By Connie Reguli July 12, 2020

In the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Court has denied summary judgment on substantive and procedural due process claims where the social worker threatened a Mother to put her child under an “immediate protection agreement” regarding her three year old daughter when her child had a bite mark on her back. The child reported to her grandmother that a child in her daycare had bitten her. The grandmother reported it to the daycare and the daycare called in a referral claiming that the bite mark did not appear to have come from a child. Holliday v. Leigh, et al, 2:17-cv-113, E.D.KY June 15, 2020.

CHFS social worker Alecia Leigh went to the day care and attempt to interview the child. When the child’s mother, Maureen Holliday came to pick up her daughter, Leigh refused to let Mother have the child and insisted on a separate interview of the Mother. Mother asked to have someone present and Leigh refused. Leigh then told the Mother that she was under a Prevention Plan and Mother was limited to supervised contact only with the child.

The investigation lagged. However, the interviews that were conducted exonerated the Mother. In spite of compelling evidence that the child was not in harm’s way in Mother’s care, the plan remained in place. From October 2016 to January 2017, Mother remained under the plan and had limited contact with her daughter. Finally, the case was dismissed.

The Court denied summary judgment on substantive and procedural due process finding that the prevention plan violated Mother’s parenting rights and that it was secured under duress. Mother was not advised of her rights and was never provided a hearing on the prevention plan. The Court also denied summary judgment on the procedural due process right of Mother which requires notice and the opportunity to be heard. The Court denied the defense of qualified immunity, in part, in reliance on Schulkers v. Kammer, 367 F. Supp. 3d 626 (E.D.Ky 2019)

The Court also found that Leigh’s supervisor was liable because the plaintiff need only show that a supervisory official implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate. Coley v. Lucas Cty., 799 F. 3d 530, 543 (6th Cir. 2015).

The Court also refused to dismiss the state claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

However, the District Court did grant summary judgment on the prayer for punitive damages in a civil rights case. The court stated that the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant was motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Citing Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

The court stated that Sec. 1983 presupposes that damages that compensate for actual harm ordinarily suffice to deter constitutional violations, therefore punitive damages are only permitted in particularly egregious situations. The conduct must be so egregious that it cannot be remedied by compensatory damages.

The Holliday decision is good for families and shows a small step towards constitutional fairness for families while dealing with the state-run child welfare agencies.