McCormick v. Goebel

• Decision Date: 07 February 2023
• Docket Number: 3:19-CV-608 JD
• Parties: RODNEY MCCORMICK, et al. Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE GOEBEL, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

RODNEY MCCORMICK, et al. Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE GOEBEL, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:19-CV-608 JD

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

February 7, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE

In December 2016, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) removed five of Rodney McCormick's children from his care pursuant to a court order finding both probable cause of abuse and exigent circumstances for removal. DCS had received a report earlier that day alleging Mr. McCormick was abusing the children; after investigating, DCS contacted the state court and sought removal. After the children were removed, Mr. McCormick was promptly notified, and a hearing was held within two business days. The Court found there was probable cause to believe abuse occurred and assigned responsibility for custody to DCS. The children were placed in the care of family members, and the case was supervised by a state court throughout.

Mr. McCormick, unsatisfied with his children's continued detention, lodged a campaign of death threats against DCS and the assigned case manager, Michelle Nell (nee Mussman). He also refused to see or be contacted by Ms. Nell. This caused interruption to his visitation and made it difficult to reunite Mr. McCormick with his children. Despite this, DCS and Ms. Nell continued to work adequately on the children's cases. In August 2017, the state court dismissed the children's cases, returning them to their prior custody with their father. In 2019, Mr. McCormick

1

brought this suit on behalf of himself and his children against DCS, Ms. Nell, the initiating caseworker Elizabeth Black, their supervisor, Michelle Goebel, and a number of other parties, alleging violations of his and his children's Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Mr. McCormick alleged the children's emergency seizure violated their Fourth Amendment rights because it was based on misrepresentations by Defendants, that the children's continued detention and interruption of visitation violated his and his children's due process rights to family integrity because they were justified by misrepresentations, that the children's placements violated their due process rights to bodily integrity, and that misrepresentations offered by Defendants to the supervising court violated his and his children's procedural due process rights. Mr. McCormick also alleged the defendants participated in a conspiracy to deprive him and his children of their constitutional rights.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. (DE 34.) The conspiracy allegations were dismissed, as well as all defendants other than Ms. Nell, Ms. Black, and Ms. Goebel. Id. Defendants then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (DE 77.) In response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. McCormick did not deny Defendants' facts or submit a factual statement of his own. Instead, he filed a Motion to Strike consisting of numerous boilerplate hearsay objections without adequate supporting briefing. (DE 86.) The Court does not find these objections meritorious and deems Defendants' statement of facts admitted. Accordingly, there is no dispute of material fact, and the Court grants summary judgment on all Mr. McCormick's claims. Mr. McCormick's conclusory and inadequate briefing also failed to meet his burden to rebut Defendants' qualified immunity defense, justifying a grant of summary judgment on Mr. McCormick's remaining claims.

2

A. Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed. Mr. McCormick is the father of five children: T.M., C.H., A.M., L.M., and Q.M. On December 9, 2016, a Friday, DCS received a complaint from an anonymous source alleging that the children were victims of physical abuse and neglect. At that time, all the children resided with Mr. McCormick at least part-time. Ms. Black, a case worker at DCS, was assigned to perform the initial assessment of the abuse and neglect allegations. On the same day, Ms. Black interviewed the children at their schools. The children reported being repeatedly physically abused and locked out of the house by their father. Their stories were internally consistent and consistent with each other. One child expressed suicidal ideation. After interviewing the children, Ms. Black spoke with school staff, who reported facts consistent with the children's accounts.

On the basis of this information, Ms. Black believed it was in the best interests of the children to obtain an emergency detention order and discussed seeking such an order with Ms. Goebel. They decided to pursue the emergency detention order. That afternoon, Ms. Black testified to a court via phone regarding the children's disclosures and the need for an emergency detention order. The court found probable cause that the children were in need of services, granted the emergency order, and ordered the emergency removal of the children. The children were then removed. Two were placed with relatives, and the others were placed at a foster home. After removal, Ms. Black informed Mr. McCormick of the emergency detention.

Two days later, the children participated in forensic interviews. During these interviews, the children largely confirmed their earlier disclosures. On December 13, 2016, the Monday after the children's removal, the LaPorte Circuit Court held a hearing concerning the children's removal. Mr. McCormick attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. He entered a

3

denial of the abuse allegations. Nevertheless, the court issued an order confirming the removal and the exigency of the removal circumstances. The court further accepted DCS's recommendations regarding placement, services, and programs and ordered DCS to continue to be responsible for placement and care of the children. The children's cases were then transferred from Ms. Black to Ms. Nell.

The relationship between Mr. McCormick and DCS broke down immediately. On December 12, Mr. McCormick called the police and informed them that he would use any force necessary to protect himself and his property against DCS. Thereafter, Mr. McCormick's communications with DCS were characterized by threats of deadly force, threats of litigation, and the frequent use of expletives. On December 30, 2016, Mr. McCormick sent a letter containing death threats via certified mail to DCS. Mr. McCormick also lodged threats at others, including representatives of a family counseling organization, visit supervisors, and one child's relative placement. In light of Mr. McCormick's threats of violence, on January 11, 2017, DCS moved to suspend his visitation until DCS could provide for visitation in a secure setting.

The children remained under DCS care for several months, which were unremarkable save Mr. McCormick's continued threats of violence. Ms. Nell undertook the provision of services to the children, including monitoring their needs, exploring possible family placements for the children in foster care, arranging counseling services, and facilitating sibling visits. During these months, Ms. Nell investigated three complaints of incidents concerning the children, two of which were filed by Mr. McCormick. In each instance, Ms. Nell promptly investigated, often on the same or the next day. Ms. Nell questioned the affected child and the relevant party. In each instance, Ms. Nell determined the allegation was not substantiated, and the children remained in the care of their placement. The following cycle also recurred several

4

times: Ms. Nell attempted to arrange visitation with Mr. McCormick. Mr. McCormick continued his tirade of death threats against Ms. Nell, DCS, the children's relative placements, and the visitation supervisors. Predictably, the visitation supervisors became alarmed and declined to participate further, citing safety concerns. Visitation was suspended for some period while Ms. Nell attempted the Sisyphean task of locating facilities and supervisors for Mr. McCormick's visits. Visitation would resume for some brief amount of time, then again would halt upon repeat of this cycle.

Throughout the children's detention, the state court continued to supervise their cases. Mr. McCormick was afforded a variety of opportunities to be heard. He filed several motions, including a motion to dismiss the CHINS petitions,^[1]a motion to correct error, and a petition for emergency placement. The court conducted hearings, which Mr. McCormick attended, but found Mr. McCormick's arguments unpersuasive and denied his motions. The court also issued orders regarding the children's placement and...