Perry v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs.
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CT-605 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 2022 |
| Citation | 196 N.E.3d 1264 |
| Parties | Megan PERRY and Jonathon Perry, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES and Linzy Derucki, Appellees-Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellants: Brad A. Catlin, Joseph N. Williams, Williams & Piatt, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Kevin M. Bowen, Brandon E. Tate, Waldron Tate Bowen Spandau, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellees: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Erica Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Vincent M. Campiti, Nemeth Feeney Masters & Campiti, PC, South Bend, Indiana
[1] Appellants-Plaintiffs, Megan Perry and Jonathon Perry (collectively, the Perrys), appeal the trial court's dismissal of their Amended Complaint against Appellees-Defendants, Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) and Linzy Derucki (Derucki), (collectively, the Defendants), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
[3] The Perrys present this court with four issues, which we consolidate and restate as the following two:
[4] Pursuant to our standard of review, we take the following facts from the Perrys’ December 9, 2021, Amended Complaint as true. S.F. was born on December 23, 2016. In March of 2017, DCS removed S.F. and placed her in foster care with the Perrys. S.F.’s sister, I.F., was born on December 29, 2017. I.F. had significant medical issues and was also placed in foster care with the Perrys. Derucki was a DCS family case manager who managed I.F.’s and S.F.’s (collectively, Children) child in need of services (CHINS) cases. At some point that is unclear from the allegations, the Perrys filed a petition to adopt S.F.
[5] On August 5, 2019, DCS informed the Perrys that Children would be removed from the Perrys’ care immediately upon DCS's referral being accepted by another foster family. On August 26, 2019, the Perrys attempted to intervene in Children's CHINS proceedings to object to Children's removal from their care. On August 28, 2019, the Perrys filed an amended petition to adopt S.F. On September 16, 2019, the trial court denied the Perrys’ motion to intervene as premature, as DCS had yet to file a request for change of placement. Also on September 16, 2019, DCS removed Children from the Perrys’ care. On September 17, 2019, DCS filed a formal motion to change Children's placement to kinship care. Children were subsequently placed with their biological mother. On September 23, 2019, the Perrys filed a petition to adopt I.F. DCS withheld its consent to the adoptions of Children by the Perrys, and Children's adoption by the Perrys was ultimately unsuccessful.
[6] On July 19, 2021, the Perrys filed suit against the Defendants, raising a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights violation claim against Derucki based on their allegation that Children's removal from their care had violated their constitutional rights to family integrity and to due process; a negligence claim against DCS; and a defamation claim against both Defendants for allegedly making false statements to third parties, including that the Perrys had sought out and conspired with medical providers to subject Children to unnecessary medical treatment. On October 18, 2021, Derucki answered the Complaint and raised several affirmative defenses, only one of which referenced immunity and alleged that Derucki was immune to the Perrys’ claims under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). Later in the day on October 18, 2021, DCS filed its first Motion to Dismiss and a memorandum in support pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). DCS claimed to be filing its motion on behalf of itself and Derucki, even though Derucki was represented by other counsel. As to the Perrys’ § 1983 civil rights claim, DCS argued that Derucki was entitled to qualified immunity, and that, even if she were not, the Perrys’ federal claim was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, as they had not alleged any cognizable constitutional right that had been violated. Regarding the Perrys’ state law claims, DCS argued that Defendants were entitled to immunity under Indiana Code section 31-25-2-2.5 (DCS Immunity Statute) which provides that officers and employees of DCS are not personally liable for official acts done or omitted in connection with their duties. DCS also asserted immunity on the state law claims for both Defendants under the ITCA.
[7] On December 9, 2021, the Perrys filed their response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On December 9, 2021, the Perrys also filed their Amended Complaint, raising the same three types of claims as they had in their original Complaint but specifying that their § 1983 civil rights claim was raised against Derucki in her individual capacity. In their Amended Complaint, the Perrys also added certain factual allegations to their state law negligence and defamation claims.
[8] On January 21, 2022, Derucki filed a notice that she was joining DCS's Motion to Dismiss and was requesting dismissal of the Perrys’ Complaint. On January 24, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Defendants’ dismissal motion. At the hearing, the Perrys argued that their claims against Derucki were not subject to dismissal because she had not raised the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity or immunity under the DCS Immunity Statute in her Answer and that DCS had no standing to assert those defenses for her in her personal capacity. At the conclusion of the January 24, 2022, hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
[9] On January 25, 2022, Derucki answered the Perrys’ Amended Complaint. Derucki raised affirmative defenses, but she did not assert qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claim or immunity to the state law claims under the DCS Immunity Statute. On February 4, 2022, DCS filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6), along with a supporting memorandum, again arguing that the Perrys had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. DCS reasserted its arguments that the Perrys’ § 1983 claim should be dismissed because the Perrys had no cognizable liberty interest to support a civil rights claim and that Derucki was entitled to qualified immunity. As to the Perrys’ state law negligence and defamation claims, DCS only argued that Defendants were immune from suit under the DCS Immunity Statute and did not assert any grounds for dismissal based on the ITCA. On February 18, 2022, the Perrys filed their response, and, on February 25, 2022, DCS filed a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 3, 2022, Derucki filed a written motion to join in DCS's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
[10] On March 14, 2022, the trial court entered its Order dismissing the Perrys’ Amended Complaint in full. The trial court's Order set forth the chronology of the proceedings, but the trial court did not enter any other findings of fact or conclusions thereon in support of its ruling.
[11] The Perrys now appeal. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
[12] The Perrys appeal following the trial court's grant of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6).2 A motion under Rule 12(B)(6) merely tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim and not the facts supporting the claim. Bellwether Props., LLC v. Duke Energy Ind., Inc. , 87 N.E.3d 462, 466 (Ind. 2017). We conduct our review of such matters de novo. Residences at Ivy Quad Unit Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Ivy Quad Dev., LLC , 179 N.E.3d 977, 981 (Ind. 2022). As part of our de novo review, we take the facts alleged in the complaint as true, consider all the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw every reasonable inference in the non-moving party's favor. Id. Ultimately, our task to is to determine whether the non-movant has alleged some factual scenario in which a legally actionable injury has occurred. Id.
[13] The Perrys raised their § 1983 civil rights claim against Derucki in her individual capacity. Suits brought under § 1983 involve a claim of violation of some right guaranteed by the federal constitution. Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 330, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664, 88 L.Ed.662 (1986). In their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, the Defendants argued that the Perrys’ § 1983 claim was subject to dismissal because Derucki is entitled to qualified immunity and because the Perrys did not allege a protectable liberty interest in their Amended Complaint. On appeal, the Defendants suggest that we need not reach the constitutional dimensions of the Perrys’ § 1983 claim if we conclude that Derucki is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, we first address the issue of whether the Perrys’ § 1983 claim was subject to dismissal under a theory of qualified immunity.
[14] Quoting Mullenix v. Luna , 577 U.S. 7, 11, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015), Defendants argue that " ‘[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ " (Appellees’ Br. p. 19). The Defendants assert that, because the Perrys’ constitutional right as foster parents to continue their relationship with Children is not clearly established, the Perrys’ § 1983 claim against Derucki was properly dismissed.
In response, the Perrys argue that their § 1983 claim was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial