Ward v. Blair
| Decision Date | 16 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. S12C-04-004 RFS |
| Parties | PATRICE J. WARD, Plaintiff, v. MEAGAN BLAIR, Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - GRANTED
Patrice J. Ward, P.O. Box 71, Harbeson, DE 19951, Plaintiff pro se.
Jennifer C. Jauffret, Esquire and Lori A. Brewington, Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., One Rodney Square, 920 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorneys for Defendant.
Stokes, J. Plaintiff Patrice Ward ("plaintiff" or "Ward") has filed an action against Meagan Blair ("defendant" or "Blair") alleging defamation, the making of a false written statement in violation of 11 Del. C. § 1233,1 and some vague claims of violations of administrative rules. Plaintiff has moved to amend her complaint. Also pending is a motion for summary judgment.
Because plaintiff is pro se, the Court has examined all of her documents, without regard to whether they are in the proper format or procedurally proper, and has considered every assertion in all of her submissions to determine whether plaintiff, even if allowed to amend her complaint, has stated a claim for relief so that the matter may proceed.
Plaintiff, while impaired, drove to the liquor store with her children in her vehicle. Plaintiff was arrested for driving under the influence ("DUI"). Delaware Family Services ("DFS") took her children.
The DUI arrest resulted in plaintiff being placed on probation. She was required to complete the Delaware Evaluation and Referral Program ("DERP" or "DUI program") which Thresholds, Inc. ("Thresholds") administered. Until she completed that DUI program, she could not be discharged from probation nor could she obtain her driver's license.
In order to obtain reunification with her children, plaintiff had to undertake counseling and meet certain goals. Those goals were: to be employed; attend her children's doctors' appointments; complete a parenting class; have approved housing; pay all court costs, treatmentsand fines; and satisfactorily complete the DUI program. Family Court held several hearings where various counselors reported to that court about plaintiff's progress. It was only when she met all the goals that Family Court would allow her children to return to her. A significant Family Court hearing date was October 4, 2011. Plaintiff maintains that she was on track to have her children returned to her at that hearing. She had completed counseling required by DFS at Brandywine Counseling & Community Service, Inc. ("BCCS") and she had reached all of the other goals but for completing the DUI program at Thresholds. As the Court notes later, the facts do not support this contention that she had reached all of her goals but for completing the DUI program.
The basis of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant defamed her with the staff at Thresholds. Thresholds then refused to discharge her successfully from the DUI program. Instead, it discharged her at risk. This discharge at risk resulted in her not receiving reunification with her children at the October 4, 2011, hearing; not obtaining her driver's license until she completed a more intensive program; and not obtaining a full-time job until she obtained her driver's license.
The pertinent players in this litigation are counselors with whom plaintiff dealt in connection with her various treatments and programs. Her DFS caseworker was Jennifer Rogers ("Rogers"). Her counselor at BCCS was Kristine Hutchison, MS, LPCI ("Hutchison"). From March 2010 through the time pertinent to this litigation, defendant was the liaison between DFS and BCCS. Plaintiff's counselor at Thresholds for the original DUI program was Emily Andres ("Andres"). Another Thresholds employee involved with plaintiff was Susan Harris ("Harris").
DFS referred plaintiff to BCCS and plaintiff began required counseling. On June 28,2011, Hutchison entered a discharge summary which contains the following pertinent information. Plaintiff met with Hutchison for six individual sessions. Diagnostic impressions for plaintiff at the time of discharge were as follows. Axis 1: Alcohol Related Disorder NOS and Axis II: Personality Disorder NOS with Obsessive Compulsive, Histronic, Narcissistic and Paranoid Features. These diagnoses were based upon the report of the psychological evaluation by Dr. Joseph Zingaro dated June 10, 2010. This June 10, 2010 report states:
Based on my clinical interview with Patrice, I believe that the diagnosis Alcohol Related Disorder NOS is a better fit than Alcohol Dependence. Patrice did not report that she has either increased dependence or tolerance for alcohol, however, the DUIs and driving an automobile while under the influence, particularly with a child present, is sufficient for the diagnosis of Alcohol Related Disorder NOS. The diagnosis Personality Disorder NOS is given because Patrice appears to have a number of features or traits from other personality disorders, but does not meet criterion for any one specific disorder.
Hutchison further stated in her June 28, 2011 discharge summary:
On June 28, 2011, BCCS discharged plaintiff "with partial success" and deemed her prognosis to be "Guarded".
On July 5, 2011, plaintiff filed a consent form with DFS authorizing Thresholds to disclose to DFS plaintiff's participation in the DUI program. Although defendant has produced another release, also dated July 5, 2011, to BCCS which authorized Thresholds to disclose information to BCCS, plaintiff claims she did not sign this second release.
On August 9, 2011, plaintiff met with Andres for intake into the DUI program.
On August 11, 2011, defendant contacted Andres by telephone and presented herself as a DFS employee and liaison. Plaintiff maintains that defendant is not a State employee. The Court, however, finds otherwise as a matter of law.2 DFS and BCCS entered into a contract so that BCCS could provide alcohol and drug treatment for DFS clients. The contract provides that DFS shall "[i]dentify a Contract Manager who shall be the primary liaison with [BCCS] on behalf of [DFS]."3 The contract further provides: "Each PARTY shall designate, in writing, its authorized official representative to the other PARTY...."4 DFS identified and hired its representative, and BCCS did the same. DFS's representative was defendant. DFS supervised defendant's daily work load. Defendant worked DFS hours. Her office was located in the DFS building. She had a State of Delaware employee badge and a key card to the DFS building. She had a State e-mail account. She had access to DFS records and entered her own client records in the DFS system. Defendant was provided a State-owned vehicle. Thus, defendant was a state employee working for and on behalf of DFS in an official capacity.5
Plaintiff's arguments that defendant was not a state employee are meritless.
During their telephone conversation on August 11, 2011, defendant discussed plaintiff with Andres. According to Andres' notes, defendant told Andres that plaintiff is "'extremelydifficult, non-complaint with every treatment, especially with groups.'" Defendant warned Andres to be careful with plaintiff and told Andres, "If I were to frustrate her or agitate her, she will act out in group and will attack me and others verbally." Finally, defendant told Andres that plaintiff "has received a psych eval and has been diagnosed with multiple personality disorders."
As noted earlier, plaintiff was required to finish her program with Thresholds before she could obtain her driver's license and before she could have her children returned to her. However, because of the Labor Day holiday, plaintiff could not have one of her sessions with Thresholds, and consequently, she would not be able to complete the DUI program before the October 4, 2011 Family Court hearing date. Plaintiff sought to remedy this problem as reflected in an addition to Andres' September 14, 2011 notes:
Patrice asked if I consulted with my supervisor about her taking two group sessions in one week so she can finish the DUI treatment course before her next court date, October 4. I responded that I did consult with my supervisor and she will need to complete the program as designed. She became quite upset and called the DUI supervisor "tyranical" [sic] due to his unwillingness to make an exception for her. Patrice must complete DUI treatment, parenting classes, find an acceptable place to live, and be gainfully employed before DFS will place her three children back with her. She has completed the parenting classes, but has not found an acceptable place to live or employment after the swimming pools close in the next month or so.
On September 16, 2011, plaintiff's housing was approved. However, nothing establishes she had obtained employment other than with the swimming pools.
Andres' notes from September 21, 2011, record the following. Defendant had left a message with her stating that plaintiff had told DFS she had completed the DUI program when she had not. Later that day, defendant told Andres that plaintiff had not successfully completed treatment with BCCS and stated that "in her opinion" plaintiff is "incapable of insight."
At this point, Andres and Harris discussed Patrice's case. Harris explains what occurred thereafter in an affidavit filed on March 28, 2013:
To continue reading
Request your trial