Hutson v. Walker

• Decision Date: 20 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–3194.,11–3194.
• Citation: 688 F.3d 477
• Parties: Carol L. HUTSON, mother of decedent, on behalf of her son and individually on her own behalf; Jason L. Hutson, father of decedent, on behalf of his son, and individually on his own behalf, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Jude E. WALKER; Julie Baumgardner; Sallie West; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

688 F.3d 477

Carol L. HUTSON, mother of decedent, on behalf of her son and individually on her own behalf; Jason L. Hutson, father of decedent, on behalf of his son, and individually on his own behalf, Plaintiffs–Appellants
v.
Jude E. WALKER; Julie Baumgardner; Sallie West; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 11–3194.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2012.
Filed: Aug. 20, 2012.

[688 F.3d 479]

Blake Green, argued and on the brief, Mitchell L. Burgess, Keith Christopher Lamb, Don P. Saxton, on the brief, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Douglas G. Leyshock, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Carol (Lynn) and Jason Hutson brought this action against Jude Walker, Julie Baumgardner, and Sallie West, social service employees in Jackson County, Missouri, alleging they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law by recommending that custody of their son A.H. be granted to his grandparents, Carolyn and Patrick Cattin. According to the Hutsons this recommendation resulted in the untimely death of A.H. The district court ¹ granted summary judgment to the state employees after concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and official immunity on the state claims, and the Hutsons appeal. We affirm.

I.

Lynn and Jason Hutson were the biological parents of A.H. and his sisters, H.H. and D.H. Beginning in 2001 the Division of Family Services (DFS) ² in Jackson County, Missouri received calls alleging that the children were not getting medical care and were not being properly supervised by their parents. There were also allegations that Jason had physically abused H.H. and thrown A.H. down a hall and that Lynn had burned A.H. and H.H.

Lynn separated from Jason in 2002 “due to some domestic issues.” She contacted her mother, Carolyn Cattin, and asked to stay at her house with the children. Before Lynn and her children were ready to leave their own home, Carolyn arrived there with a DFS employee and a police officer. She informed Lynn that only the children were welcome at the Cattin home because Lynn did not get along with Carolyn's husband, Patrick Cattin. At that time Lynn agreed to leave her children with the Cattins. When she returned to check on them approximately two days later, Lynn was shown a handwritten note on DFS letterhead saying that the agency had received “a report of concern” and that she was to “leave all 3 children at [Carolyn's]” until a safety plan had been made.

A juvenile officer filed a request for protective custody for A.H. in July 2002. The Family Court Division in the circuit court of Jackson County found probable cause to believe that A.H. was “without proper care, custody and support” and that continued placement with his parents would be “contrary to the welfare of the child and community.” A.H. was thereafter placed “[i]n Division of Family Services [ ] Supervision [under the] care and custody of Carolyn and Patrick,” and DFS was ordered to recommend a long term placement for A.H. and his siblings.

The case was referred to a DFS social worker named Jude Walker in July 2002

[688 F.3d 480]

for his consideration of whether to recommend that the children be placed with the Cattins. Walker had started working at DFS in 2001. His first position at the agency focused on the placement of children in licensed foster homes, but in the summer of 2002 he became a “relative care worker” at the agency. In that position he was responsible for recommending whether a child should be placed in a relative's home. Walker has testified that relative care workers are required to make sure “the home was safe for kids to stay in” and that “the relatives were adequate to take care of kids.”

As a relative care worker, Walker was initially assigned 10 to 12 ongoing cases from his predecessor. According to Walker, “the Hutson case was the newest [one] that [he] got.” The Hutson children were already residing with the Cattins when he received the case and he was “instructed to expedite” his recommendation “so that [the] kids would be in guardianship with their grandparents.” His supervisor was Julie Baumgardner; Sallie West was also involved. (Walker has described West as “basically kind of a supervisor.”) Walker testified that West started the process of opening a file for the Hutson case and that his supervisor was generally “very involved with the whole process from start to finish.”

Walker received training at DFS which he described as “basically ... about [the] job and what was expected.” The record does not detail specifics about his training or whether he received additional training when he started working as a relative care worker. He testified that he was aware of the obligations imposed in a 1994 consent decree issued by the federal district court to protect children “from harm while in the custody of Missouri's Division of Family Services.” See G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252, 254 (W.D.Mo.1994). Section II(D)(1) of the decree states that DFS “shall develop and utilize a placement practice guide setting forth policies and procedures to guide social workers' decisions related to placement. DFS shall adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in the placement practice guide.” Id. at 257.

Walker was also aware that social workers were required to initiate a “home study” within 30 days of learning that a friend or family member was willing to provide care and custody to a child. That study would be provided to the family court before a guardianship recommendation was made and was to include background information on the applicant as well as character references. Employees were given a home study outline with questions to ask a potential guardian. They also were given a “Relative and Kinship Home Studies Checklist,” which required the social worker to complete a CA/N check (a check of criminal and child abuse/neglect records) on all household members and a police check on all adults living in the potential guardian's home.

CA/N checks are defined in a Missouri state regulation as “the gathering of facts and records concerning ... relative care providers which may include, but [need] not necessarily be limited to: a review of various automated systems ... as appropriate; and a review of all records, court documents, testimony, child abuse records, as appropriate and all other information relating to any harmful act(s), or alleged harmful act(s) by an applicant....” Mo.Code Regs. tit. 13, § 40–59.020. Another regulation states that social workers at DFS must “conduct background screening and investigation” and references the CA/N check. Mo.Code Regs. tit. 13, § 40–59.030.

Walker has testified that he understood a CA/N check to involve “putting the name

[688 F.3d 481]

of the family in [a] computer system and seeing if they had any record in the system.” He stated that the system would reveal “who the case is about, whoever was involved in the case, every family member in the home at the time of that allegation or that hot-line.” He also explained that it “would tell you what was done, if services were provided to the family.... if the case is still open or closed.... [what] conclusions were met.... [and] if the cases were substantiated or unsubstantiated.” It is unclear from the record whether Walker's supervisors trained him about where other documentation on a family might be available at the agency. Walker was unable to recall when testifying if agency policy required follow up with a family regarding an unsubstantiated allegation of abuse. He testified that it was his understanding that an unsubstantiated allegation could not be used against the family when making a guardianship recommendation.

Walker began the process of writing a home study for the Cattins after he was assigned the case in July 2002. Records from the agency indicate that Walker visited the Cattin home “once a month and was in regular contact” with Carolyn and with the Hutsons. Walker obtained information about the Cattins' marriage, finances, and child rearing practices. Walker testified that he spoke with Carolyn about her prior interactions with the agency, including a case that had been opened on her family in 1996. Carolyn explained to Walker that “the children were out of control at that time and they needed help to try to get them back on track.” Walker also talked to A.H.'s mother, Lynn Hutson, who “repetitively explained to [Walker] that ... Carolyn had not raised [her] brothers, she had abandoned them” and that Lynn had suffered “[m]ultiple situations of abuse.” Walker also testified that he had requested previous agency records about Carolyn and Patrick but had never received them.

It appears that in November 2002 Walker started formalizing the home study on the Cattins for the family court. His study indicated that a CA/N check had been completed for Carolyn on December 6, 2002 and that “there was no history of probable cause finding.” His summary of Carolyn's CA/N check stated that she had been involved with the agency in 1996 when her own children had been “out of control and needed residential treatment.” Walker's study concluded that the case had been closed when the children “ag[ed] out of the system.” It also noted that a criminal check had been completed on Carolyn and Patrick on December 4, 2002 which revealed “no criminal history.” Walker testified that he also completed a CA/N check for Patrick. There was no notation of that check in the home study, but Walker explained that may have been because it had “not pull[ed] up anything.” His home study also included statements from references for the Cattins. They had informed Walker in December 2002 that Carolyn “is a very responsible person” and that the “children are always happy [and] ... safe with the Cattins.”

Walker signed the completed home study on December 8, 2002, and...