ILNews

Statute granting DCS immunity applies to nearly all of family’s claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A case involving the Department of Child Services before the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday provided the court with two issues of first impression – the interpretation of a statute relating to the agency, and the liberty interests that may reside with extended family members involved in the lawsuit.

In D.L., Glen Black, Ann Black, Steven Lucas, and K.L., by her Next Friend, D.L. v. Christine Huck, Laura Zimmerman, Angela Smith Grossman, Rhonda Friend, Angyl McClaine, and Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs., 79A04-1202-CT-61, family members of K.L., born in 2008, sued the Department of Child Services and several employees after the DCS appeared unannounced at Glen and Ann Black’s home and removed K.L. from their custody. A CHINS case had been opened regarding K.L., and K.L.’s biological parents, D.L. and T.L., terminated their parental rights so that K.L. could be adopted by D.L.’s sister, Ann, and her husband.

Before placing K.L. with the Blacks, the agency completed a home study and background check of the couple. The background check turned up no issues; the agency later found a 20-year-old child abuse report against Glen Black, in which his then 16-year-old sister accused him of sexually abusing her as a child. DCS never performed a comprehensive investigation into the report, interviewed the Blacks, or provided a copy of the report to the Blacks. The Blacks didn’t even know of the allegations until K.L. was removed. DCS removed the child without a court order.

K.L. was eventually returned to her biological father’s custody.

The family filed suit alleging eight claims, including negligence and fraud, but Tippecanoe Superior Judge Thomas J. Busch dismissed seven of counts, holding they were barred by quasi-judicial immunity because they were based on allegations that DCS acted wrongly in the course of duties within a CHINS proceeding for K.L. The judge also found that the Blacks, including Steven Black, K.L.’s grandfather, did not have standing to sue because they didn’t have a custodial relationship with K.L. before the CHINS proceedings.

“DCS’s handling of this case was extremely sloppy, careless, and regrettable. Based on a twenty-year-old report and with no investigation, they independently decided to remove K.L. from the Blacks’ home,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote. “Because there was no court oversight of DCS’s actions and decisions, and they were not implementing a court order, DCS is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for any of the actions underlying the Family’s complaint. DCS may not choose to side-step the judicial process and then hide behind that same process.”

The judges for the first time had to interpret Ind. Code 31-25-2-2.5, which the DCS claimed also granted it immunity. That statute states with regard to DCS that “[t]he following are not personally liable, except to the state, for an official act done or omitted in connection with performance of duties under this title: (1) The director of the department. (2) Other officers and employees of the department.”

This statute does appear to apply to most of the family’s claims, Robb pointed out, except for the fraud claim. That claim is based on alleged acts that would not be within the duties of the department.

The COA also was unable to find any cases to provide guidance as to the liberty interests that may reside with the Blacks in this case. The judges found the family made a convincing argument for finding a liberty interest in favor of Ann and Glen Black, citing cases from other courts, including Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016, 1024-25 (2d Cir. 1982). There is no caselaw to support that the grandfather has a liberty interest, and the judges found Busch correctly determined Steven Black did not have standing to bring suit.

They remanded for further proceedings on the fraud claim.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT