Ramey v. Ping
| Decision Date | 13 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CT-2103 |
| Citation | 190 N.E.3d 392 |
| Parties | Charles T. RAMEY, III and Jordan McHenry, Appellants-Defendants, v. Ashley D. PING, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellants: Alexandra R. French, Mark J. Crandley, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Ronald J. Waicukauski, Carol Nemeth Joven, Williams & Piatt, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Following the dissolution of her marriage to Charles T. Ramey, III, Ashley Ping (f/k/a Ashley Day) retained sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child ("Child"), with Ramey exercising parenting time. On August 20, 2017, following Ramey's parenting time, Ping noticed a blister on Child's genitals. Ping notified the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") of the blister and sought medical treatment for Child. Then, on August 28, Ramey and his girlfriend, Jordan McHenry, observed a blister on Child's genitals. McHenry took a picture of the blister and texted it to a DCS family case manager. McHenry reported that the blister was new. The following day, McHenry called the DCS child abuse and neglect hotline and reported the injury. As a result, two DCS employees removed Child from Ping's care and filed a petition alleging Child to be a Child in Need of Services. Following a CHINS hearing, the court denied the DCS petition and ordered that Child be returned to Ping's care. In total, Child was removed from Ping's care for forty-four days.
[2] Thereafter, Ping filed a complaint in federal court against the two DCS employees who had removed Child from her care. Ping alleged that the DCS employees had violated her constitutional rights when they removed Child. The employees and DCS settled the case with Ping, and, in exchange, Ping signed a release and agreed to forgo her right to a trial on the issues raised in her complaint. Ping then filed a complaint against Ramey and McHenry in the Johnson Superior Court. Ping alleged, in relevant part, that Ramey and McHenry had made a false report of child abuse in violation of Indiana Code Section 31-33-22-3 (2021) (the "False Reporting Statute").
[3] Ramey and McHenry filed a motion for summary judgment in which they alleged that Ping's complaint was barred under the doctrine of res judicata and the prohibition against double recoveries. The trial court denied that motion, and the case proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, Ramey and McHenry filed their first motion for judgment on the evidence, in which they alleged that the release agreement Ping had signed to settle the federal complaint precluded her from bringing the instant lawsuit. The trial court denied that motion. The jury found in favor of Ping and against Ramey, McHenry, and DCS, which was named as a nonparty, and awarded Ping damages. Ramey and McHenry then filed a joint motion for judgment on the evidence and motion to correct error, which motions the court denied.
[4] Ramey and McHenry now appeal and present the following revised issues for our review:
[5] We affirm.
[6] Ping and Ramey were married, and they have one child together, Child, who was born on November 13, 2014. On January 17, 2017, the dissolution court dissolved the parties’ marriage. Pursuant to a settlement agreement adopted by the court, Ping retained "sole legal and physical custody" of Child. Ex. at 11.2 And Ramey was entitled to parenting time "during a phase[-]in period." Tr. Vol. 2 at 159. Thereafter, Ramey began a relationship with McHenry.
[7] On August 5, Ramey had a ten-hour visit with Child. Following that visit, Ping observed "what appeared to be a tear" around Child's rectum. Tr. Vol. 4 at 69. Ping's husband called 9-1-1. Paramedics arrived at Ping's home, and an officer called DCS and reported concerns that Ramey had abused Child. A DCS worker called Ping and advised Ping to take Child to the hospital. Ping took Child to Riley Hospital for Children ("Riley") for treatment the next morning. There, Child was diagnosed with an "anal fissure." Id. at 72. DCS Family Case Manager ("FCM") Demi Eckles was assigned to assess the family. FCM Eckles spoke with a social worker at Riley and learned that the fissure had an "equal chance" of being caused by constipation or sexual abuse. Tr. Vol. 2 at 224. FCM Eckles determined that the claim against Ramey was unsubstantiated.
[8] Ramey again had two ten-hour visits with Child on August 19 and 20. After the visit on August 20, Ping noticed a "blister" on Child's scrotum. Id. at 226. Ping took a photograph of the blister and emailed FCM Erica Oakes about it.3 FCM Oakes replied and recommended that Ping take Child to Riley. FCM Oakes then forwarded the email exchange to FCM Eckles. The next morning, Ping took Child to Riley, and FCM Eckles met them there. A physician examined Child and determined that Child's blister did not require any treatment. Then, on August 22, FCM Eckles "informed [Ramey] of the new report." Id. at 230.
[9] Ramey and McHenry had another visit with Child on August 24, which FCM Eckles attended. That morning, prior to the visit, FCM Eckles asked Ping about Child. Ping informed FCM Eckles that the "mark" on Child was healing but was "still visible." Tr. Vol. 4 at 87. Ping also took a picture of the blister that morning.
[10] On August 27, Ramey and McHenry attended a custody evaluation. During that visit, Ramey changed Child's diaper, and Ramey and McHenry saw a "popped blister" on Child's scrotum. Tr. Vol. 3 at 146. McHenry took a photograph of the blister and texted it to FCM Eckles. McHenry reported to FCM Eckles that the blister was a "new injury." Id. 154.
[11] On August 28, McHenry called the DCS child abuse and neglect hotline and indicated that she "need[ed] to make a 310."4 Ex. at 83. McHenry reported that she and Ramey had observed what "look[ed] like a popped blister" on Child's scrotum the day prior. Id. at 85. McHenry further stated that Child had "no injuries" when she and Ramey had seen him on August 24. Id. When asked if she knew what caused the injury, McHenry reported that she did not know. See id. at 86. And when asked if it could have been caused by "diaper rash," McHenry responded: Id. She then stated that Child has eczema and that he gets diaper rashes but that this "wasn't in the typical area of a diaper rash." Id. Following that report, FCM Eckles and FCM Oakes removed Child from Ping's care on an emergency basis and placed him with Ramey. FCM Eckles informed Ping that the "new mark" was the "basis [for] the removal[.]" Tr. Vol. 4 at 94.
[12] On August 30, DCS filed a petition alleging Child to be a Child in Need of Services ("CHINS"). In the petition, DCS alleged that Child was a CHINS because Ping "routinely delays" seeking medical care for injuries she sees on Child following Child's visits with Ramey and that Child's "injuries are suspicious for inflicted injuries at the hands of" Ping. Ex. at 73. That same day, the CHINS court held a detention hearing, and the court authorized the continued removal of Child from Ping's care.
[13] In October, the CHINS court held a fact-finding hearing on the DCS CHINS petition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that Child was not a CHINS and ordered that Child be returned to Ping's care. Child was returned to Ping's care that day, which was forty-four days after he was first removed. Shortly thereafter, Ramey filed a motion for modification of custody in which he sought custody of Child.5
[14] Ping, individually and on behalf of Child, filed a lawsuit against FCM Eckles and FCM Oakes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Ping alleged that they had seized Child "without probable cause, without a court order, and when he was in no imminent danger," in violation of Child's Fourth Amendment Rights and Ping's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at 104. Ping also alleged that FCM Eckles and FCM Oakes had "mispreresent[ed] material facts" at the detention hearing and that they had made those misrepresentations "knowingly or recklessly." Id. at 105. As a result, Ping sought compensatory and punitive damages.
[15] Thereafter, Ping entered into a "Release and Settlement Agreement" (the "Release Agreement"), in which she agreed to settle the federal case. Id. at 161. The parties to the Release Agreement were Ping, individually and on Child's behalf (the "Releasors"), and Eckles, Oakes, and DCS (the "Releasees"). The Release Agreement provided in relevant part:
Id. In addition, the Releasees agreed to pay $988,000 "in full satisfaction of any and all claims against Releasees that Releasors brought or could have brought related to the events alleged in the amended complaint[.]" Id. Pursuant to the terms of the Release, the parties filed a joint stipulation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial