Opinion ID: 2980738
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Spencer’s Investigation

Text: On March 28, 2006, middle-school guidance counselor Sherry Porach reported a case of possible sexual abuse to the Cuyahoga County child-abuse hotline. The call was based on a written statement from A.F., the twelve-year-old daughter of Brandy Teets, that described a single instance of sexual abuse by her step-father, Kirk Teets. A short while later, CCDCFS social worker Arlene Spencer arrived at the school to begin investigating A.F.’s allegations. Spencer interviewed A.F. that day and, over the ensuing three-week period, conducted an investigation that included follow-up discussions with A.F. and interviews with A.F.’s family members. From her brief investigation, Spencer concluded that sexual abuse was “indicated,”1 and the case was transferred to the ongoing investigation unit. R. 21-9 at 16 (Investigation & Assessment). Spencer’s supervisor, Barbara Morus, concurred with Spencer’s findings. Morus recounted that, “in the three weeks I had the case, the daughter had been interviewed by my worker, by the police, by the school counselor and had 1 An indicated disposition means that, at the conclusion of the intake investigation, there is “some sort of circumstantial evidence to believe that abuse occurred.” R. 21-13 (Morus Dep. at 33). In other words, the social worker “ha[s] reason to believe something is happening” but lacks “hard evidence” to prove it. R. 21-5 (Spencer Dep. at 41). Other potential dispositions are “substantiated,” meaning there is actual evidence to confirm the abuse, such as a medical exam or perpetrator admission, and “unsubstantiated,” meaning the allegation appears not to be credible. Id. at 41–42. 2 No. 10-3713 Teets, et al. v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, et al. given the same story to three people.” R. 21-13 (Morus Dep. at 46). During that period, “[A.F’s] story did not change nor did she recant.” Id.2 B. Outside Investigations into A.F.’s Allegations As Spencer was conducting her investigation, the Parma Heights Police Department began its own investigation into A.F.’s allegations. With a few minor discrepancies, A.F.’s statements to police were generally consistent with those she made to Spencer. At some point, however, police obtained a journal that A.F. had shared with a friend. The description of the incident in the journal contained a few differences from the description A.F. gave to Spencer and the police, the most notable of which was a statement that the incident lasted about three-and-a-half hours instead of the ten or fifteen minutes A.F. had described in her earlier interviews. Nonetheless, the Teetses have not presented any evidence to suggest that Spencer knew or had reason to know about the journal or this discrepancy. Aside from the journal, the other evidence gathered during this period generally supported the findings in Spencer’s report. A medical report from MetroHealth Medical Center, for example, concluded that A.F.’s case was “[v]ery suspicious for sexual abuse” after performing its own examination and interview. R. 21-18 (Med. Report at 9). 2 Brandy Teets did provide police with a tape-recorded recantation while the intake investigation was ongoing, but police and the CCDCFS social workers discounted the recantation because it strongly appeared that Brandy Teets had coerced A.F. into giving it. About a year and a half later, A.F. independently recanted her allegations against Kirk Teets, but the timing was well after Spencer’s investigation was completed. 3 No. 10-3713 Teets, et al. v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, et al. C. State Court Proceedings in the Juvenile and Criminal Courts CCDCFS sought to place A.F. at a friend’s house while the intake investigation was ongoing. When the original arrangement fell through, Spencer, on behalf of CCDCFS, filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County juvenile court, alleging abuse and neglect and seeking temporary custody of A.F. A magistrate judge later determined by clear and convincing evidence that A.F. had been abused by her stepfather and awarded temporary custody to CCDCFS. In a subsequent hearing, the court adjudicated A.F. an “abused child” under Ohio law. R. 21-14 at 4 (Feb. 2, 2007 Judgment). Brandy Teets appealed the adjudication in state court, but her appeal was dismissed. Based on their investigation, police and prosecutors also sought criminal charges against Kirk Teets, and a grand jury returned a bill of indictment against him for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor under the age of thirteen. Kirk Teets ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor interference with custody in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.23(A)(1). D. The District Court Proceedings The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on May 12, 2010. After observing that “[t]he basis for all of Plaintiffs’ claims is the assertion that Defendants made knowingly false allegations of child abuse against Plaintiffs,” the district court concluded that “[t]here is no evidence in the record to support this assertion.” R. 30 (Dist. Ct. Op. at 12–13). The district court reasoned that [w]hile Plaintiffs believe a different determination by CCDCFS was warranted, the alleged “inconsistencies or discrepancies” listed by Plaintiffs are immaterial to the claims raised by Plaintiffs in this case. There is no factual basis for Plaintiffs’ assertion that Ms. Spencer intentionally fabricated evidence in an effort to support 4 No. 10-3713 Teets, et al. v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, et al. a finding of sexual abuse against Mr. Teets or that she failed to thoroughly investigate the claims of sexual abuse raised by A.F. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Id. The district court further concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity and that the Teetses had failed to assert viable claims for supervisory or municipal liability under § 1983. The Teetses filed this timely appeal.