Williams v. Department of Social and Health Services, No. 31970-5-II (WA 6/28/2005)
| Decision Date | 28 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 31970-5-II,31970-5-II |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | GAIL WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent. |
Appeal from Superior Court of Thurston County. Docket No. 03-2-02515-9. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 06/18/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Gary R Tabor.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Peter Moote, Attorney at Law, 5492 Harbor Ave, PO Box 625, Freeland, WA 98249-0625.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kara Anne Larsen, Office of The Atty General, 905 Plum St SE Bldg 3, PO Box 40145, Olympia, WA 98504-0145.
Gail Williams appeals from a superior court decision affirming a Personnel Appeals Board decision that affirmed a Department of Social and Health Services decision to terminate her employment. We affirm.
On August 15, 2001, Gail Williams, a Child Protective Services (CPS) social worker for the Mt. Vernon office of the Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in the Department of Social and Health Services (Department), received a referral regarding a case of child neglect from her supervisor, Sereta Williams.1 The referral had a risk factor of `high.' Personnel Appeals Board Record (PABR) at 49. The child, A.D., a 14-month-old female, was taken to the local hospital by her father on August 14. A.D. had numerous burns on her body.
A.D. lived with her father and her father's girlfriend, Katie. At the time of A.D.'s injuries, Katie was her primary caregiver. The injuries occurred on August 12, but A.D.'s father waited until August 14, to seek medical care. A.D. had sustained burns from a lighter. She had three burns on her face, one on her abdomen, approximately six burns on her back, two on her left arm, and three to four burns on each leg. She also had a bruise under her left eye.
The referral stated that Katie was babysitting A.D. on August 12. A girl from the neighborhood came over and the girl was playing with a lighter. The referral also alleged that Katie went to use the bathroom and left A.D. with the neighbor girl. While in the bathroom, Katie heard some screaming but did not think it was anything serious. When Katie returned from the bathroom, she found A.D. burned and bruised. Katie called A.D.'s father, and when he returned home, he called law enforcement.
After Williams received the referral, she: (1) requested a detective from the Sedro Woolley Police Department meet her at the hospital to start the investigation and to do a protective custody order; (2) talked with Detective Pearce about the referral; (3) phoned Dominique Morgan, the pediatrics nurse caring for A.D.; (4) reviewed past referrals on the family, including the family history with the Longview office; (5) phoned Skagit Pediatrics, leaving word for Dr. Richard Levine to call her so she could consult with him; (6) did a placement assessment for the child and selected a foster parent; and (7) spoke by phone with the hospital social worker, Justine Sanders. Although A.D. was in the critical care unit, Morgan told Williams it was not for medical reasons and that, in fact, A.D. was ready to be discharged.
After making her contacts, Williams went to the hospital. She briefly spoke with Katie. Katie admitted to Williams that she was not at home during the incident. Williams then observed A.D., who was `fussy and restless.' PABR at 58. She noted in her report that A.D.'s burns had not blistered and that the doctors had bandaged the burns on A.D.'s upper thighs to avoid infection.
Dr. Levine returned Williams's phone call. He told Williams that he had documented the burns in A.D.'s chart. Dr. Levine stated to Williams that all but one of A.D.'s burns appeared to have been caused by a lighter.
Williams contacted Officer Fuller, who agreed to meet her at the hospital in case Williams had trouble with A.D.'s father. She explained to A.D.'s father and Katie that she was placing A.D. in a foster home while she continued her investigation. After placing A.D. in foster care, Williams had 72 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, to initiate a dependency hearing or to return A.D. to her home.
On August 16, Williams continued to talk to investigators, doctors, and her supervisor. She received an extensive update from Burlington Police Detective Ed Rogge. Williams also spoke with Dr. Jeff Landesburg. She asked Dr. Landesburg if he would agree to a case plan in which A.D. could return to her father if her father agreed to a Department contract that provided: (1) the 10-year-old neighbor not be allowed around A.D.; (2) for unannounced home visits by a public health nurse; and (3) for the father to take a parenting class and receive some daycare provided by the DCFS. Dr. Landesburg wanted to discuss the issue with Dr. Levine and Dr Andrea Smith before giving Williams an answer.
Williams also continued to update her supervisor, Sereta, on the progress of the investigation. Early on August 17, Williams e-mailed Sereta and told her: (1) she had e-mailed both of A.D.'s father's coworkers; (2) she had a conference call at 1:00 p.m. with the doctors; (3) she asked for her supervisor's assistance in getting photos from the Burlington Police Department so she could fax them to Dr. Feldman's clinic; (4) she indicated she believed that the father was not covering up anything; and (5) she asked Sereta to encourage the Burlington Police Department to further investigate the 10-year-old neighbor. Sereta responded to Williams's e-mail and stated that she agreed with Williams. Later that morning, Williams e-mailed Sereta again, indicating that Dr. Landesburg was reluctant to make a decision regarding returning A.D. because it was CPS's decision whether to return a child.
Williams also contacted Regina Patterson, a Kelso social worker who had worked previously with A.D.'s family. Williams told Patterson of her plans to return A.D. to her father and asked Patterson if she had any more details regarding the father or Katie. Patterson responded in an e-mail that she supported the return of the child to the home.
At that point, Williams did not think she had enough information to support a dependency order. Thus, she picked up A.D. from the foster care home and returned her to her father. She spoke with A.D.'s father and had him sign the previously mentioned contract. Williams kept the risk assessment of A.D.'s case as `high' through October 2001.
Sereta retired at the end of September, and Natalie Green replaced her as Williams's supervisor. In October, Green received a phone call from Dr. Jennifer Taylor. Dr. Taylor called to report that Katie had sexually abused A.D. Dr. Taylor complained to Green about the handling of the earlier incident involving the burns, and she told Green that she wanted the investigation reviewed.
Green called her supervisor, Paula Benz, to discuss the situation. Green also called Williams and set up a meeting. At the meeting, Williams expressed her belief that she had done everything correctly in her investigation. After that meeting, Green read the case file and found some problems Williams had not addressed.
Green decided to investigate the case. In doing so, she spoke with Drs. Levine and Landesburg, Sereta, and Morgan. After completing her investigation, Green documented her findings and sent her report to management.
Todd Henry, the regional administrator, asked Gregory Southworth, the area administrator for the Mt. Vernon office, to review the case. Southworth specifically looked at the clinical issues involved. After his review, he concluded there were several areas ineffectively addressed: (1) failure to consult with the community protection team (CPT); (2) the physicians' concerns regarding A.D.; (3) decisions about returning the child to her home; and (4) it did not appear that Williams had done an adequate job in assessing the risk to A.D. On April 12, 2002, Southworth sent a report to Henry. He concluded in his report that Williams had committed misconduct in her investigation of A.D.'s injuries.
Henry reported to the assistant secretary of Children's Administration, Rosie Oreskovich. Before reviewing Southworth's report, he received direction from Oreskovich to terminate Williams. He looked at Southworth's report, documentation related to A.D.'s case, doctors' letters, and other correspondence in deciding how to discipline Williams. Ultimately, Henry decided to terminate Williams. The termination became effective on August 9, 2002.
On July 25, 2002, Williams appealed her termination to the Personnel Appeals Board (Board). A hearing occurred on August 12 and 13, 2003. Several witnesses testified for the Department discussing the process that led to Williams's termination.
The Department first called Natalie Green. Green became aware of A.D.'s case when Dr. Taylor called her requesting information about the August 2001 investigation. Green reviewed A.D.'s file and concluded that certain things were missing in the file, particularly, an evaluation of the risk to the child if she was returned to her home. Green then spoke with Dr. Levine, Dr. Landesburg, Sereta, and Morgan.
Dr. Levine told Green his concerns about A.D. and that he had made his concerns known to Williams. Dr. Levine questioned the child's safety. Dr. Landesburg told Green that A.D.'s injuries were non-accidental and he did not agree with sending the child home. He made those issues known to Williams but he felt that she went to Dr. Levine because she could not get him to agree to send the child home.
Green testified that the doctors' medical opinions should have triggered a decision by a community protection team. A community protection team (CPT) is a community panel used to staff cases. The CPT comes up with recommendations for how to resolve cases. Green believed that a CPT was necessary in A.D.'s case.
When Green spoke with Sereta, she learned that Williams had told Sereta...
To continue reading
Request your trial