1) Fairfax County Board of Supervisors ("Fairfax County");
(2) Dana Paige ("Paige"), director of the Department of Family Services ("DFS");
(3) Carolyn Fowler ("Fowler"), program manager of the Foster Care Division at DFS;
(4) Elizabeth Spell ("Spell"), a supervisor in Child Protective Services ("CPS") at DFS;
(5) Patricia Sullivan ("Sullivan"), a supervisor in the Foster Care Division at DFS;
(6) Ann Bussells ("Bussells"), a case-worker for CPS at DFS;
(7) Lilly Reed-Hall ("Reed-Hall"), a caseworker for Foster Care at DFS;
(8) John Harrold ("Harrold"), director of Woodburn Mental Health Center ("Woodburn")
(9) Teresita DiPinto, M.D. ("DiPinto"), a physician at Woodburn;
(10) Alternative House, The Abused and Homeless Children's Refuge ("Alternative House");
(11) Samir El-Sayed, director of Alternative House (12) Elana Raphael, a counselor at Alternative House;
(13) Adolescent and Family Growth Center ("AFGC")
(14) Roma Farge, director of admissions and foster care at AFGC;
(15) Piedmont Behavioral Health Center ("Piedmont");
(16) Michael Beavers, Chief Executive Officer of Piedmont;
(17) Stacy Stickley, a therapist at Piedmont; and
(18) Wayne Villeneuve, a clinical director at Piedmont.
On November 10, 2000, Kara, a troubled teen with a suspected substance abuse problem, ran away from home. For a period of eleven days, Kara stayed with various friends and was allegedly raped while staying at the home of one of these friends. On November 21, 2000, the mother of one of Kara's friends called CPS in the Department of Family Services regarding Kara. In the course of the call, Kara spoke with someone at CPS who asked her whether her stepfather, Enrique Lenz, had been "inappropriate" with her. Kara said she did not know and explained that "something bad had happened" to her. Defendant Bussells, a CPS caseworker, then began a joint investigation with the Fairfax County Police Department ("FCPD") to investigate possible sexual abuse.
On November 22, 2000, Bussells took Kara to Woodburn Mental Health Center ("Woodburn") for a psychological evaluation. Bussells then took Kara to Alternative House for placement. Gedrich-Lenz, signed the admissions form permitting her daughter to stay at Alternative House.2 This form did not mention or refer to any "no-contact" policy or other restrictions that would preclude parental contact with Kara during her stay at Alternative House. While Bussells suggested to Gedrich Lenz that she and her husband refrain from initiating contact with Kara for a few days, no mention was made of any formal "no parental contact" restrictions. Indeed, on November 23, 2000, Gedrich-Lenz contacted Alternative House and spoke with Kara.
Later, on November 23, 2000, Kara made a request to attend Thanksgiving dinner with her family at her grandparents' home. An Alternative House employee called Bussells to inquire whether a familial outing might be approved for Kara, leaving a detailed message on Bussells' answering machine. Because Alternative House never received a return call from Bussells, Kara's request was denied.3 On November 24, 2000, defendant Raphael, a counselor at Alternative House, spoke with Bussells on the phone, at which point Bussells reiterated that Kara should have no outings or telephone contact with her parents. Plaintiffs allege that for the next week, Gedrich-Lenz attempted to contact Kara numerous times, but was told by Alternative House that she could not have any contact with Kara.
On November 27, 2000, Gedrich-Lenz spoke with Bussells and demanded rescission of the "no parental contact" restriction preventing her from speaking with Kara. Bussells denied Gedrich-Lenz's request and asked for her continued patience on the matter. The following day, November 28, Alternative House staff again refused to allow Gedrich-Lenz to speak with Kara, despite acknowledging that Gedrich-Lenz retained legal custody of Kara. On this occasion, Alternative House staff informed Gedrich-Lenz that Alternative House had a "corroborating policy" under which Alternative House could not override CPS restrictions, even when parents retained legal custody of the child at issue.
On November 28, 2000, Lenz voluntarily met with Detective John Comiskey of the FCPD and was informed of the sexual abuse allegations against him and the pending joint investigation. Detective Comiskey questioned Lenz about a specific incident during which Lenz saw Kara undressed and inquired about massages Lenz had given Kara, as well as internet access Kara had to Lenz's laptop computer. Lenz denied any inappropriate behavior or intentions on his part with regard to Kara, particularly with respect to the specific incidents mentioned by Detective Comiskey. After the interview, Detective Comiskey informed Lenz that criminal charges would not be pursued.
According to Alternative House, Kara was scheduled to leave the facility on December 5, 2000, but Gedrich-Lenz made an oral request to extend Kara's stay there until December 8, 2000, which request was granted by Alternative House. On December 7, 2000, Gedrich-Lenz made arrangements to discharge Kara from Alternative House the following day after a scheduled meeting with Bussells. During this meeting on December 8, 2000, Bussells admitted to Gedrich-Lenz that she had put in place the "no parental contact" restriction at Alternative House.
After the meeting, Bussells and her supervisor, Spell, pursuant to Virginia law,4 took emergency custody of Kara, and Bussells orally requested that Kara remain at Alternative House until December 11, 2000. Alternative House complied with this request. Thereafter, within the time prescribed by Virginia law,5 Bussells sought and was granted an emergency removal order for Kara in Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations ("J & DR") Court on December 11, 2000. Plaintiffs claim that Bussells, in seeking the emergency removal order, made false statements to the J & DR Court and submitted an affidavit that was "intentionally erroneous, deceptive, and misrepresented and omitted crucial facts." In granting the emergency order, the J & DR Court scheduled a hearing on December 14, 2000 to review the matter. In the interim, Kara was placed at This Way House on December 11, 2000 with Bussells' order that Kara have no contact with her parents.
The December 14 hearing never occurred; it was obviated by the JD & R Court's entry of an order, agreed to by Gedrich-Lenz and DFS, continuing DFS's custody of Kara.6 In this order, Gedrich-Lenz stipulated to a finding that Kara was a "child in need of services," as defined by Va.Code § 16.1-228.7 The order was silent on the issue of parental contact or visitation.
On December 15, 2000, Reed-Hall, a foster care worker at DFS, transferred Kara to a foster care home. Arrangements for the foster placement were made by AFGC. Reed-Hall and Farge, the director of AFGC, restricted Kara's contact with her family while at the foster care home. Thereafter, on December 18, 2000, Reed-Hall contacted Harrold, a director at Woodburn, to request an emergency "Certification of Need for Admission to Residential Psychiatric Treatment" for Kara. Acting on this request, Harrold arranged for Dr. Teresita DiPinto, a psychiatrist at Woodburn, to meet with Kara. The meeting occurred and DiPinto issued the requested certificate for admission to a 24-hour secured residential facility. Plaintiffs allege that DiPinto met with Kara for only five minutes before issuing the requested certificate. Plaintiffs further contend that DiPinto falsely documented Kara's treatment history in the issuance of this certificate. Pursuant to the certificate, Reed-Hall transferred Kara on December 19, 2000 to Piedmont, a 24-hour secure and locked facility. The Piedmont staff who handled Kara's case were Stacy Stickley, Wayne Villeneuve, and Michael Beavers. Gedrich-Lenz made repeated efforts to contact Kara at Piedmont, but all such efforts were rebuffed by Reed-Hall and the Piedmont staff.
On December 20, 2000, Gedrich-Lenz and Lenz returned to J & DR Court to address the bar against parental contact and visitation. The J & DR Court ordered visitation between Gedrich-Lenz and Kara to the maximum extent at the discretion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Owens
...rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted."); see also Gedrich v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs., 282 F.Supp.2d 439, 468 (E.D.Va. 2003) (finding that only the child could raise a Fourth Amendment violation claim relating to her custody). Whet......
-
Brown v. Mitchell
...becoming a question of law only when, on the record established, reasonable people could not differ. Gedrich v. Fairfax County Dept. of Family Servs., 282 F.Supp.2d 439, 475 (E.D.Va.2003). Here, for the reasons discussed above respecting deliberate indifference, the record contains triable ......
-
Jenkins v. Rock Hill Local School Dist.
...violations. Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1018-19; Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657, 667 (5th Cir. 1999); Gedrich v. Fairfax County Dep't of Family Servs., 282 F.Supp.2d 439, 461 (E.D.Va.2003). Here, however, there was no separation. There is no constitutional violation in merely being subjected to ......
-
Nin v. Luzerne Cnty.
...without a finding of imminent danger shocks the conscience and violates substantive due process. Gedrich v.Fairfax County Dept.of Fam.Services, 282 F.Supp.2d 439, 463 (E.D. Va. 2003). Here, the refusal to return the Children to Kareliz for more than six years while the Defendants completed ......