Millspaugh v. WABASH CTY. DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE
| Decision Date | 31 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | S86-54.,No. S86-53,S86-53 |
| Citation | 746 F. Supp. 832 |
| Parties | Lois MILLSPAUGH, Plaintiff, v. WABASH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants. Tina DYSON, Plaintiff, v. WABASH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John Johnston, Douglas Lehman, Wabash, Ind., for plaintiffs.
John Lorber, Maggie Mawby Chipman, South Bend, Ind., Gregory R. Lyman, Munster, Ind., for defendants.
Lois Millspaugh and Tina Dyson believe several of their constitutional rights were violated when their county welfare department took their children from them. The defendants they seek to hold liable, child welfare caseworker Manetta Tucker and the Wabash County Department of Public Welfare ("Department"), have moved for summary judgment in separate motions, claiming entitlement to judgment on all of the plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law. Ms. Millspaugh and Ms. Dyson have responded to these motions jointly. Both sides have submitted excerpts from various discovery materials, as well as helpful legal memoranda in support of their positions. The court took the motions under advisement following oral argument on May 10, 1990.
For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
The events leading to these causes surround two child in need of services ("CHINS") actions, see IND. CODE 31-6-4-10, involving the plaintiffs' then-minor daughters, Jean and Paula Millspaugh and Vicki and Renee Dyson, initiated by the Department and Ms. Tucker. During 1984, when the CHINS actions were commenced, Ms. Tucker was employed by the Department to investigate, institute, and process CHINS proceedings.
From approximately September or October, 1982 until early 1984, the plaintiffs lived in Wabash, Indiana and the four children attended public school in that county. The Millspaughs and Dysons apparently resided with Ms. Jewell McLaughlin, leader of Faith Ministries, the religious group of which they are members, in a home on Sivey Street. The plaintiffs report that Faith Ministries is incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana and that the group's religious beliefs include the following: that God will provide all necessities and that His followers will, therefore, take employment upon His direction; belief in prayer for physical healing and administration of medical care only when necessary; placement of little value on worldly possessions except that it is better to give than to receive; and a basic, general belief that all actions should be taken at God's direction. The group engages in religious activities such as fasting, prayer, and homage by lengthy travels.
On February 4, 1984, the plaintiffs left the Sivey Street home with their children, allegedly "stripping" the residence of all possessions and rendering it uninhabitable.1 The plaintiffs took their families to Kokomo, Indiana, where Rev. Bob Merrill housed them, and then to Indianapolis where they stayed with family of Ms. McLaughlin.
The Department reports first learning that the children were potential subjects of a CHINS petition through an anonymous phone call received on February 2, 1984, indicating that the children "were hungry".2 The Department began an investigation into the plaintiffs' care of their children which uncovered: (1) the condition of the residence; (2) the plaintiffs' membership in the Faith Ministries; (3) the daughters' removal from school without any notice; and (4) the plaintiffs' departure to Kokomo to see a Rev. Bob Merrill. Ms. Tucker worked on the case with Judy Mason. She reports visiting the house on Sivey Street, speaking with school administrators and Rev. Merrill, contacting the local Wabash newspaper, neighbors, and other members of the community to inquire about the care the plaintiffs provided for their children. Rev. Merrill told Ms. Tucker that the plaintiffs arrived in Kokomo with the children with no luggage, money, or plans for accommodations.
On February 8, Ms. Tucker and Department Attorney Steve Downs filed a CHINS petition alleging that the Dyson and Millspaugh children were in need of services and, on that same day, Wabash Circuit Court Judge Lynn Ford issued a detention order to take the children into custody. That evening, the Indianapolis police took the children into custody upon presentation of the detention papers to the plaintiffs. The detention papers contained a notice of the detention hearing on February 10 at 9:00 a.m., but neither plaintiff reports seeing that notice, and the mothers were not given copies of the papers. Neither mother appeared at the February 10 detention hearing in Wabash, at which Judge Ford found that the girls required continued detention until further court proceedings, which he scheduled for March.
When the children first were taken into custody, Ms. Tucker went to Indianapolis with an acquaintance of the plaintiffs, Paul Wildridge, and brought the children back to Wabash. Dr. James McCann, who examined the four children upon their return to Wabash, reports that the children were generally healthy and well. Gerald Goldstone, a clinical psychologist, later examined the children and found no emotional or psychological problems other than certain religious views, which he described as unusual, but existent in a minority of the community.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs left Indianapolis on February 9, travelled to Seymour, Indiana for three days, then to Cleveland, Tennessee, where they stayed until around March 7. Ms. Millspaugh reportedly had a telephone conversation with Ms. Tucker on February 17 in which she informed Ms. Tucker that they were travelling under God's direction and that they could receive messages through a Paul Wildridge. The plaintiffs then went to Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, and several suburbs of Washington, D.C.3 The plaintiffs report several conversations with Mr. Wildridge in which he was unable to give any information concerning the Department's proceedings; the plaintiffs contend that Ms. Tucker failed to contact Mr. Wildridge as requested.4
An initial hearing was set in the Millspaugh and Dyson CHINS cases for March 16, and a fact-finding hearing was set for March 23. Notices and summonses were supposedly sent to the plaintiffs through Mr. Wildridge. The plaintiffs, however, report hearing about the court proceedings in early March; they further state that they could not attend because they were on a mission for God and it was not the direction He had given. Lois Millspaugh spoke with Ms. Tucker about the hearing by telephone on March 16.
At the hearing, Judge Ford found that the plaintiffs had actual notice of the hearing and had failed to appear. Charles Millspaugh5 appeared at the March 16 hearing and denied that his daughters were children in need of services. At Mr. Millspaugh's request, the judge reset the fact-finding hearing in his children's case for April 27. Both plaintiffs contacted Ms. Tucker to find out what had happened at the March 16 hearing; Lois Millspaugh called on March 16 and Tina Dyson on March 19. Ms. Tucker reports telling them the nature of the proceedings, that their absence had been noted, and of the next scheduled proceedings and the need for them to attend. The plaintiffs generally report either no knowledge of subsequent proceedings or insufficient notice.
On March 23, a fact-finding hearing was held in the Dyson children's case; Tina Dyson did not appear.6 Judge Ford held that Renee and Vicki Dyson were children in need of services, and set a disposition hearing for May 4. On April 27, a fact-finding was held in the Millspaugh children's case; Lois Millspaugh did not appear. Judge Ford took the matter under advisement pending the report of a study of Mr. Millspaugh's home. The record does not suggest that either plaintiff contacted the Department or the county court to find out what had happened at these hearings.
Lois Millspaugh returned from her travels with Jewell McLaughlin7 on May 17; beginning on May 20, Ms. Millspaugh stayed in Marion, Indiana. She contacted the Department and arranged to meet with her daughters on May 25. Ms. Millspaugh also met with Ms. Tucker on May 25. Ms. Tucker reports telling Ms. Millspaugh that she must get a job and have a stable home to get her daughters back and that she showed Ms. Millspaugh the case plan prepared in her daughters' case. Ms. Millspaugh denies seeing the plan. On May 25, Ms. Millspaugh also accompanied Jewell McLaughlin to the office of attorney John Johnston regarding a problem that Ms. McLaughlin was having with her house. Lois Millspaugh did not engage Mr. Johnston's services at that time.
Ms. Millspaugh left the Wabash-Marion area on May 26, stayed in Seymour, Indiana for a few days and then travelled east, living in various parts of Virginia and Washington, D.C. in June. At the same time, Tina Dyson was also travelling in various parts of Virginia and Washington, D.C. The travelling apparently continued until the fall of 1984. In November, a trip abroad was planned, but eventually abandoned. Throughout this time Lois Millspaugh reports certain Divine directions concerning her travels and the care of her children: there was no need to call after the April 27 hearing; she must continue to travel as was God's direction; and her children would be provided for and be returned to her at God's direction.
Both mothers contend that their daughters were always well-fed were kept clean and neat, had clothes to wear, and always had beds to sleep on while in their mothers' care. They state that all children and adults at the Sivey Street house were well-nourished and clean. The plaintiffs further state that the children attended public school in Wabash and received good grades8 and that their academic success resulted from their religious studies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13
...qualified immunity because child was removed from home on a good faith belief that he was being abused); Millspaugh v. Wabash County Dept. Public Welfare, 746 F.Supp. 832 (N.D.Ind.1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1991) (county child welfare worker who initiated petitions for removal of......
-
Millspaugh v. County Dept. of Public Welfare of Wabash County
...of this violates the first amendment, the mothers submit. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. 746 F.Supp. 832 (N.D.Ind.1990). The district court concluded that the mothers had not established a causal link between the Department's policies and their loss.......
-
A. T. v. Marion Cnty. Dep't of Child Servs.
...In CHINS proceedings, "the law recognizes the state's interest in protection of children . . . ." Millspaugh v. Wabash Cty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 746 F. Supp. 832, 848 (N.D. Ind. 1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1991). The complaint seeks review in this federal court of decisions made......
-
Tewell v. Marion Cnty. Dept. of Child Servs.
...proceedings implicate important state interests in the health and welfare of children. See, e.g., Millspaugh v. Wabash Cty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 746 F. Supp. 832, 848 (N.D. Ind. 1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir. 1991). Tewell has an adequate opportunity in the CHINS proceedings to rai......