Guest v. Allegheny Cnty., Civil Action No. 20-130
| Decision Date | 17 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-130 |
| Parties | ISAAC GUEST, individually and as parent and natural guardian of his minor children I.G., M.G., S.G. and J.G, and NICOLE GUEST, individually and as parent and natural guardian of her minor children I.G., M.G., S.G. and J.G., Plaintiffs, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY and DESARAE HORTON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Isaac and Nicole Guest bring this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, both in their individual capacities and as parents and natural guardians of their minor children I.G., M.G., S.G. and J.G. Plaintiffs allege that their due process rights were violated when the children were improperly removed from their custody on May 15, 2019 based upon an improperly obtained Emergency Custody Authorization ("ECA"). Named as Defendants are Allegheny County and Desarae Horton ("Ms. Horton"), a caseworker for Allegheny County Office of Children Youth and Families ("OCYF").
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8). For the reasons that follow, their motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs commenced this action, in which jurisdiction is based upon their civil rights claims, in January 2020. Plaintiffs allege in Count I that Defendants violated their substantive due process right to familial integrity. In Count II, they contend that Defendants violated their procedural due process rights by obtaining an ECA under false pretenses.
On April 28, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) which has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 9, 14, 15, 17).
The Complaint alleges that on April 29, 2019, Ms. Horton filed four petitions alleging that Plaintiffs' minor children were dependent as defined by the Juvenile Act.1 She alleged in these petitions that on March 2, 2019, OCYF received a referral alleging domestic violence in which Mr. Guest sustained a bloody nose after an argument concerning a cell phone charger. The petitions claimed that J.G. was in her mother's arms during this argument but was not harmed in any way. (Compl. ¶ 9; ECF No. 8 Ex. 1.) Mr. and Mrs. Guest were interviewed during an unannounced home visit on March 2, 2019 and denied both that any domestic violence occurred or that J.G. was in her mother's arms during their argument. Mr. Guest agreed to cooperate if a caseworker was assigned to complete further investigation. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Ms. Horton stated in the petitions that although a letter was sent to the home scheduling a home visit for March 19, 2019, the Guests were not home that on that date. (Compl. ¶ 11.) On April 2, 2019, Ms. Horton arrived for an unannounced visit, but Mr. Guest would not allow her in the residence until he spoke to the director of the agency. Ms. Horton alleged that she told Mr. Guest that a petition would be filed because of concerns of domestic violence and OCYF being unable to assess the children's safety. (Id. ¶12.)
According to the information in the petitions, Mr. Guest later spoke to the director of the agency and agreed to a home visit, which took place on April 9, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Thepetitions do not allege that there was any harm to the children. (Id.) The petitions also referred to prior incidents, none of which involved harm to the children. (Id. ¶14.)
Plaintiffs allege that in an effort to "beef up" these petitions since they did not include any information that about any abuse or neglect of the children, Ms. Horton contacted the Westmoreland County Children's Bureau concerning incidents that allegedly occurred in 2014. She alleged that she learned that Mr. Guest admitted violating his probation during a domestic violence-related incident and that he was under a court order to complete anger management and drug and alcohol counseling. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs allege, however, that they have been advised by the Westmoreland County Children's Bureau that no such information was provided to Ms. Horton and that this allegation is false. (Id. ¶ 16.)2
The alleged basis for the petitions was that the children were subject to abuse and/or neglect because they were without proper care or control. (Compl. ¶ 17.) On May 15, 2019, a hearing was held on the petitions in the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Judge McCrady issued an order that, among other things, stated that: The order did not state that the children should be placed in foster care if the parents did not complete the drug and alcohol scans or even if the scans came back positive. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18; ECF No. 8 Ex. 4.)
As ordered, Plaintiffs proceeded with the drug screens on May 15, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Mrs. Guest provided a sample which was negative, but Mr. Guest was unable to provide a urine sample. The testing facility was closing, and the tester provided supporting documentation that Mr. Guest was present and attempted to provide a urine sample but was unable to do so. The tester wrote this information at the bottom of the form because the form itself only provided a box to indicate that the test had been "refused." (Id.) The tester advised Mr. Guest to return the next day to repeat the test.
On the evening of May 15, 2019, Ms. Horton arrived at Guest home accompanied by police. (Compl. ¶ 23.) According to the Complaint, she had obtained an ECA from Judge Woodruff over the phone based solely on the fact that Mr. Guest had not submitted a urine sample even though Judge McCrady's order did not state that this circumstance would constitute grounds for an ECA. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Mr. Guest showed them the form from the testing facility, which reflected his attempt to complete the drug screen. Ms. Horton called her supervisor and then told the Plaintiffs there was nothing she could do because the ECA had already issued, and she insisted that the children be immediately removed from the parents' custody. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24; ECF No. 8 Ex. 3.) Thus, the children were taken from the home. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21; ECF No. 8 Ex. 2.) Mr. Guest did, in fact, return as instructed for his test on May 16, 2019 and his test result was negative. (Id. ¶ 20.)
Plaintiffs allege that they attempted to find volunteers from their church community to take the children but were not given sufficient time to do so. (Compl. ¶ 25.) In addition, they allege that Ms. Horton was clearly aware that J.G. (then two months old) was being breast fed by Mrs. Guest. (Id. ¶ 26.) Despite this knowledge, Ms. Horton forcibly removed the children from the home that evening and placed them in foster care in Butler County. (Id. ¶ 27.) After thechildren were taken, Mrs. Guest sent text messages to Ms. Horton in which she noted that Ms. Horton had not returned her messages and had not informed her where the children were. (Id. ¶ 28.)
On May 16, 2019, Defendants filed a Shelter Care Application which noted that the children had been taken and that "an ECA was obtained as it was ordered if the parents did not comply with a drug screen and other requests." (Compl. ¶ 29.) The Shelter Care Application alleged that Mr. Guest refused to complete the drug screen despite the fact that he had completed the drug screen that day and tested negative. (Id.)
While J.G. was in Defendants' custody, she was placed on formula instead of breast milk and developed hives, requiring hospitalization. (Compl. ¶ 30.) Ms. Horton notified Mrs. Guest via text message on May 16th that J.G. was taken to a doctor who examined her but did not prescribe any medication. Plaintiffs allege that they have never been told where J.G. received this medical attention. (Id. ¶¶ 31-32.)
On May 17, 2019, a hearing was held with respect to the Shelter Care Application. (Compl. ¶ 33.) The hearing officer found that both Guests ultimately tested negative and questioned why the case was there. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) As such, he returned physical custody to them. (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs allege that during this hearing, despite the lack of any justification and negative drug screens, Defendants arbitrarily attempted to keep the children in foster care custody. (Id.) At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Horton told Mrs. Guest "If this was any other judge, you would not have your kids." (Id. ¶ 35; ECF No. 8 Ex. 5.)3
Several of Defendants' arguments touch upon the Court's subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Therefore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides the relevant standard of review regarding these arguments. See Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2006) (); Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 693 n.2 (3d Cir. 1996) (); B.S. v. Somerset Cty., 704 F.3d 250, 261 n.22 (3d Cir. 2013) ()
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss addresses "the very power [of the court] to hear the case." Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). "As the party asserting jurisdiction, [the plaintiff] bears the burden of showing that its claims are properly before the district court." Development Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Hous. & Health Care, Inc., 54 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir. 1995). There are two types of Rule 12(b)(1) motions: those that attack the complaint on its face and those that attack subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of fact. When considering a facial attack, "the Court must consider the allegations of the complaint as true," and in that respect such a Rule 12(...
To continue reading
Request your trial