J.E.B. v. Danks, No. A08-2175 (Minn. App. 8/18/2009)
| Decision Date | 18 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A08-2175,A08-2175 |
| Parties | J.E.B., et al., Appellants, v. Debora Danks, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, File No. 62-CV-07-1667, Johnson, Judge.
Paul D. Peterson, Jordan A. Handrich, Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C., Woodbury, MN and Bradford S. Delapena, St. Paul, MN (for appellants)
Daniel L. Palmquist, Amy Walsh Kern, Leonard, Street and Deinard, Minneapolis, MN (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Johnson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
A pre-teen girl confided in a friend by saying that her brother had touched her in inappropriate ways. The friend's mother made a report of possible sexual abuse to the county's child-protection authorities. The girl's family sued the friend's mother, alleging common-law claims of defamation and invasion of privacy and a statutory claim of making a false report of maltreatment of a child. The district court granted summary judgment to the friend's mother on the ground that she is immune from liability pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 4(a)(1) (2008). We affirm the grant of summary judgment but remand to the district court for resolution of a pending motion for attorney fees.
This case arises out of the relationship between two families that live in the same neighborhood in Ramsey County. Each family includes a pre-teen daughter, and the two girls often socialized with each other. On April 30, 2006, while the girls were playing a game they called "Secrets," the girl in appellants' family (whose last name begins with the letter B) told Debora Danks's daughter that a boy in the B family sometimes pulled down her pants and touched her buttocks when they were alone and sometimes put his face near her buttocks.
The Danks girl, who was very concerned by the information, told her parents. The next day, Danks returned from an out-of-town vacation and called Ms. B to request that they meet to discuss a matter, which she did not disclose. When Ms. B visited the Danks home, Danks related what Ms. B's daughter had told Danks's daughter and expressed her concern. During this conversation, Danks mentioned to Ms. B that, as a teacher, Danks may be required by law to report her suspicions of sexual abuse. At the conclusion of a difficult conversation, Ms. B said to Danks that the family would seek therapy.
The B family did visit with a therapist. After an initial assessment on May 16, 2006, the therapist determined that no sexual contact or abuse had occurred. On May 22, 2006 Ms. B informed Danks that the family was in therapy. Ms. B did not tell Danks that the therapist had concluded that no abuse occurred but simply told Danks that "it wasn't what [Danks] was claiming it to be." Danks asked follow-up questions about what the B family had told the therapist and, in the course of doing so, expressed her belief that the B family was not being truthful with the therapist. Ms. B refused to answer all of Danks's follow-up questions.
Because she believed that oral communications were not productive, Danks then began composing an e-mail message to the parents of the B family, which she eventually sent on May 31, 2006. In the e-mail message, Danks expressed her concern about the possible abuse and stated that she was unsure whether she had a responsibility to make a report to the appropriate authorities. She expressed disappointment that the B family had not addressed the problem adequately and concern that the B girl was not being protected. She proposed, as an alternative to her making a report, that she be permitted to contact the B family's therapist directly to tell the therapist what the B girl had told the Danks girl.
The summary judgment record includes a considerable amount of undisputed evidence that Danks deliberated extensively and earnestly over whether she should make a report to the county. Danks testified in deposition that "it was an agonizing time." Before she sent the e-mail messages to the B parents, Danks spoke with her sister and with a friend, neither of whom knows the B family. She said that she felt "just stuck" and did "everything [she] could think of to find a solution." While she was composing her e-mail message, Danks consulted with J.S., another friend and a neighbor of both families who also is a teacher and, thus, familiar with the obligations of a person who is required by law to report suspicions of sexual abuse. When J.S. visited the Danks home one day, Danks showed J.S. a draft of her e-mail message and asked J.S. for advice on whether she should make a report.
In June, the B family began to feel as though people in the community were ostracizing them. Thus, they retained an attorney, Ms. B's brother, to send a letter to Danks, demanding that she stop spreading rumors and to disclose the identities of all persons to whom she had revealed information concerning the B girl's statement about her brother. Danks retained an attorney, who responded in late July 2006 by denying the accusations.
After receiving the letter from the B family's attorney, Danks continued to consider whether she should make a report to the county. She testified in a deposition that she had communications with her attorney on that subject. She also called the Ramsey County Attorney's office to inquire into whether she could report anonymously and to discuss the possibility of legal action by the B family against her. In late July or early August, she made a report to the Ramsey County Child Protection Services department by telephone.
In early September 2006, the county's child-protection services department assigned an investigator to the case. With the consent of the B family, the investigator interviewed the therapist. On the basis of the therapist's assessment that no abuse had occurred, the investigator determined that no maltreatment had occurred, that protective services were not required, and that the report of abuse was "false." In a subsequent deposition, the investigator testified that she had no knowledge whether the reporter knew that the information she conveyed to the county was false and had no reason to believe that the report was made in bad faith. The county took no further action.
In August 2007, members of the B family (the mother, the father, and the son referenced by the girl's original statement) commenced this action against Danks. The complaint alleges five counts — one statutory claim and four common-law claims. In count III, the statutory claim, appellants allege a cause of action under Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 5 (2008), for making a false report. In count I, appellants allege a cause of action of slander based on Danks's alleged disclosures to members of the community and her report to Ramsey County. In count II, appellants allege a cause of action of libel, which also is based on Danks's alleged disclosures to members of the community and her report to Ramsey County. In count IV, appellants allege a cause of action of intrusion upon seclusion based on Danks's follow-up inquiries to Ms. B concerning the information that the B family had provided to the family's therapist. And in count V, appellants allege a cause of action of public disclosure of private facts based on Danks's alleged disclosures of the B girl's secret to "several persons."
In October 2008, the district court granted Danks's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Danks is immune from liability under the statute governing reports of maltreatment of minors. The B family appeals.
A district court must grant a motion for summary judgment "when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. "On an appeal from summary judgment, we ask two questions (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the [district] court[] erred in [its] application of the law." State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). We apply a de novo standard of review to the district court's decision, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008).1
Section 626.556 of the Minnesota Statutes, which was first enacted in 1975 and has been amended numerous times, is intended "to protect children whose health or welfare may be jeopardized through physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse." Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 1 (2008). The legislature "recognized that most parents want to keep their children safe" but that "sometimes circumstances or conditions interfere with their ability to do so" and wished to provide for "interventions that . . . address immediate safety concerns and ongoing risks of child maltreatment." Id. Thus, the legislature sought, among other things, "to require the reporting of neglect, physical or sexual abuse of children in the home, school and community settings" and "to provide for the voluntary reporting of abuse or neglect of children." Id.
To fulfill these expressed policies, the act contains two provisions concerning reports of maltreatment. The first requires certain persons to make a report of maltreatment; the second permits all persons to make a voluntary report of maltreatment. The provision concerning the mandatory duty states:
A person who knows or has reason to believe a child is being neglected or physically or sexually abused, . . . or has been neglected or physically or sexually abused within the preceding three years, shall immediately report the...
To continue reading
Request your trial