Gottlieb v. County of Orange, 93 Civ. 0466 (CLB).

• Decision Date: 25 April 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93 Civ. 0466 (CLB).,93 Civ. 0466 (CLB).
• Citation: 882 F. Supp. 71
• Parties: Andrew GOTTLIEB and Jean Gottlieb, Individually and as the Natural Parents of Infants Dawn Gottlieb and Lee Gottlieb, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OF ORANGE and Orange County Department of Social Services, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

882 F. Supp. 71

Andrew GOTTLIEB and Jean Gottlieb, Individually and as the Natural Parents of Infants Dawn Gottlieb and Lee Gottlieb, Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OF ORANGE and Orange County Department of Social Services, Defendants.

No. 93 Civ. 0466 (CLB).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 25, 1995.

Nelson M. Farber, George Akst, Akst & Akst, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Phyllis Ingram, Mac Cartney, Mac Cartney, Kerrigan & Mac Cartney, Nyack, NY, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

BRIEANT, District Judge.

This case involves efforts of Orange County social workers to protect children of the plaintiff parents from abuse alleged by an informant to have occurred, and confirmed by statements of one of the children during an interview at the child's school.¹ While no action was ultimately taken against the parents in this instance, this fact cannot be allowed by hindsight to create an inference of improper action in the first instance when the social workers were confronted by a potential emergency.

It is not apparent from the limited record before the Court that the suspicions of child abuse in this case were wholly without foundation. This Court does not, however, reach that issue herein, because the proper authority for such a determination, in this case the New York State Department of Social Services, Office of Administrative Hearings, has already done so, issuing a written decision on January 15, 1993 formally "expunging" the report because the Family Court had denied the application of the Orange County Department of Social Services for psychiatric and medical examinations of the child. (See Exhibit C, annexed to the complaint.) The Family Court had, in turn, based its denial of the application of the County upon the reports of the parents' experts which revealed no evidence of abuse, and the County's failure to seek its own independent examinations until three months later.² In denying this application, Judge Victor J. Ludmerer held that:

"The Court believes that it is not in the best interests of the child to undergo any further examinations in connection with an event which is alleged to have occurred so long ago, especially when examinations have already been conducted and revealed no evidence of abuse."

See Order/Decision of the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Orange dated December 16, 1992, at p. 2, annexed as Exhibit B to the complaint.

In a Memorandum Order dated December 15, 1994 and reported at 871 F.Supp. 625 (S.D.N.Y.1994), familiarity with which is assumed and the content of which is not repeated here, the Court recognized that safeguards against intrusion into family life are critical, while at the same time, the authorities must have leeway to act when an emergency genuinely appears to exist. The Court found the individual defendants protected by qualified immunity. With respect to plaintiffs' claims against the County, the Court found insufficient evidence provided by any of the parties concerning whether or not the social workers had been given sufficient training to insure an adequate investigation prior to requesting the father to leave the house pending further inquiry. Rather than rule with finality on the basis of inadequate facts, the Court treated the County as having the initial burden of production on this matter in the summary judgment context (although not the ultimate burden of proof). The County's motion for summary judgment was provisionally denied without prejudice to renewal upon fuller factual presentation.

The County has taken advantage of the leave offered and has submitted ample evidence that detailed training of its social workers concerning the issues critical to the present situation was given, and policy guidance provided. The uncontradicted evidence submitted by the County makes it clear that it has accepted its responsibility to see that social workers making crucial decisions to protect children while avoiding unjustified intrusion into family life have adequate training to insure that their duties are implemented wisely and sensitively.

Exhibit M to the County's renewed motion sets forth measures to assure adequate investigation concerning informants. The social worker is instructed "to contact the source of the report because of ... knowledge of, and relationship to, the situation." Detailed instructions are given concerning interviewing of an alleged child victim:

"The CPS worker should be patient and flexible. Rapport can be established with the child by asking ... some general questions ... During the course of the interview, the ... caseworker should ask questions in a non-judgmental and supportive way to elicit information concerning the allegations."

Exhibit H indicates that course work concerning "Investigation Issues" consumed thirteen (13) hours for "active employees in all job units." Addition...