ILNews

Case arising out of molestation not reported by DCS divides court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lawsuit brought by parents against the Department of Child Services and Evansville Police Department for not informing them of their daughter’s molestation led each judge on the Court of Appeals panel to write his or her own opinion. The only thing the judges agreed on is that the police department is not a proper party to the case.

The parents of 2-year-old F.D. sued DCS, the police department and the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor’s Office for failing to notify them of the alleged molestation of their daughter by 12-year-old cousin L.C. During an investigation of alleged molestation of their 4-year-old son by L.C., DCS caseworker Melissa Cage and police learned that L.C. admitted to molesting other victims, including F.D.

According to the court records, a detective told Cage of L.C.’s admission, to which she said she would contact the newly named victims and let the detective know if any indicated being molested. The detective and Cage never informed the parents of F.D. The mother did not find out her daughter had been molested until nearly a year later.

In F.D., G.D., and T.D. b/n/f J.D. and M.D.; J.D. and M.D., Individually v. Indiana Dept. of Family Services, Vanderburgh Co. Office of Family & Social Services, Evansville Police Dept., et al., 82A01-1109-CT-432, Judges Nancy Vaidik, Terry Crone, and Cale Bradford agreed that the police department wasn’t a property party to the litigation and is “merely a vehicle through which the city government fulfils its policy functions.” Regarding whether Indiana Code 31-33-18-4 creates a private right of action against DCS is where the judges split. Vaidik and Bradford found that the parents don’t have a private right of action.

“Therefore, since the statutory duty imposed under Indiana Code section 31-33-18-4 is for the public’s benefit, we have explicitly held that there is no private right of action for failure to report child abuse, and we have expressed a reluctance to create a private right of action absent codification in this area, we hold that the parents do not have a private right of action …” Vaidik wrote in the majority opinion to which Bradford concurred.

“However, this is not meant to suggest that we condone the way that this matter was handled by Child Services and the Police Department,” she continued. “We sympathize with the parents and understand their frustration that they were not informed that their daughter had been molested until a year after the fact. However, our legislature has not afforded a private right of action in these situations, so we must hold accordingly.”

Vaidik then ruled that even if the parents did have a private right of action, DCS would still be immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act because its actions in this case constitute the initiation of a judicial proceeding. Bradford dissented on this point, and agreed with Crone that DCS doesn’t have immunity under I.C. 34-13-3-3(6).

Crone believed the statute implicitly creates a private right of action, or at very least, that the issue is an inappropriate basis for affirming summary judgment in favor of DCS. Also, DCS has no authority to initiate juvenile proceedings, only the prosecutor does, he wrote. He also felt there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the detective told Cage about L.C.’s admission to molesting F.D.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT