Opinion ID: 4422276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Removal

Text: The next day, Gordon informed the Director of OCDJFS, Defendant-Appellee Stephanie Kowal, of B.N.F.’s allegations, the home visit, and that B.N.F. was placed in respite care pending the outcome of the investigation. On May 1, 2015, four days after B.N.F.’s removal, Kowal visited the Fishers to discuss the financial implications of B.N.F.’s respite care, as the Fishers were responsible for any costs incurred. During their meeting, Paul signed and completed an application for financial assistance, and Darla completed and signed a separate respite care packet of information. At this time, neither Paul nor Darla objected to B.N.F.’s removal or the subsequent out-of-home plan for B.N.F. On May 5, Barth spoke to Paul by phone and again “explained that because the agency did not have custody and because he and Darla were cooperating with the investigation and understood that [B.N.F.] cannot stay at home during the investigation, that the arrangements were made for the parents to voluntarily respite [B.N.F.][.]” (Gordon Dep., R. 45, PageID 1636.) According to Barth, at no point did Paul object to or challenge the plan. Paul testified that he had no memory of the call one way or the other. Barth’s impression, however, was that Paul “seemed to understand everything,” and was “absolutely” in agreement with the plan. (Barth Dep., R. 45, PageID 1636.) On that same day, Gordon testified that she prepared a letter that was sent to the Fishers that “enclose[d] a written copy of the out-of-home safety plan that [was] implemented with their -4- Case No. 18-4163, Fisher, et al. v. Gordon, et al. input and agreement on the 27th of April 2015.” (Gordon Dep., R. 44, PageID 1096.) Paul testified that he did not know whether he received the letter. On May 11—approximately two weeks after B.N.F.’s removal—the Fishers’ attorney contacted Gordon and informed her, for the first time, that Paul and Darla did not agree with the out-of-home safety plan. In response, Gordon filed the complaint necessary to trigger a prompt shelter-care hearing in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division. The next day, May 12, 2015, the juvenile court issued an ex parte order authorizing OCDJFS to take temporary emergency custody of B.N.F. pending further order from the court. The shelter hearing took place the following day, but the judge ultimately did not issue a ruling because, during the hearing, Paul agreed to leave the home while OCDJFS completed its investigation. Four months later, Paul and Darla filed this suit against the OCDJFS Employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to their denial of a prompt post-deprivation hearing process.