J.T.H. v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20 CV 222 ACL |
| Parties | J.T.H. and H.D.H., Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the Complaint of Plaintiffs asserting various civil rights and state law claims against Defendants Missouri Department of Social Services ("DSS"), Children's Division ("CD") and Spring Cook, arising out of a CD investigation concerning Plaintiffs' minor son. Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 11.) Also pending are Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 13) and Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 44).
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's minor son was sexually abused by Scott County Sheriff's Deputy Brandon Cook in May 2018. Cook was a colleague of the Plaintiff Father, who was also a Scott County deputy. Cook groomed the minor for sexual abuse through various social activities and a smartphone app called Grindr. The sexual abuse took place in Cook's marked patrol car while Cook was in uniform. Shortly after the incident, Cook was arrested by the Missouri State Highway Patrol ("MSHP") for second-degree statutory sodomy.
In September 2018, Plaintiff Father, through counsel and as a next friend of his minor son, asserted a claim against Scott County for the incident with Cook.
On November 7, 2018, Spring Cook, a CD director/circuit manager, appeared at Plaintiffs' family home with a deputy juvenile officer ("JO") and MSHP troopers reporting that there had been a hotline call regarding Plaintiffs' minor son. Plaintiffs state that Spring Cook routinely works "hand-in-glove" with certain Scott County Sheriff's Deputies. (Doc. 1 at 4-5.) Cook and the troopers interviewed Plaintiffs' minor son at that time, and on three other occasions—November 9, 2018, November 10, 2018, and November 13, 2018. Plaintiffs then refused further home visits by Defendant Cook.
By letter from Plaintiffs' counsel dated November 23, 2018, and by telephone call from counsel, Plaintiffs requested that Spring Cook recuse herself from investigating the parents and refer the investigation to a CD office in another county. Plaintiffs allege that such recusal is customary for matters involving local law enforcement families, "because of the reality that local law enforcement routinely works hand-in-glove with the local county Children's Division office." (Doc. 1 at 6.) Plaintiffs declined a referral to SEMO-NASV for a physical examination of the son on the basis that there had been no recent assault, and any such inspection would traumatize the boy. Cook also proposed that the parents submit a parenting plan.
On January 7, 2019, Cook made a preliminary finding under a preponderance of evidence standard of parental child neglect. Cook's finding was based on the following three incidents: (1) Brandon Cook's sexual abuse of the son; (2) the son's Facebook messaging about sex and alleged sexual abuse by another adult, a local Tae Kwan Do instructor ("Instructor"); upon learning of the abuse, Plaintiff Father confronted the Instructor while Plaintiffs' daughter and her friend were nearby in a car, the Instructor responded by assaulting Plaintiff Father; PlaintiffFather de-escalated the situation by not responding with physical force and retreating; Plaintiff Father did not report the assault; and (3) a benign, age-appropriate out-of-state date the minor son went on with his mother's permission. Cook focused her findings of neglect on the fact that Plaintiffs allowed the minor son—who was sixteen at the time—usage of the internet on his iPhone, and permitted him to drive a vehicle across state lines to go on an age-appropriate date.
Cook referred the matter to a JO, who conducted his own independent investigation and found there was "no evidence" to support an allegation of parental neglect. Id. at 10. The JO's finding had no effect on Cook's finding.
Plaintiffs timely filed an administrative appeal of Cook's finding. As part of the administrative review triggered by Plaintiffs' appeal, Cook reviewed her own investigatory work and upheld her finding of neglect.
Plaintiffs next sought review by the CD's Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board ("CANRB"). On August 27, 2019, the CANRB conducted a hearing in Jefferson City, Missouri, in which Spring Cook participated by telephone and without counsel, and Plaintiffs appeared in person and with individual counsel. Two days later, the CANRB issued letters holding that the findings of neglect were unsubstantiated as to each parent under a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Neither Plaintiff was listed on the Missouri Child Abuse and Neglect Registry ("Central Registry").
Plaintiffs allege they were subject to an investigation by the FBI concerning "substantially similar charges" regarding their minor son in March 2020. (Doc. 1 at p. 16.) Plaintiffs believe that two FBI agents visited Spring Cook's office. One of the FBI agents then questioned Plaintiffs' daughter at length about the minor son's sexuality and sexual conduct.Plaintiffs' daughter was told that she was the only member of the family who was known by "the authorities" to be cooperative. Id. at 17. The FBI never followed-up with any other family members, and eventually closed the investigation. Plaintiffs allege that Spring Cook contacted the FBI in frustration that the CANRB did not substantiate her earlier allegation and/or in retaliation against Plaintiffs.
The Complaint set forth five counts. In Count I, Plaintiffs request prospective, declaratory relief against CD for violating Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights. Count II seeks to enjoin CD from enforcing allegedly unconstitutional procedures in resolving reports of abuse made to the State of Missouri's Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline. In Count III, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Spring Cook, in her individual capacity, retaliated against Plaintiffs for making allegations against Scott County and its Sheriff by investigating and making a finding of child neglect against Plaintiffs in violation of their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Count IV alleges that Spring Cook, in her individual capacity, violated Plaintiffs' right to procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Count V, Plaintiffs assert a state law malicious prosecution claim against Spring Cook for investigating and making findings against Plaintiffs for child neglect.
The Court's summary of the State procedure was taken primarily from Defendants' Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12 at 7-23), and is provided for background.
CD is a Division within DSS charged by law with "establish[ing] a child protection system for the entire state" of Missouri. § 210.109.1 RSMo. Reports of child abuse or neglect are called in to the central Child Abuse Hotline and recorded in the information system. §210.145.1 RSMo. After the Central Abuse Hotline receives the report and determines that there is enough information to merit an investigation or family assessment, the report and any relevant information is transmitted to the local CD office. § 210.145.2 RSMo. Reports of child abuse or neglect that, if true, would constitute a suspected violation of a crime under chapter 566 if the victim is a child less than eighteen years of age merit a CD investigation and trigger CD's obligation to report to law enforcement. § 210.145.3 RSMo.
The local office then determines if the case should be handled as an investigation or family assessment and services, and commence that process within certain time frames. §§ 210.145.3, 210.145.8 RSMo.; 13 CSR 35-31.025. Local CD can decide to handle a case as an assessment rather than investigation by assessing the needs of the family and offering services; however, if CD determines that the child is at risk of abuse or neglect and the family declines to accept voluntary services, CD may commence an investigation. §§ 210.145.15, 210.145.16 RSMo. If local CD decides to handle the case as an investigation, CD is required to contact and work with law enforcement in all aspects of the investigation. § 210.145.7 RSMo. If the local office decides to proceed, a timely investigation must be commenced. § 210.145.8 RSMo.; 13 CSR 35-31.020(6). In most cases, this includes directly observing the child within 24-72 hours. Id. Section 210.145.10 RSMo defines the scope of the investigation as follows:
The investigation shall include but not be limited to the nature, extent, and cause of the abuse or neglect; the identity and age of the person responsible for the abuse or neglect; the names and conditions of other children in the home, if any; the home environment and the relationship of the subject child to the parents or other persons responsible for the child's care; any indications or incidents of physical violence against any other household or family member; and other pertinent data.
Once CD has completed the investigation and decided whether to make a finding of child abuse or neglect, it must update the information system and give timely written notice of thedecision to the alleged perpetrator and the child's parents. § 210.152.2 RSMo. If CD determines that a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of child abuse or neglect it will issue a preliminary finding, copies of which are sent to the alleged perpetrator and the child's parents. § 210.152.2 RSMo.; 13 CSR 35-31.025(2). CD will not list the individual as a perpetrator of child abuse or neglect in the Central Registry until the alleged perpetrator has been given notice and opportunity for administrative review. 13 CSR 35-31.025.
The Central Registry is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial