Heithcock v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs.
| Decision Date | 14 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:14-CV-2377 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
| Parties | SAMARA HEITHCOCK, individually and as next friend of her minor daughter, M.H., Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, et al., Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM
Pending in this case are two motions to dismiss. The Tennessee Attorney General has filed (1) a Motion to Dismiss the claims against defendants Department of Children's Services ("DCS"), James M. Henry ("Henry"), Sharonika Nelson Jones ("Jones"), and Jamila Sugri ("Sugri") in their official capacities ("Motion to Dismiss Official Capacity Claims") (Docket No. 11), and (2) a Motion to Dismiss the claims against defendants Henry, Jones, and Sugri in their individual capacities ("Motion to Dismiss Individual Capacity Claims") (Docket No. 23). Plaintiff Samara Heithcock ("Heithcock") has filed a joint Response. (Docket No. 28.) For the following reasons, both motions will be granted.
This case, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the laws of the state of Tennessee, concerns the state's involvement in events that resulted in the plaintiff's temporary loss of thecustody of her daughter.1 Heithcock and her three-year-old daughter M.H. are residents of Williamson County, Tennessee. DCS is an agency of the State of Tennessee. At all times relevant to this action, Henry, Jones, and Sugri were employees of DCS, acting within the scope of their employment. Henry was Commissioner of DCS. Jones was a supervisor at DCS's Office of Child Safety (also known as Child Protective Services) ("CPS"). Sugri was a social worker at CPS.
In May 2013, Heithcock began to notice unusual and concerning behavior exhibited by M.H. after M.H.'s visitation with her father ("Father"), including "recurring vaginal irritation, poking her vagina, habitually grabbing her vagina, and poking a hairbrush handle to her vagina." (Doc. No. 6, ¶ 16). Six months later, on November 13, 2013, during M.H.'s routine wellness check-up with her pediatrician, Heithcock requested that M.H. be examined for a urinary tract infection, thinking that it might be causing her unusual behavior. The nurse questioned Heithcock about the possibility of sexual abuse and recommended that she make an appointment with Our Kids, a non-profit corporation that provides testing and treatment for sexually abused children. (Id. at ¶ 17.) The Complaint alleges that, at this point, Heithcock "became concerned about the possibility of sexual abuse because 1) Father was an admitted sex addict; 2) Father refused to provide information [to her] about his male roommate who was unknown to her; and 3) Heithcock was a victim of sexual abuse in her own childhood." (Id. at ¶ 18.)
On November 15, 2013, Heithcock made an appointment with Our Kids asrecommended; Our Kids informed Heithcock that she was required by law to report her concerns to CPS Central Intake. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Heithcock called CPS Central Intake the same day "out of an abundance of caution . . . even though she was not sure any sexual abuse had occurred." (Id. at ¶ 20.) M.H. was examined by Our Kids on November 18, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 21.) The Our Kids nurse found a red spot on M.H.'s vagina but could not ascertain the cause of the red spot. (Id.) On November 21, 2013, in her capacity as a CPS social worker, Sugri called Heithcock and informed her that an appointment had been made for M.H. at Davis House Child Advocacy Center ("Davis House"). (Id. at ¶ 22.) Believing that she was required to comply, Heithcock allowed M.H. to be subjected to a videotaped forensic interview and several sessions of forensic evaluation. (Id.) According to the Complaint, Heithcock was informed that M.H. made some "concerning disclosures," but she was never told the substance of the disclosures. (Id.)
On December 2, 2013, the Juvenile Court of Williamson County held a review hearing, at which the Father was supposed to provide certain information that he had been withholding from Heithcock; however, the Father failed to attend. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24.) Another hearing occurred on December 16, 2013. At that time, Sugri interviewed Heithcock's other child "without consent or legal representation." (Id. ¶ 25). At the hearing, Sugri recommended an "unsubstantiated" classification for Heithcock's sexual abuse complaint; Heithcock alleges that this recommendation was made without CPS approval or adequate investigation. (Id. ¶ 26). Heithcock further alleges that Davis House informed her that Davis House had not itself made a classification. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Heithcock also alleges that Sugri falsely represented to the court that she interviewed Heithcock and her mother after the December 16 hearing. (Id. ¶ 28). Heithcock avers that she reported Sugri to Jones, Sugri's supervisor, on the advice of Davis House, to noavail. (Doc No. 6, ¶ 30). The Complaint claims that Jones "worked with Sugri" to cause harm to Heithcock. (Id.)
Both Heithcock and the Father thereafter sought orders of protection against each other (the Father in Davidson County and Heithcock in Williamson County). (Id. ¶¶ 29, 31). On January 6, 2014, a hearing was held on Heithcock's petition. Heithcock accused the Father of hacking into her email account and deleting important custody files that implicated him as a sex addict. (Id. ¶ 32.) The Father denied the accusations and the court dismissed Heithcock's petition due to lack of evidence. (Id.) Stemming from Heithcock's accusations during this hearing, the Father alleged to the court that Heithcock was mentally unstable. (Id. ¶ 33.) The Complaint alleges that DCS "accepted" this allegation without any foundation. (Id.)
Soon after, on January 9, 2014, despite being "reprimanded by Davis House,"2 Sugri visited Heithcock's home to "explain" the "unsubstantiated" classification that Sugri had given to the court regarding the child abuse investigation. (Id. ¶ 34.) According to the Complaint, the day and time of Sugri's visit was inconvenient for Heithcock because both M.H. and workmen repairing fire damage were present in the home, so Heithcock requested that the meeting be rescheduled. (Id. ¶ 35.) However, Sugri entered "without invitation" through an open door. (Id.) At that point, Heithcock did not demand Sugri leave but, rather, spoke with Sugri for approximately 20-25 minutes, including pleading for her to take the child abuse investigation more seriously.3 (Id. ¶¶ 36-37).
On January 21, 2014, the Father filed a petition against Heithcock in the Williamson County Juvenile Court, alleging mental instability and that M.H. was neglected by Heithcock. (Id. ¶ 38). The Complaint alleges that the Father had "advance knowledge" that Sugri intended to ask the court to declare Heithcock mentally unstable and recommend that M.H. go into the Father's temporary custody. (Id.) At a January 27, 2014 hearing, Heithcock alleges that Sugri, when called as a witness, misrepresented to the court during testimony that Heithcock was mentally unstable, vindictive, and hostile. (Id. ¶ 40.) Sugri also allegedly falsely testified that Heithcock had knowingly disparaged the Father in the presence of her daughter. (Id. ¶ 40).
The Juvenile Court ordered M.H. removed into state custody; the Complaint alleges that the removal was a result of Sugri's "inadequate investigation and fraudulent misrepresentations" to the court. (Id. ¶ 42). Heithcock alleges that Sugri informed her that, if she continued to try to prove that the Father hacked her email, she would have a difficult time regaining custody of her daughter. (Id. ¶ 43.) DCS subsequently placed M.H. in the custody of the Father's fiancée for a period of two weeks. (Id. ¶ 44). On February 10, 2014, the Father confessed, during a recorded telephone conversation, to hacking Heithcock's email in order to destroy her files containing correspondence regarding his sex addiction. (Id. ¶ 45.) The Father was subsequently found guilty of a misdemeanor and Heithcock was granted an order of protection "limiting contact to parental association." (Id.)
On February 8, 2014, Heithcock began to receive bullying text messages from the Father's fiancee, pressuring Heithcock to agree to a parenting arrangement for M.H. outside of the court proceedings, in exchange for the Father's dropping his petition for a finding of dependency and neglect. (Id. ¶ 46.) Due to the severity of the messages (and after presumably being notified by Heithcock), DCS called an emergency meeting. (Id. ¶ 47.) On February 12,2014, during that meeting, the Father's fiancée admitted that she suspected the Father of having a sex addiction and confirmed that he had sought counseling for a sex addiction prior to the CPS investigation. (Id. ¶ 48.) The Father's fiancée claimed she could no longer adequately protect M.H. from the Father and returned M.H. to CPS. (Id. ¶ 48). M.H. was placed in foster care on an emergency basis. (Id.).
The Complaint alleges that, at a hearing on February 24, 2014, Sugri asserted that, without any evidence that Heithcock had harmed M.H., Heithcock's parental rights should be terminated. (Id. at ¶ 49.) The Complaint further alleges that Sugri took this action in retaliation for Heithcock's complaints about Sugri during the course of Sugri's investigation. (Id.). By this time, the Court Appointed Special Advocate ("CASA"), who had initially sided with DCS, began to realize that M.H. was suffering harm as a result of being taken from her mother. (Id. ¶ 51.) The CASA worked to convince DCS that M.H. should be reunited with Heithcock. (Id.)
On March 24, 2014, Heithcock was granted a ninety-day trial home visit with M.H. (Id. ¶ 52). On June 24, 2014, Heithcock regained full legal and physical custody of M.H. (Id. ¶ 53). On July 21, 2014, the Father's charge of dependency and neglect was dropped. (Id. ¶ 54). The Complaint alleges that, in August 2014, Heithcock made a request to review her file to evaluate her options about...
To continue reading
Request your trial