Nelson v. Freeman, 80-0874-CV-W-1.
Decision Date | 07 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 80-0874-CV-W-1.,80-0874-CV-W-1. |
Citation | 537 F. Supp. 602 |
Parties | Amy NELSON, by her next friend, Robert J. Wharton, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David R. FREEMAN, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
John E. McKay, Benson & McKay, Kansas City, Mo., J. D. Williamson, Jr., Independence, Mo., for plaintiffs.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., State of Mo., Michael L. Boicourt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for State defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF STATE DEFENDANTS
Pending are (1) plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and sanctions pursuant to Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P. and (2) defendants'1 motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiffs' motion will be denied and defendants' motion will be granted for reasons we now state.
This case stems from the tragic incident of child abuse that caused the untimely death of eight year old Tammy Nelson. Plaintiffs are Amy, Frank and Mike Nelson, minor sister and brothers, respectively, of the deceased Tammy Nelson, proceeding by their next friend, Robert W. Wharton; and James A. Nelson, natural father of Tammy Nelson. Defendant Freeman is named in the complaint in his official capacity as State Director of the Missouri Division of Family Services (hereinafter referred to as D. F. S.); Lewis is named as Jackson County Director of D. F. S.; Donaldson2 is named as supervisor of defendants Keatings and White; Keatings and White are named as employees of D. F. S. whose duties include investigation of "hotline" calls wherein child abuse and mistreatment of Missouri children are reported.
The complaint alleges that:
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and sanctions is premised upon the failure of defendants to file a timely answer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint of July 29, 1981. As noted, the first amended complaint is identical to the original complaint but for the addition of defendant Donaldson. Defendants' answer to the amended complaint was filed October 26, 1981. Plaintiffs did not object to the filing of the answer at that time. The Court finds that defendants' neglect to file a timely answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint is excusable and that plaintiffs were not prejudiced as a result. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and for sanctions will therefore be denied.
In defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and sanctions, defendants move the Court for entry of an order granting leave to file the October 26, 1981 answer out of time. That motion will be granted nunc pro tunc.
Plaintiffs invoke only this Court's diversity jurisdiction. This Court is therefore under duty to apply the law of Missouri to the claims alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). It should be kept in mind that plaintiffs do not even attempt to allege a Section 1983 action.
Defendants state the following three State law grounds in support of their motion for summary judgment: (1) the doctrine of official immunity protects each defendant from liability; (2) Section 210.135, R.S.Mo. (1978) immunizes the defendants from liability, and (3) the plaintiffs' complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, under applicable Missouri law, the defendants, as officials and employees of the State of Missouri, owed no specific duty to plaintiffs.
The first two State law grounds raise defenses of immunity; the third ground presents the question of whether, under Missouri tort law, a cause of action has been stated by the allegations of the complaint. Because we conclude that no cause of action has been stated under Missouri law, we need not and therefore do not reach the first two grounds asserted in support of defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The current child abuse statute in Missouri, §§ 210.110-210.160, V.A.M.S. (1981 Supp.), is designed to encourage the reporting of suspected cases of child abuse to the Missouri Division of Family Services. See generally, Krause, Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Legislation In Missouri, 42 Mo.L.Rev. 207 (1977). It is also designed to fulfill "the promise of case-finding legislation ... that when a case is found, something will be done about it." Paulsen, The Legal Framework For Child Protection, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 679, 716 (1966).
The first objective is accomplished by creation of a statutory duty in a class of professional persons and others "with responsibility for the care of children" to report known or suspected cases of child abuse. § 210.115(1). All other persons are permitted to make reports under § 210.115(4).
The second objective is furthered by requiring the local D. F. S. office to investigate reported cases of child abuse and, if necessary, provide "protective services" or contact the appropriate law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Horridge v. ST. MARY'S CTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES
... ... I accept the majority's position that, to it, Nelson v. Freeman, 537 F.Supp. 602 (W.D.Mo.1982), is not persuasive. I wish it were. In fact, I do not ... ...
-
DOE A v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis County
... ... Kanagawa v. Missouri ex rel. Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Mo. banc 1985). The characterization of an act as discretionary turns upon ... Nelson v. Freeman, 537 F.Supp. 602, 605-06 (W.D.Mo.1982). Specifically, §§ 210.115(1) and (2) provide ... ...
-
Horridge v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services, No. 80, September Term, 2003 (MD 7/28/2004)
... ... Bd., 750 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio 2001), Beebe v. Franktman, 921 P.2d 216 (Kan. App. 1996), and Nelson v. Freeman, 537 F.Supp. 602 (W.D.Mo.1982), aff'd, 706 F.2d 276 (8 th Cir.1983) — which are ... ...
-
Boyle v. City of Liberty, Mo.
... ... Supp. 1442 created is to the public, and not to individuals. Nelson v. Freeman, 537 F.Supp. 602, 611 (W.D.Mo.1982) aff'd sub nom., Nelson v. Missouri Division of ... ...