Holliday v. Leigh
| Decision Date | 15 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-113 (WOB-CJS) |
| Parties | MAUREEN HOLLIDAY PLAINTIFF v. ALECIA LEIGH, ET AL. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
This is the second § 1983 action of its kind filed with this Court involving allegations that social workers for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services ("CHFS") coerced a mother into signing a restrictive Prevention Plan without reasonable cause to believe that the child was in immediate danger and then maintained the Plan's restrictions in the face of compelling evidence that the child was safe. See Schulkers v. Kammer, 955 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2020); Schulkers v. Kammer, 367 F. Supp. 3d 626, (E.D. Ky. 2019).
This case is now before the Court on defendants' motions for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of Holliday's claims that defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights to family integrity; her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and her claim for punitive damages. (See Docs. 39, 40). For the reasons below, defendants' motions will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
At the relevant time, plaintiff Maureen Holliday was the thirty-year-old single mother to her daughter AH, age three. On October 13, 2016, Holliday dropped AH off at daycare. Holliday contends that one of the other children at daycare, Lola, bit AH on her backside while they were playing a game in the daycare's gym. (Doc. 42-3, at 50-52, 54). AH neither complained to the staff about the bite nor told Holliday about the incident when she picked her up that day. (Id. at 50-52).
That evening, AH attended a family dinner hosted by Holliday's grandmother, Phyllis Walz. Several of Holliday's other family members attended the dinner, but Holliday was ill, so she stayed home and allowed AH to spend the night at Walz's house. (Id.). The next morning, on Friday October 14, 2016, Walz was bathing AH and noticed a bruise that resembled a bite mark on her backside. (Id.). When Walz asked AH how she got the bruise, AH said that Lola had bitten her at daycare. (Id.) When Walz called Holliday to tell her about the bite mark, Holliday asked her to report it to the daycare staff and to ask whether they had completed an incident report. (Id.).
As instructed, Walz reported AH's bite mark to a daycare supervisor that morning when she dropped AH off. AH showed thesupervisor the bite mark and told her that Lola had bitten her the previous day. (Doc. 30-4, at 5). Nevertheless, a daycare worker reported the bite mark to CHFS, stating that AH had bruises across the middle of her buttocks and that the bite mark did not look like it came from a child. (Id.). Because AH was under four, her case was automatically considered high risk and a social worker was assigned to investigate. (Doc. 30-2, at 20).
Later that afternoon, the daycare's director called Holliday to let her know that a CHFS social worker was at the daycare. Holliday rushed from work to the daycare, where she met defendant Alicia Leigh. Leigh had already interviewed AH, and AH had told Leigh that Lola had bitten her. (Doc. 42-1, at 11). AH was, however, fuzzy on the details and also reported that she occasionally got spanked, allegedly telling Leigh that it "left a blue mark like the [pen] [Leigh] was writing with at the time." (Id. at 10-11). Leigh asked more questions but eventually stopped the interview because AH was having trouble understanding the questions and was providing mostly nonsensical responses. (See Doc. 30-4, at 17-18).
When Holliday arrived, Leigh prevented her from seeing AH and insisted upon interviewing Holliday alone in another room. (Doc. 42-3, at 57, 72). Holliday asked that someone from the daycare be present, but Leigh refused. (Id. at 57). Once alone in the room, Holliday told Leigh that she learned of AH's bite mark from Walz.Leigh then questioned Holliday about how she disciplined AH, and Holliday explained that she used time outs and occasionally smacked her hand or spanked her over her clothing with her hand but emphasized that she never left a mark on AH. (Id. at 172-73).
Leigh next told Holliday that she was under a Prevention Plan and informed her that she was limited to "supervised contact with AH until notified by CHFS," meaning that any contact with AH would be permitted only when an approved supervisor was present. (Doc. 42-3, at 58, 247). The Plan precluded anyone who had access to AH within the past forty-eight hours from supervising Holliday's contact with AH. Because of the family gathering the night before, this requirement prevented much of Holliday's family from supervising Holliday or watching AH. (Id.). Finally, the Plan required Holliday to take AH to Cincinnati Children's Hospital to have doctors assess the bruising and check for any other injuries. (Id.).
Leigh handwrote these conditions on a one-page document labeled "Prevention Plan." (Id.). The document did not indicate that consent was voluntary, nor did it contain instructions about what to do if Holliday could not comply with the Plan's terms. (Id.). The document did, however, include a stamp at the bottom, in all capital lettering, which read: "ABSENT EFFECTIVE PREVENTATIVE SERVICES, PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE IS THE PLANNEDARRANGEMENT FOR THIS CHILD." (Id.). And under the heading, "Potential Consequences if the Prevention Plan is not successful," Leigh wrote: "Court Action/Foster Care." (Doc. 42-3, at 247). But as defendants admit, they had no planned foster care arrangement for AH. (Doc. 30-1; Doc. 30-2, at 51; Doc. 42-1, at 31, 33).
Leigh signed the Prevention Plan and presented it to Holliday for her signature. Holliday refused. (Doc. 42-3 at 71-72). Holliday testified that she told Leigh that the Plan was ridiculous because AH was bitten by another child and that they were the ones that notified the daycare of the bite. (Id.). Holliday says she repeatedly told Leigh that she did not want to, and was not going to, sign the Plan. (Id.). Holliday testified that, in response to her refusal, Leigh told her that if she did not sign the Plan then she would take AH into immediate custody. (Id. at 81-82). Barred from seeing AH and faced with Leigh's threat to immediately take her, Holliday signed the Prevention Plan. (Id. at 69-72, 81-82).
The Plan limited Holliday to supervised contact with AH and prevented her family from helping, which made the task of having AH evaluated at Children's Hospital difficult. While still at the daycare, Holliday phoned her grandmother, Walz, and advised her of the situation. After learning that Walz and other family members could not help and having been told by Leigh to "figure it out," Holliday called her cousin, Kim Reed. (Id. at 80, 101-02). Reedhurried from work, but by the time she arrived at the daycare it was past 5:00 p.m., and Leigh had left because she does not work past five. (Id. at 122-24). Holliday called Leigh to make sure Reed was approved, but Leigh neither answered nor returned Holliday's voice messages. (Doc. 42-1, at 28-29; Doc. 42-3, at 80).
Though Reed had not been officially approved as a supervisor, she accompanied Holliday and AH to Children's Hospital. There, multiple doctors, other medical staff, and a social worker examined AH. (See Doc. 44-1, at 1, 12). Holliday claims that the doctors and staff were confused as to why she had brought AH to the Emergency Room for such faint bruising. (Doc. 42-3, at 205-06). AH's discharge notes state that:
AH was seen and evaluated [by] the emergency department. She explained to me that she was "bitten on the butt" by her friend Lola. My exam was consistent with bite marks on both butt cheeks. The marks were simply minor bruises and no puncture marks. There were no other injuries noted. AH otherwise appears to be a healthy and happy child.
(Doc. 44-1, at 26). (emphasis added).
That same night, Leigh phoned Children's Hospital and a hospital employee told her that:
There are no concerns with the mark and they can't say if the marks are bite marks or not because the bruises are faint and if the child reported that another child bit her it was likely that this is how the injury occurred.
(Doc. 42-8, at 19; see also Doc. 44-1, at 12-13) (emphasis added).
Notes from a hospital social worker also indicated that there were no concerns and that there was no further social worker intervention needed. (Doc. 44-1, at 12-13, 16).
After Leigh confirmed that medical staff at Children's had no concerns, Leigh consulted with her supervisor defendant Danielle Sneed. (Doc. 42-8, at 19). Though AH had told Leigh that Lola had bitten her during the one-on-one interview, and doctors and another social worker had expressed no concerns, Leigh and Sneed decided to continue their investigation and keep Holliday under the restrictions due to their concern that AH had been coached to tell the hospital staff that Lola had bitten her. (Doc. 42-1, at 26).
Over the course of the weekend, October 14-16, 2016, Reed and Holliday called Leigh to report the results of AH's hospital evaluation. Though Leigh had spoken with the hospital's social worker and knew there were no concerns, she declined to respond. (Doc. 42-8, at 19). With no response from Leigh, Holliday was forced to move out of her home in Florence, Kentucky, and onto Reed's couch in Amelia, Ohio. (Doc. 43, at 10; supported by Holliday Affidavit [43-1]).
On Monday, October 17, Reed's husband drove AH to daycare with Holliday following. (Id.) At around 10:00 that morning, Leigh responded to Holliday's voicemails and made clear that she does not work after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends. (Doc. 42-3, at 123-24; Doc. 42-8, at 19). She also told Holliday that the Prevention Planwould remain in effect despite the doctors and a social worker from Children's Hospital having no concerns.
That afternoon,...
To continue reading
Request your trial