Nelson v. Green

• Decision Date: 15 August 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:06–cv–00070.
• Parties: John T. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. Lori GREEN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

965 F.Supp.2d 732

John T. NELSON, Plaintiff,

v.Lori GREEN, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:06–cv–00070.

United States District Court,

W.D. Virginia,

Charlottesville Division.

Aug. 15, 2013.

Gretchen Ann Jackson, Harry Robert Yates, III, Lee Elton Goodman, LeClairRyan, Charlottesville, VA, Thomas Marshall Wolf, LeClairRyan, PC, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff.

John Walter Zunka, James Craig Zunka, Zunka, Milnor & Carter, Ltd., Richard Hustis Milnor, Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter Ltd., Charlottesville, VA, M. Eve Grandis Campbell, William D. Bayliss, Brendan David O'Toole, Williams Mullen, Richmond, VA, for Defendants.

Memorandum Opinion

NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on two motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint: a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Cindy Casey, John Freeman, Lori Green, and Kathy Ralston (“Defendants”), and a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Viola Vaughan–Eden (“Vaughan–Eden”). Plaintiff filed an opposition to both, and Defendants and Vaughan–Eden filed replies. For the following reasons, I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I–IV and VI of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and I will grant Vaughan–Eden's motion to dismiss Counts I, II, VI and VII. I will grant Plaintiff leave to amend Count V of his Second Amended Complaint as to all defendants.

I. Background

This case stems from Plaintiff's allegation that four employees of the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (“ACDSS”), along with a social worker who worked at their direction, abused their official positions and government powers to coerce Plaintiff's daughter to falsely accuse her father of sexual abuse. Plaintiff filed his original complaint in December 2006, and this case was stayed until the underlying state court proceedings concluded. On January 9, 2013, the Circuit Court of Albemarle County (Higgins, J.) entered a final order, and no appeal was filed.

Plaintiff and the mother of his daughter, who is now twelve years old, were never married. Starting in 2003 and into 2004, in the midst of a custody battle, the mother began alleging that Plaintiff had sexually abused their child. Plaintiff states that the four ACDSS Defendants became aware of the case around that time, as the mother brought the child to various therapists, doctors, and emergency rooms for evaluations. Plaintiff states that several therapists reported to Green, a case worker for Child Protective Services (“CPS”) (an office of ACDSS), that the mother's allegations were false, and that the mother was attempting to coach the child or manipulate the therapists into making a false finding of abuse.¹ Plaintiff states that one of those medical examinations, which took place at the U.Va. Medical Center's Emergency Room, prompted a report that was sent to the Defendants about the mother's conduct.

In August 2004, the mother presented her allegations to Judge Berry, of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court for the City of Charlottesville (J & DR Court). Judge Berry rejected the mother's allegations that Plaintiff had abused their child. The J & DR Court order, dated August 10, 2004, required that any future request by the mother to take the child to a therapist had to be approved by the J & DR Court's therapist, Wendy Carroll. That order also required that an ACDSS employee or designee accompany the child to any future evaluation.

The ACDSS Defendants began investigating the mother's allegations several months later, in December 2004. According to Plaintiff, the four ACDSS Defendants intentionally violated the J & DR Court's order by sending the child to be questioned by Vaughan–Eden without obtainingWendy Carroll's prior approval.² Plaintiff also states that Wendy Carroll, the child's guardian ad litem, had specifically objected to any evaluation by Vaughan–Eden, who is a licensed clinical social worker in private practice in Newport News, Virginia.³ Defendants further violated Judge Berry's order by failing to accompany Plaintiff's daughter on all visits to Vaughan–Eden in Newport News. Prior to Vaughan–Eden's evaluation, Plaintiff alleges that Green provided Vaughan–Eden with false information about him, instructed her not to talk to Plaintiff, and concealed all prior professional evaluations that had concluded that the child had not been abused.

Vaughan–Eden did not videotape the back-to-back, 45–minute interviews she held with the child in February 2005, who at the time was four years old. Plaintiff alleges that Vaughan–Eden worked with Green during both sessions, and instructed his daughter to make a disclosure of abuse. Plaintiff states that in the second session, Green and Vaughan–Eden jointly pressured his daughter through leading questions to tell them “Who hurt your butt?” Plaintiff states that his daughter became “visibly anxious” during the sessions, “bounc[ed] off the walls and the floor,” and “made animal calls and cried out” before eventually saying “Daddy.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 48. Plaintiff states that experts in the state case testified that these sessions were traumatizing and emotionally and psychologically abusive to the child. Plaintiff alleges that Vaughan–Eden's evaluation was corrupt, and was set up for the purpose of manufacturing a false disclosure of abuse. Vaughan–Eden's report implicated Plaintiff in sexually abusing his daughter.

The four ACDSS Defendants used that report to support a petition for a protective order in the J & DR Court of Albemarle County later that month. Plaintiff alleges that Green and Vaughan–Eden executed an affidavit that misrepresented what his daughter had said, and omitted crucial facts pertaining to Vaughan–Eden's evaluation. Plaintiff alleges that Green and Vaughan–Eden continued those misrepresentations through their testimony before the J & DR Court. After multiple hearings, the J & DR Court found that the child had been abused, but could not determine which parent was responsible. The J & DR Court found that the child's disclosure was “tainted” by the procedures Green and Vaughan–Eden employed, and was therefore too unreliable to establish a finding of abuse by the father. The Court issued a final protective order in April 2005 naming both the Plaintiff and the mother as respondents.⁴

Before the J & DR Court issued its final order, the ACDSS Defendants pursued an administrative action against Plaintiff resulting in a Level 1 “founded” disposition, which indicated that Plaintiff had sexually abused his child. As a result of that disposition, Plaintiff's name was placed on a central registry of child sex abusers. The disposition was also used to restrict Plaintiff's visitation with his daughter to no more than three hours per week, with adult supervision.⁵ Plaintiff appealed the Level 1 administrative finding to the State DSS. In July 2006, a hearing officer overturned the Level 1 “founded” disposition against Plaintiff. According to the State DSS, the Defendants' agency “did not even come close to proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence.”

However, Defendants did not dismiss their abuse allegations or revise their visitation restrictions following that ruling, and so proceedings in state court continued. Those proceedings culminated in a thirteen-day trial in Albemarle Circuit Court in August 2009. Following the conclusion of that trial, the Circuit Court held in September 2009 that (1) the Father did not abuse the Child in any manner, and (2) the Mother had engaged in a pattern of interference in the Father's relationship with the Child, but did not abuse the Child. The Circuit Court also enjoined the Mother from interfering further in the Child's relationship with the Father. The mother appealed, and the Court of Appeals issued a decision on January 11, 2011, reversing certain evidentiary rulings from the trial, as well as the definition of “abuse” as applied to the Mother's conduct. Finally, on January 9, 2013, the Circuit Court reaffirmed its September 16, 2009 order, including its previous findings that (1) the Father did not abuse the Child in any manner, and (2) the Mother engaged in a pattern of interference in the Father's relationship with the Child, and implemented an injunction against the Mother prohibiting any further interference in the Child's relationship with the Father. The Circuit Court also held that Judge Berry's initial August 2004 order, from the Charlottesville J & DR Court, was to remain in effect.

Here in federal court, on March 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler lifted the stay that had been entered on August 8, 2007, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint features seven distinct causes of action: substantive due process/deprivation of liberty, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (all defendants) (Count I); conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (all defendants) (Count II); supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Green, Casey, Freeman, and Ralston) (Count III); malicious prosecution (Green, Casey, Freeman, and Ralston) (Count IV); intentional infliction of emotional distress (all defendants) (Count V); loss of parent's companionship and society of a child (all defendants) (Count VI); and professional negligence (Vaughan–Eden) (Count VII).

II. Legal Standard

In order to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim is plausible if the complaint contains “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” and if there is “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). When...