Melleady v. Blake

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
• Writing for the Court: NOEL L. HILLMAN
• Decision Date: 15 December 2011
• Docket Number: Civil No. 11-1807 (NLH/KMW)
• Citation: Melleady v. Blake, Civil No. 11-1807 (NLH/KMW) (D. N.J. Dec 15, 2011)
• Parties: JOHN MELLEADY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLISON BLAKE, et al., Defendants.

JOHN MELLEADY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLISON BLAKE, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 11-1807 (NLH/KMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: December 15, 2011

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

John Melleady

Virginia Keefer

Pro Se

Karen Lee Jordan, Esquire

Office of New Jersey Attorney General

Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Law

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

Attorney for Defendants Allison Blake, Christine Norbut-

Moses, Kathryn J. Way, Anne Milgram, Jamie Millard-Tindall,

Gregory Rappaport, Larry Moon, Marcella Haddon, Brian

Jakubowski, Taiwo Williams, Tiffany Jubb, Regina Floyd-

Jones, Terry McNellis, Deserre Whiteside, Gina Tracy, Janet

Boyle, Deborah Parker, Crystal Bates, Janet Foley, and San

Payne

Brian C. Darreff, Esquire

Earp Cohn P.C.

Attorney for Defendants Frank Borelli, Helen Divens, Joseph

Sottosanti, and Delsea Regional School District

Steven D. Wallach, Esquire

Attorney for Defendant Brent Brendle

Kelly A. Samuels, Esquire

Office of New Jersey Attorney General

Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Law Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

Attorney for Defendant Judge Mary K. White

Rahat N. Babar, Esquire

Office of New Jersey Attorney General

Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Law

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

Attorney for Defendant David Garnes, Esquire

HILLMAN, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court by way of five separate motions [Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 15, 26, 32] to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint filed by various Defendants in this action. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion [Doc. No. 18] for the Court to address policies and practices of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services. The Court has considered the parties' motions and the oppositions thereto, and decides this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

For the reasons expressed below, Defendants' motions are granted, and Plaintiffs' motion is dismissed as moot.

I. JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs, John Melleady and Virginia Keefer, bring this civil rights complaint against multiple defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Removal of Children from Plaintiffs' Home

Plaintiffs, John Melleady and Virginia Keefer, a married couple, filed the complaint in this action pro se on March 30, 2011 against thirty-three defendants. (See generally Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) According to the complaint, Plaintiffs commenced this action "because children were illegally, forcibly - kidnapped [sic] [from their home] on known erroneous, fabricated, and unsubstantiated allegations." (Pls.' Compl. ¶ 15.) As demonstrated by several exhibits attached to the complaint, Plaintiffs' claims arise from the removal of both their adopted son, ("S.K"), and their foster son, ("D.L."), from their home in November of 2008 and subsequent proceedings in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division - Family Part for Gloucester County, ("Family Court").

The Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS"¹), a branch of New Jersey's Department of Children and Families, has been involved with Plaintiffs' family since approximately 2004 when S.K. began living with Plaintiffs. (DYFS Contact Sheet, Ex. 4 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-2] 1.) Plaintiffs formally adopted S.K. in 2007, but as noted by DYFS, "[s]ince the adoption with the [Plaintiffs], [S.K.'s] adoptive home has not been ideal" and there were several referrals to DYFS regarding S.K. not "getting along" with his adoptive mother, Plaintiff Keefer. (Id.) In August of 2008, after a referral was made, DYFS substantiated a claim for child neglect against Plaintiffs for locking S.K., then fifteen (15) years old, out of the family home. (Id.) After this claim was substantiated, DYFS placed S.K. in a shelter for a two-week "cooling off period," and S.K. was later returned to Plaintiffs' home. (Id. at 2.)

Several months later, in October of 2008, S.K. informed a DYFS employee that Plaintiff Keefer had become "increasingly controlling and verbally abusive" to S.K., and S.K. reported that he did not feel he could remain in Plaintiffs' home as a result. (Id.) On November 7, 2008, while waiting for a court date with regard to S.K.'s October 2008 allegations, the DYFS employee working on S.K.'s case received a call from another DYFS employeewho served as the permanency supervisor for Plaintiffs' foster child, D.L. (Id.) D.L.'s permanency supervisor noted that DYFS was recommending that D.L. be placed with a new foster family in light of the difficulties Plaintiff Keefer was having with her adopted son, S.K. -- specifically, the substantiated claim for child neglect when S.K. was locked out of the family home. (Id.; see also Verified Am. Compl. for Custody, Care and Supervision, Ex. 39 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-6] ¶¶ 9a-9c.) D.L.'s permanency supervisor further indicated that DYFS planned to go to Plaintiffs' home that same evening to remove D.L. from Plaintiffs' care and place D.L. with a new foster family. (DYFS Contact Sheet, Ex. 4 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-2] 2-3; see also Verified Am. Compl. for Custody, Care and Supervision, Ex. 39 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-6] ¶¶ 9a-9c.)

Upon learning of the plans to remove D.L. from Plaintiffs' home, the DYFS employees assigned to S.K.'s case determined that S.K. "was now at imminent risk of harm" as a result of DYFS removing D.L. from Plaintiffs' care and placing D.L. with a new foster family since Plaintiffs were trying to adopt D.L. (DYFS Contact Sheet, Ex. 4 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-2] 3.) Specifically, DYFS employees were concerned that Plaintiffs would "act out in anger toward" S.K. because D.L. was removed from thehome.² (Id.; see also Screening Summary dated November 7, 2008, Ex. 6 to Pls.' Compl. [1-2] 1.) However, even prior to November 7, 2008, DYFS was preparing to obtain custody, care, and supervision of S.K. because there "were serious concerns about [S.K.] being neglected and emotionally abused in [Plaintiffs'] home." (DYFS Contact Sheet, Ex. 4 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-2] 3; see also Investigation Summary, Ex. 14 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-3] 12) ("Neglect substantiated according to Allegations Based System for Lock-out as the parent or caregiver denied the child access to the home and refused or failed to make provisions for another arrangement for the child. [Plaintiff] Keefer and [Plaintiff] Melleady both stated that they intentionally locked [S.K.] out of their home for at least a half an hour. [S.K.] did not have access to the home and had to climb in the basement window.")

Accordingly, on November 7, 2008, Plaintiffs signed the necessary paperwork, and S.K. was removed³ from Plaintiffs' homeon an emergent basis. (Notice of Emergency Removal, Ex. 22 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-4] 1-2.) A hearing was then held on November 12, 2008 in the Family Court, and DYFS was granted custody, care, and supervision of S.K. (DYFS Contact Sheet, Ex. 4 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-2] 3.) Following subsequent proceedings, the Family Court entered a Permanency Order on August 18, 2010 in which the Family Court found that "[i]t is not and will not be safe to return the child(ren) home in the foreseeable future because defendants refuse psychological evaluation and child is 1[7] and refuses counseling and refuses to return home." (August 18, 2010 Permanency Order, Ex. 41 to Pls.' Compl. [Doc. No. 1-6] ¶ I(b).) The Family Court further determined that "[t]he minor [S.K.] is unable to thrive in a family setting and will do well in an independent living program because: defendants refuse psychological evaluation and child is 17 and refuses counseling and refuses to return home." (Id. ¶ IV(b).)

B. Defendants in this Action

In the complaint, Plaintiffs named the following thirty-three Defendants: (1) Allison Blake, Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families; (2) Kathryn Way, DYFS Area Director; (3) Deborah Watt,⁴ DYFS Regional Director; (4) Deborah Parker, DYFS Manager; (5) Crystal Bates, DYFS Caseworker; (6)Tiffany Jubb, DYFS Caseworker; (7) Gina Tracy, DYFS Caseworker Supervisor; (8) Janet Foley, DYFS Supervisor; (9) Taiwo Williams, DYFS Caseworker; (10) Jan Fisher,⁵ DYFS Supervisor; (11) Terry McNellis, Litigation Specialist; (12) Deserre Whiteside,⁶Resource Specialist; (13) Regina Floyd-Jones, DYFS Supervisor; (15) Janet Boyle, Resource Specialist; (15) Brian Jakubowski, DYFS Caseworker; (16) Larry Moon, DYFS Supervisor; (17) Marcella Haddon, DYFS Supervisor; (18) Gregory Rappaport, DYFS Supervisor; (19) San Payne, DYFS Manager; (20) Frank Borelli, Superintendent of the Delsea Regional School District; (21) Joseph Sottosanti of the Delsea Regional High School; (22) Helen Divens, Vice Principal at Delsea Regional High School; (23) Delsea Regional High School; (24) Christine Norbut-Moses,⁷ Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families; (25) Judge Mary K. White, J.S.C.; (26) Jaime Millard-Tindall,⁸ Deputy Attorney General; (27) Brent Brendle,⁹ therapist with Family Services ofBurlington, Inc.; (28) Debra Bowen;¹⁰ (29) Noeline Lewis;¹¹ (30) Joseph Lewis;¹² (31) David Garnes, Esquire, Law Guardian to S.K.; (32) Anne Milgram, former Attorney General; and (33) Peter Fiorentino,¹³ Esquire, Plaintiffs' attorney. (Pls.' Compl. 1-5.)

C. Allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint

As a result of the removal of S.K. and D.L. and the related Family Court proceedings, Plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a number of state law claims, including defamation, libel, slander, abuse of process, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Pls.' Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22, 28, 39-41, 43, 50-51, 62, 64, 86, 91.)

Initially, the Court notes that Plaintif...