Peterson v. Allegheny Cnty.

• Docket Number: 2:21-CV-00078-CCW
• Decision Date: 31 January 2022
• Parties: ROBERT PETERSON, individually and on behalf of his minor children, F.P., G.P., and S.P., AND REBECCA PETERSON, individually and on behalf of her minor children H.P., D.P., A.P., F.P., G.P., S.P., and D.B., Plaintiffs, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

1

ROBERT PETERSON, individually and on behalf of his minor children, F.P., G.P., and S.P., AND REBECCA PETERSON, individually and on behalf of her minor children H.P., D.P., A.P., F.P., G.P., S.P., and D.B., Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, et al. Defendants.

No. 2:21-CV-00078-CCW

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 31, 2022

OPINION

CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are eight separate Motions to Dismiss filed by various defendants or groups of defendants. Having reviewed and considered the Amended Complaint, the Motions to Dismiss, and related briefing, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint. Some of Plaintiffs' claims, and some defendants, will be dismissed with prejudice. To the extent any claim or defendant is dismissed without prejudice, however, Plaintiffs will be given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to attempt to cure their Amended Complaint's deficiencies.

I. Background

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs in this case are a family: Robert Peterson (“Father”), Rebecca Peterson (“Mother”) (collectively “Plaintiff Parents”), and seven minor children, H.P., D.P., A.P., F.P., G.P., S.P., and D.B.^[1] (collectively “Minor Plaintiffs”). Mother and Father have been married since

2

2015. See ECF No. 10 ¶¶ 1-3. The Minor Plaintiffs are all Mother's biological children. See Id. ¶¶ 4-10. Minor Plaintiffs F.P., G.P., and S.P. are also Father's biological children. See Id. ¶¶ 7-9. Minor Plaintiffs H.P., D.P., A.P., and D.B. are Father's stepchildren. See Id. ¶¶ 4-6, 10.

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims against 25 separate named Defendants and numerous, unnamed “Doe” defendants. The Defendants-along with designations Plaintiffs use when grouping them-are as follows:^[2]

3

Defendant	Title/Position	Group
Allegheny County	---	---
Desiree Birdseye (“Ms. Birdseye”)	Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“OCYF”) Caseworker	The “OCYF Defendants”
April Hayden (“Ms. Hayden”)	OCYF Caseworker[3]
Melissa Schmidt (“Ms. M. Schmidt”)	OCYF Intake Supervisor
Stephanie Schmidt (“Ms. S. Schmidt”)	OCYF Caseworker
Erin Snyder (“Ms. Snyder”)	OCYF Caseworker Supervisor
Margie Remele (“Ms. Remele”)	OCYF Regional Director
Denise Lee (“Ms. Lee”)	OCYF Clinical Manager
Ann Schlegel (“Ms. Schlegel”)	OCYF Assistant Deputy Director
Jacki Hoover (“Ms. Hoover”)	OCYF Deputy Director
Marc Cherna (“Mr. Cherna”)	Director, Allegheny County Department of Human Services (“DHS”)[4]	The “DHS Defendants”[5]
John Zubryd (“Mr. Zubryd”)	Regional Program Director, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Human Services[6]	---

4

Three Rivers Adoption Counsel (“TRAC”)	---	The “TRAC Defendants”
Lynetta Ward (“Ms. Ward”)	Therapist, TRAC
Kelly Ryan-Schmidt (“Ms. Ryan-Schmidt”)	Therapist, TRAC
Allegheny Health Network (“AHN”)	---	---
McCandless Township	---	Dismissed per ECF No. 78[7]
Eric Egli	Detective, McCandless Twp. Police Department
North Allegheny School District (“NASD”)		The “NASD Defendants”
Amanda Mathieson (“Ms. Mathieson”)	Principal, Hosack Elementary School, NASD
Erin Crimone (“Ms. Crimone”)	Assistant Principal, Carson Middle School, NASD
Katherine Jenkins (“Ms. Jenkins”)	Principal, Carson Middle School, NASD
Northern Regional Joint Police Board (“NRJPB”)[8]	---	The “NRJPB Defendants”
Matthew Durzo (“Det. Durzo”)	Detective, Northern Regional Police Department
Allegheny Forensic Associates (“AFA”)	---	The “AFA Defendants”
Dr. Terry O’Hara (“Dr. O’Hara”)	Forensic Psychologist, AFA
Doe Police Officers 1-50	---	---
John Does 1-50	---	---
“Others as yet unknown”	---	---

B. Summary of Factual Allegations

Plaintiffs' 128-page, 715-paragraph Amended Complaint presents a long and, at times, convoluted narrative of the family's experiences with OCYF and others following two separate reports of suspected child sexual abuse related to Minor Plaintiffs D.P. and H.P. (the “ChildLine Reports”). In broad strokes, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint claims that OCYF personnel- allegedly acting in concert with various school officials, social workers, law enforcement personnel, therapists, and mental health professionals-violated Plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional rights and state law in investigating the ChildLine Reports and pursuing dependency proceedings in state court (the “Family Court”) related to the second ChildLine Report. The Court will outline certain events described in the Amended Complaint here, and then address additional relevant factual allegations when discussing a particular defendant's (or group of defendants') Motion to Dismiss. See e.g., ECF No. 10.

1. ChildLine Report Relating to Minor Plaintiff D.P.

The first ChildLine Report-related to D.P.-was made on January 15, 2019 (the “D.P. Report”). Id. ¶ 54. Ms. Birdseye, an OCYF Caseworker, investigated the report. The investigation related to the D.P. Report was closed as “unfounded” that same day. See generally, Id. ¶¶ 56-69. Plaintiffs level various complaints about how this investigation was conducted, including, for example, that Ms. Birdseye interviewed the Minor Plaintiffs at school without first notifying Plaintiff Parents; that the schools disclosed the Minor Plaintiffs' school records to Ms. Birdseye without first obtaining Plaintiff Parents' consent or a warrant; and that Ms. Birdseye threatened to remove the Minor Plaintiffs from the family home unless Plaintiff Parents cooperated in the investigation. Id.

5

Plaintiffs allege that around the time (or shortly after) Ms. Birdseye was conducting her investigation, the D.P. Report was erroneously transmitted to the Northern Regional Police Department and Det. Durzo.^[9] See generally, Id. ¶¶ 70-80. Plaintiffs claim that Det. Durzo then disclosed the report to his daughter, who is a classmate of Minor Plaintiff H.P., and instructed her to avoid contact with H.P. Id. ¶ 73. Plaintiffs further allege that Det. Durzo “appeared at H.P.'s school in order to monitor the contact between H.P. and G.D.” and that H.P. “felt harassed and stalked by Durzo's appearances at the school.” Id. ¶¶ 75-76. Plaintiffs claim that Mother complained to Ms. Birdseye and Mr. Zubryd (a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Human Services employee) about the allegedly negligent disclosure of the D.P. Report; both allegedly apologized but informed Mother that they “couldn't control what [Det.] Durzo did with the negligently and improperly disseminated information.” Id. ¶¶ 78-79.

2. Childline Report and Subsequent Events Relating to Minor Plaintiff H.P.

The second ChildLine Report-related to H.P.-was made on February 6, 2019 (the “H.P. Report”). Id. ¶ 81. According to the Amended Complaint, H.P. disclosed to her school guidance counselor that she had been abused by Father, but “that the abuse had not occurred in over two (2) years.” Id. H.P. reportedly said that she did not feel unsafe at home, and “[n]o immediate safety concerns were reported to OCYF.” Id. ¶ 82.

OCYF's investigation of the H.P. Report was again led by Ms. Birdseye (at least initially). Ms. Birdseye went to the family home on the evening of February 6, 2019, and interviewed Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 83. During these conversations, “Mother and Father related an incident in 2017

6

wherein H.P. was caught sending an explicit email to an unknown recipient. Mother and Father further disclosed that H.P. recently expressed dissatisfaction with Mother's recent pregnancy announcement and was upset at the thought of sharing Mother with another person.” Id. ¶ 85. In addition, H.P. “told another dramatically enhanced version of her allegations.” Id. ¶ 86.

Following these discussions, Ms. Birdseye left the home to consult with her supervisor, Ms. M. Schmidt via telephone. Id. ¶ 91. Plaintiffs allege that, when she returned, Ms. Birdseye, with the assistance of two McCandless Township Police Officers, took custody of the Minor Plaintiffs by refusing Mother and Father contact with the children. Id. ¶ 92-93. At some point, a Family Court judge issued an “Emergency Custody Authorization” for OCYF to take custody of the Minor Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 100. Plaintiffs allege that, at least in part, that the Emergency Custody Authorization was based on misrepresentations made by Ms. Birdseye and/or Ms. M. Schmidt to the Family Court judge to the effect “that Mother did not believe H.P.” Id. ¶¶ 94-100.

Further Family Court proceedings (and related events) followed. While the details of the subsequent incidents-which span almost two years and involve numerous defendants and third parties-resist concise summation, it is sufficient here to say that Plaintiffs allege OCYF and other defendants have used the Family Court proceedings as a means to carry out a campaign of bullying, harassment, and intimidation, allegedly in violation of state law and Plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional rights, and with the particular aim of depriving Mother and Father of custody of the Minor Plaintiffs.

For example, Plaintiffs allege that the therapists and psychologists involved with their case-the TRAC Defendants and the AFA...