Phillips v. Cnty. of Orange

• Decision Date: 11 September 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–CV–239 (KMK).
• Citation: 894 F.Supp.2d 345
• Parties: Steven J. PHILLIPS and Marie Condoluci, individually and as natural guardian s of T.C.P., an infant, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Goshen Central School District Board of Education, Village of Goshen, Andrew Scolza, in his individual and official capacity, Jamie Scalidecker, in her individual and official capacity, and Mary Kay Jankowski, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

894 F.Supp.2d 345

Steven J. PHILLIPS and Marie Condoluci, individually and as natural guardian s of T.C.P., an infant, Plaintiffs,

v.COUNTY OF ORANGE, Goshen Central School District Board of Education, Village of Goshen, Andrew Scolza, in his individual and official capacity, Jamie Scalidecker, in her individual and official capacity, and Mary Kay Jankowski, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants.

Case No. 10–CV–239 (KMK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Sept. 11, 2012.

Marie Condoluci, Esq., Marie Condoluci, PLLC, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Matthew Joseph Nothnagle, Esq., Orange County Attorney, Goshen, NY, for County Defendants.

Lewis R. Silverman, Esq., Samantha Velez, Esq., Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, NY, for School District Defendants.

Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq., Anthony Francisco Cardoso, Esq., Sokoloff Stern LLP, Westbury, NY, for Village Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Steven J. Phillips and Marie Condoluci (the “Parent Plaintiffs”), suing individually and on behalf of their infant daughter, T.C.P. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), bring this action against the County of Orange, Jamie Scali–Decker, in her individual and official capacity (the “County Defendants”), the Goshen Central School District Board of Education (the “School District” or the “District”), Mary Kay Jankowski, in her individual and official capacity (the “School District Defendants”), the Village of Goshen, and Andrew Scolza, in his individual and official capacity (the “Village Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs also claim that the County of Orange, Village of Goshen, and the School District are liable for conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated here in, Defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Facts

The Court assumes the following facts, as alleged in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), to be true for purposes of deciding the pending motions. On or about October 30, 2009, Theresa Falletta (“Falletta”), the mother of one of T.C.P.'s friends, was in Plaintiffs' home. (TAC ¶¶ 35, 38.) Falletta observed a picture of T.C.P. in a mermaid costume hanging on Plaintiffs' refrigerator, in which T.C.P. was wearing a bikini top and a full length mermaid tail. ( Id. ¶¶ 39–40.) Falletta inquired where Plaintiffs had bought the costume and how much it had cost, indicating that she wanted one for her daughter as well. ( Id. ¶¶ 42–44.) Falletta worked part-time as an officer manager for the Hopewell Presbyterian Church (the “Church”) in Thompson Ridge, New York, and was a member of the Church. ( Id. ¶¶ 45–46.) The Church ran a preschool, and thus was provided with a special, unlisted number for mandated reporters of suspected child abuse provided by the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (“SCR”). ( Id. ¶ 47.) ¹ On or about November 2, 2009, Falletta told Robin J. Hogle (“Hogle”), her co-worker and the Church's pastor, that she was upset to have learned that Phillips, who is Jewish, had been ordained as a minister by the Universal Life Church to perform a wedding ceremony. ( Id. ¶¶ 36, 49–50.) She said that this offended her “as a Christian.” ( Id. ¶ 50.) She then told Hogle that Plaintiffs had “inappropriate, provocative photos” of T.C.P. on their refrigerator—referring to the photos of T.C.P. in the mermaid costume—and that Phillips had described the photos as art. ( Id. ¶ 51.) For unknown reasons, Hogle apparently interpreted this comment to mean that Plaintiffs had nude pictures of T.C.P. on their refrigerator. ( Id. ¶ 52.) Falletta also told Hogle that T.C.P. went to the school nurse a lot for no reason, and that Phillips spoke about her body inappropriately and slept with her, while Condoluci slept with their younger daughter, R.S.C.P. ( Id. ¶ 53.) She further expressed concern that T.C.P. was being sexually abused by Phillips and that Condoluci was aware of the abuse and doing nothing. ( Id. ¶ 54.) Hogle had received training from the Church to report all suspicions of child abuse to the SCR, though she did not receive training on the standard of “reasonable cause” to suspect abuse, or on whether she should call the number for mandated reporters or the state's general hotline. ( Id. ¶¶ 55–56.) ²

On November 3, 2009 at 8:46 a.m., Hogle called the SCR using the special unlisted telephone number for use only by mandated reporters. ( Id. ¶¶ 57–58.) However, neither T.C.P., Phillips nor Condoluci had appeared before Hogle in her professional capacity, and thus according to Plaintiffs, she was not a “mandated reporter.” ( Id. ¶¶ 59–60.) ³ Hogle told the SCR that she had learned from “close friends” of Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs have “nude pictures” of T.C.P. on their refrigerator, which they referred to as “art,” and that Phillips spoke inappropriately about T.C.P.'s body and slept with her. ( Id. ¶ 62.) Hogle also reported that Plaintiffs' “close friends” had told her that T.C.P. visits the school nurse a lot and that these friends had “ongoing concerns” about sexual abuse for “about 3 months.” ( Id. ¶ 63.) She further stated that these close friends had witnessed specifics, had confronted Plaintiffs, and may have more details that Hogle could not divulge. ( Id. ¶ 64.) She, however, refused to reveal Falletta's name, and Plaintiffs claim that this information would have been required of a mandated reporter. ( Id. ¶ 66.) ⁴ Although the SCR officials initially told Hogle that they did not believe there was sufficient evidence to take a report, one was nonetheless taken from the call, containing allegations that Phillips was suspected of sexually abusing T.C.P. and that Condoluci was an inadequate guardian because of knowledge of the alleged abuse. ( Id. ¶¶ 67, 69.) Plaintiffs maintain that the allegations are false, that Hogle's statements were nothing more than her hearsay account of someone else's concerns, and that her statements did not amount to reasonable cause to suspect child abuse. ( Id. ¶ 68.) ⁵

The report made to the SCR was immediately transferred to the County of Orange Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services (“CPS”). ( Id. ¶ 72.) The report was made on election day, so T.C.P.'s school and Child Protective Services were both closed. ( Id. ¶ 73.) An after-hours County caseworker, Susan Hughes (“Hughes”) followed up on the report and spoke to Hogle, who informed her that T.C.P. and R.S.C.P. were not in immediate danger. ( Id. ¶¶ 74–80.) Hughes' supervisor, Karen Smith (“Smith”), decided that CPS would follow up on the report the following day, and no further action was taken on the report on November 3, 2009. ( Id. ¶¶ 79–80, 83.) ⁶

Pursuant to New York Social Services Law § 423(6), a social services district may establish a multidisciplinary team to investigate reports of suspected child abuse, and members of this team shall include representatives from CPS, law enforcement, and the district attorney's office. ( Id. ¶¶ 20–21.) On November 4, 2009, CPS, in conjunction with the Village of Goshen Police Department, launched an investigation into the allegations against Plaintiffs. ( Id. ¶¶ 84–86.) The investigation was assigned to Defendants Scali–Decker, a CPS employee, and Scolza, a police officer with the Village of Goshen. ( Id.) Plaintiffs claim that Scali–Decker and Scolza believed that the call had come from a mandated reporter pursuant to § 413, and that neither contemplated contacting Phillips or Condoluci, attempted to corroborate any of the statements made in the report, or considered whether the report contained reasonable cause to suspect that T.C.P. was abused. ( Id. ¶¶ 87–92.) ⁷ Scali–Decker then called Hogle, who told her that a close friend of the family had approached her stating that she had concerns about the family for “years,” and repeated the other statements that she had made when she made her initial telephonecall to the SCR. ( Id. ¶¶ 96, 99, 104, 106.) Hogle also told Scali–Decker that she was not aware of T.C.P. acting out in any way and that she had interacted with T.C.P. when she was in a week-long bible camp with the Church over the summer. ( Id. ¶ 101.) Scali–Decker confirmed with Hogle that the report taken by SCR was accurate as to what Hogle was told by Plaintiffs' friend. ( Id. ¶ 105.) Hogle still refused to provide Falletta's name, and Scali–Decker urged Hogle to have Plaintiff's friend (Falletta) contact her. ( Id. ¶¶ 98, 107–09.)

Scali–Decker then called T.C.P.'s school, Scotchtown Avenue Elementary School, to confirm that T.C.P. was present in her kindergarten class. ( Id. ¶¶ 110–11.) Plaintiffs highlight that Scali–Decker made no attempt to corroborate the details from the call, for example by asking whether anyone at the school was concerned about T.C.P., or whether she frequently visited the school nurse. ( Id. ¶¶ 112–17.) Scali–Decker, Scolza, and Smith held a case conference and determined that T.C.P. would be interviewed at her school regarding the allegations. ( Id. ¶ 118.) Plaintiffs claim that no effort was made to determine whether the report contained reasonable cause to suspect that T.C.P. had been abused, and that no one involved in the investigation considered contacting the Parent Plaintiffs to get their permission to interview T.C.P. or obtaining a court order to interview her pursuant to Family Court Act § 1034. ( Id. ¶¶ 119–21.) Plaintiffs further allege that no other course of action was contemplated because it was protocol to always interview the child first—without parental consent or a court order—when allegations of sexual abuse had been made, regardless of whether the report created reasonable cause to suspect actual abuse. ( Id. ¶ 125.) Pl...