Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.

Decision Date25 August 2011
Docket NumberCase No. 1:05CV2746.
PartiesNancy KOVACIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jay F. Crook, Wickliffe, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Steven W. Ritz, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in this case are Daniel and Katherine Kovacic, who were both minors when this suit was filed. Plaintiffs allege civil rights violations against various county and city entities and individual municipal employees and seek damages resulting from the warrantless entry into their home and their temporary removal from the care and custody of their mother, Nancy Kovacic. Following appeal and remand from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the remaining defendants include Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS), and social workers, Patricia Campbell Ponstingle, Pam Cameron, Vikki Csornok and Pam Gaylord (collectively, defendants).

Before the Court are the motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs (Doc. 120) and defendants (Doc. 121). Defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 125). Plaintiffs oppose defendants' motion (Doc. 129), and defendants have filed a reply brief (Doc. 131). For the reasons that follow, the dispositive motions are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The history of this case dates back to 1995, when, following the contentious divorce of Nancy and Tom Kovacic, CCDCFS began receiving reports of alleged abuse and neglect by Nancy of the couple's two children, Katherine and Daniel, including one incident where Daniel allegedly stabbed his mother with a pen. Mr. Kovacic had also reportedly assaulted Daniel.

On March 1, 2002, the CCDCFS social worker assigned to the case, Patricia Campbell Ponstingle, interviewed Daniel at his school. Daniel told Ponstingle that his mother hit him on a regular basis and had given his sister a bloody nose “awhile ago for being too loud.” On March 22, 2002, Ponstingle scheduled an intervention meeting or “staffing” for March 26, 2002 to address the abuse allegations and discuss the service options available to keep the family “intact.” CCDCFS had not contemplated removal of the Kovacic children at that time.

Plaintiffs contend that on the morning of March 26, 2002, Ponstingle called Ms. Kovacic to tell her that the staffing was postponed until the following day. Defendants, however, maintain that Ms. Kovacic requested the change because she was unavailable that day. Whatever the reason, it is undisputed that Ms. Kovacic did not appear at the CCDCFS offices on March 26, 2002, but other members of the Kovacic family did, including Nancy's ex-husband, Mr. Kovacic, his father Ed Kovacic and his sister Colleen Kovacic–Nola. North Olmsted Police Officers Chung, Calvitti and Sergeant Kilbane also appeared. Despite the absence of Ms. Kovacic, CCDCFS employees agreed to meet with Kovacic family members and the police officers.

During the meeting, the Kovacics and the police officers advised the social workers that Nancy had been exhibiting disturbing behavior that was “escalating.” They also expressed their belief that Daniel and Katherine were in “imminent risk” of physical harm from Ms. Kovacic. The police officers detailed their encounters with Ms. Kovacic, including two incidents dating back to 1995, when Nancy allegedly filed a false kidnapping report against Mr. Kovacic and stole a gun from his home, which she maintained she removed to protect Daniel and Katherine. The officers also advised the social workers of problems Nancy had with neighbors, reports of her dog running loose, her allegedly angry outburst following a traffic accident, and numerous “nebulous” reports she filed alleging that Mr. Kovacic had violated a protective order. The officers also recounted interactions between Nancy and Colleen Kovacic–Nola, including allegations that Nancy yelled and screamed at Colleen on March 15, 2002, and that Colleen filed an assault report against Nancy on March 22, 2002. The assault charge was eventually dismissed. Officer Chung and Sergeant Kilbane both expressed their belief that Nancy had the potential to be violent toward her children.

Based on this information, CCDCFS representatives determined that the Kovacic children were at a more elevated risk than they first thought, and determined it was immediately necessary to remove Daniel and Katherine from Nancy's home in light of their belief that the children were in imminent danger of physical harm.

That same day, defendant Ponstingle, after seeking approval from her supervisor and receiving the signature of the assigned assistant prosecuting attorney, caused the execution of a Temporary Emergency Care (TEC) Order, which permits CCDCFS employees to remove children on an emergency basis prior to a judicial hearing.1

With TEC order in hand, defendant Ponstingle, accompanied by North Olmsted police officers went to Ms. Kovacic's home. When Ms. Kovacic refused to let the police enter her home, the officers forced their way in, and Ponstingle followed. Ponstingle then removed Daniel and Katherine from the home without further incident.

The next day, March 27, 2002, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Dorothy Reichenback prepared and filed a Complaint for Temporary Custody in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. The juvenile court conducted a shelter hearing on March 29, 2002. Ms. Kovacic was present at hearing and was represented by counsel. The magistrate issued an order finding that “there is probably cause for removal of the children ...” and granted temporary custody of the Kovacic children to CCDCFS. (Doc. 121–14.) Nancy did not appeal the magistrate's decision despite an opportunity to do so.

The Kovacic children were not returned to Ms. Kovacic until approximately ten months later when, after transfer of the action to the Lake County Juvenile Court, the matter was dismissed on November 7, 2003, upon finding no adjudication of the CCDCFS's complaint within the time frame mandated by Ohio Rev.Code § 2151.35(B)(1).

The present action was filed on November 28, 2005 by Ms. Kovacic on behalf of herself and her children asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, for municipal liability, and for various state law violations. On defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42), this Court dismissed Nancy's claims, finding those claims barred by the statute of limitations in Ohio for § 1983 actions and state law tort claims. (Doc. 88 at 10–14.) The Court also dismissed the children's federal claims related to the removal of Daniel and Katherine from their home pursuant to the RookerFeldman2 doctrine. ( Id. at 14–18.)

The Court found, however, that it retained jurisdiction over the remaining claims related to the warrantless entry into the Kovacic home. ( Id. at 18.) The Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the children's claims involving the warrantless entry. ( Id. at 18–23.) Specifically, this Court held that the record did not support a finding that exigent circumstances existed when the police forcibly entered plaintiffs' home without a warrant. ( Id. at 18–21.) The Court also held that the juvenile court's post-removal determination did not touch upon the Fourth Amendment violation alleged in the suit and, thus, was not entitled to preclusive effect. ( Id. at 21–23.)

The Court also denied defendants' summary judgment motion as to the plaintiffs' municipal liability claims against the City of North Olmsted and Cuyahoga County, finding that CCDCFS had a policy of obtaining TEC Orders and the assistance of local police to justify the warrantless entry into homes to remove children at risk. The Court held that this policy was the “moving force” behind the warrantless entry into the Kovacic home. ( Id. at 23–27.) As well, the Court denied requests for absolute and qualified immunity made by defendant Ponstingle and the police officers who entered plaintiffs' home without a warrant. Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' § 1985 conspiracy claim and state law tort claims.

Following the Court's ruling on defendants' summary judgment motion, the North Olmsted defendants reached a settlement with plaintiffs. Defendant Ponstingle filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Court's ruling denying her qualified immunity with respect to the illegal entry claims. Defendant Ponstingle and plaintiffs reached a settlement with regard to the immunity issue raised by Ponstingle on interlocutory appeal. The Court then dismissed plaintiffs' unlawful entry claim against all defendants, including plaintiffs' related municipal liability claim against the City of North Olmsted. The remaining defendants thus were Cuyahoga County and the CCDCFS employees.

Plaintiffs appealed the Court's dismissal of Nancy's claims on statute of limitations grounds and the dismissal of the children's clams under the RookerFeldman doctrine. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of Ms. Kovacic's claims, but reversed the dismissal of the children's claims and remanded those claims as not barred by RookerFeldman. Following remand, the remaining claims are Katherine and Daniel Kovacic's constitutional claims asserting violations of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful seizure) and the Fourteenth Amendment (substantive and procedural due process) (Counts II, III, and IV) as against the individual social workers, and their municipal liability claim against the County (portion of Count V).

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment brought by plaintiffs and defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiffs seek summary judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of fact that no exigent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Andrews v. Hickman Cnty., Tenn.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 3, 2012
    ...actions. See Baxter v. Daughtery, No. 5:08–485, 2010 WL 3620247 (E.D.Ky. Sept. 10, 2010); Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 809 F.Supp.2d 754 (N.D.Ohio 2011). The instant case was heard in the Middle District of Tennessee, and the Walsh decision is not sufficient ......
  • Clark v. Stone
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • July 28, 2020
    ...to use corporal punishment, it alone could deprive Plaintiffs of a fundamental right. Id. ; Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. , 809 F. Supp. 2d 754, 781–82 (N.D. Ohio 2011), aff'd , 724 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013).The Sixth Circuit has recognized an exception to the g......
  • Dorazio v. Coulson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • January 30, 2017
    ...after their children were removed by government actors dealing with child abuse allegations. See e.g. Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 809 F. Supp.2d 754 (N. D. Ohio 2011, aff'd. 724 F.3d 687 6th Cir. 2013)(denial of summary judgment on absolute immunity and qua......
  • Stephens v. Hamilton Cnty. Jobs & Family Servs., Case No. 1:12cv603.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 2, 2014
    ...custody proceedings under Ohio Revised Code § 2151.31. [46 F.Supp.3d 760] Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 809 F.Supp.2d 754, 773 (N.D.Ohio 2011), aff'd and remanded, 724 F.3d 687 (6th Cir.2013). Instead, it is the county, acting as an arm of the State of Ohio wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Child's Constitutional Right to Family Integrity and Counsel in Dependency Proceedings
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 72-4, 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...family integrity extends to all family members, both parents and children."); Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 809 F. Supp. 2d 754, 776 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (observing that "[c]ourts have held that [the right to family integrity] extends to both parents and their childre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT