Harris v. G.K.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | 3D15–1104,3D15–1153.,3D15–1105,Nos. 3D15–1293,3D15–1204,s. 3D15–1293 |
| Citation | 187 So.3d 871 |
| Parties | Lacheryl HARRIS, et al., Appellants, v. G.K., a minor, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
187 So.3d 871
Lacheryl HARRIS, et al., Appellants,
v.
G.K., a minor, etc., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 3D15–1293
3D15–1105
3D15–1204
3D15–1104
3D15–1153.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 24, 2016.
Laufer & Laufer and Alicia Lyons Laufer, Boca Raton; Vernis & Bowling of Palm Beach and Karen M. Nissen and Ashley N. Landrum, North Palm Beach; Anthony & Associates and Andrew J. Anthony and Bradley A. Silverman ; Marrero & Wydler and Oscar E. Marrero, Lourdes Espino Wydler and Alexandra C. Hayes, for appellants.
Grossman Roth and Neal A. Roth and Rachel W. Furst, for appellees.
Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.
SALTER, J.
Lacheryl Harris, Jean Lacroix, and Eunice Guillot appeal orders denying their motions to dismiss complaints brought against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of two minors, appellees G.K. and J.B.1 The motions to dismiss were based on claims of qualified or quasi-judicial immunity "in a civil rights claim arising under federal law," such that the orders denying the motions are appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii).
Harris, Lacroix, and Guillot were employees of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) at the time of the various alleged acts and omissions detailed in the complaints. DCF itself was also named as a defendant in the complaints filed by G.K. and J.B., and remains so, in the circuit court cases.
We affirm the denial order regarding J.B.'s claims against Lacroix (Case No. 3D15–1105), but we reverse and remand as to the order denying Guillot's motion to dismiss J.B.'s claims on grounds of qualified immunity (Case No. 3D15–1153). We reverse and remand as to each of the orders denying the motions to dismiss the claims brought by G.K. against Harris (Case No. 3D15–1293), Lacroix (Case No. 3D15–1204), and Guillot (Case No. 3D15–1104).
Facts and Procedural History
The plaintiffs below, G.K. (born in 1999) and J.B. (born in 2003), were siblings who were allegedly subjected to horrific emotional and physical abuse by their foster (and ultimately, adoptive) parents, Jorge and Carmen Barahona. The Barahonas adopted G.K. in 2001 and J.B. in 2007. Twins N.B. and V.B. were also placed in foster care with the Barahonas in 2004, at age three. N.B. and V.B. were adopted by the Barahonas in 2009.
G.K.'s complaint alleged that Harris was a family services counselor for DCF and was "assigned to children" in the Barahonas' home, and that Lacroix and Guillot were child protective investigators employed by DCF who investigated allegations regarding abuse and neglect by the Barahonas. G.K. claimed that DCF and its three individual employees received information (at different times, and received by different employees among the three of them, from incident to incident) from a school nurse, psychologists, Mrs. Barahona, school teachers and counselors, a school principal, and DCF's abuse hotline, regarding N.B. and V.B.
As a result of the alleged failure of the employees to properly investigate and follow up on the numerous reports and observations, G.K.'s complaint claims that the employees missed obvious and protracted abuse by the Barahonas of the children in their home, including G.K. Each of the enumerated incidents and failures to investigate and report, however, occurred after the Barahonas had adopted G.K.
In February 2011, despite alleged calls to the DCF abuse hotline regarding the Barahonas' abuse of N.B. and V.B., the reports were misclassified as non-urgent. Days later, N.B.'s body was discovered in the back of Jorge Barahona's truck. V.B. was also in the truck with severe, life-threatening injuries.
J.B.'s complaint was nearly identical to the complaint filed by G.K. J.B. was
adopted in 2007, however, and the allegations relating to failures by Harris and Lacroix to investigate and report abuse in the home included incidents which occurred before the adoption. The allegations relating to Guillot involved incidents which occurred after J.B. was adopted by the Barahonas.
The individual defendants filed motions to dismiss or strike the complaints asserting that they owed G.K. and J.B. no legal duty, that they were entitled to qualified or quasi-judicial immunity, and that the complaints failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court consolidated the motions for hearing and ultimately denied all of the motions. These appeals followed. DCF did not file a separate dismissal motion in the trial court but has filed briefs in support of Harris, Lacroix, and Guillot in these appeals.
Standard of Review
In reviewing the orders denying the motions to dismiss, we assume the truth of all the facts alleged in the complaint, and we draw all inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So.3d 1085, 1088 n. 2 (Fla.2013). Federal courts evaluating claims under § 1983 apply a similar standard: "the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the child." Taylor By & Through Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 793 (11th Cir.1987).
Analysis
Qualified immunity shields a government actor from personal liability when his conduct does not violate clearly established rights. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). A two-part test is used to determine whether qualified immunity...
To continue reading
Request your trial