Opinion ID: 200349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 We briefly identify the several allegations of abuse that shape this case. In 1994, Berrigan reported to the police and the Department that Kauch had sexually abused his daughter. Kauch, who has always maintained his innocence, was arrested and charged with first degree sexual assault; the Department also investigated the charge. In 1996, all criminal charges were dropped, and the records in connection with this matter were ordered expunged by the Superior Court. In 1999, following Kauch's appeal to the Department, a hearing officer ordered the Department's file on the matter expunged. 3 In 1998, the Department investigated charges of abuse against Berrigan and Kauch. Both allegations were later determined to be unfounded. 1 In each report, the Department noted Kauch's 1994 alleged sexual abuse of his daughter. Those allegations were properly noted because they had not yet been ordered expunged. 4 On April 30, 2000, Kauch allegedly used excessive discipline against his son. Berrigan reported the allegation to the police and the Department. Mary Lou Votto, a social worker who treated Kauch's daughter, also reported the incident to the Department. Benjamin, assigned by the Department to investigate the complaint, interviewed Kauch's children and Berrigan about the incident and listened to a recorded call made by Kauch's son after the alleged incident. Benjamin indicated the case against Kauch for excessive inappropriate discipline. 5 During the course of her investigation, Benjamin checked the Department's records and discovered the records of the 1998 investigations, each noting that Kauch had been investigated for sexually abusing his daughter in 1994. Benjamin searched in the computer for the 1994 report and discovered that the case had been overturned, meaning the case had been appealed and ordered expunged. Although the case had been overturned, Benjamin was able to obtain the 1994 file alleging sexual abuse against Kauch. She reviewed the file; she had also learned of the allegations of sexual abuse from Votto and Berrigan. 6 In June 2000, Benjamin filed two dependency petitions with the Family Court against Kauch, one with respect to each child. Both petitions alleged substantial risks of harm to the children. In support of these petitions, Benjamin submitted a letter which alluded to the expunged sexual molestation charges against Kauch. She referred to Kauch as an indicated sexual perpetrator, although she also noted that the investigation had been overturned. Benjamin urged the Family Court to suspend Kauch's visitation with both his son and daughter. 7 As a result of Benjamin's investigation, the Rhode Island Family Court monitored the family and ordered all Kauch's visits with his children to be supervised. However, Kauch's visitation rights were never interrupted. 8 In mid-May 2000, Berrigan made another complaint to the Department, alleging that Kauch had sexually molested his daughter. The Department assigned Arlene Frazier to investigate the allegation. Berrigan and Votto again told the case worker of the 1994 alleged sexual abuse. Kauch denied the allegations and stated that Berrigan was coercing the children into making allegations against him. Based upon her investigation, Frazier indicated the case against Kauch for Other Neglect of Kauch's daughter, meaning Kauch posed a risk to the child. She also found the allegations of Sexual Molestation and Lack of Supervision / Caretaker to be without basis. After Frazier's investigation, Benjamin gave her the Department file containing detailed documentation of the 1994 expunged sexual molestation allegations, which Frazier reviewed. 9 In December 2000, all Family Court petitions against Kauch were withdrawn and the Department's involvement in the case ended. Currently, Kauch has unsupervised visits with his daughter and custody of his son. 10 Kauch brought a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the Department and Benjamin, in her official and individual capacities, violated his constitutional right to familial integrity. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for both defendants on March 26, 2002, holding that the Department, a state agency, is not a person as defined in § 1983, and therefore may not be sued. See Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). The court also held that a state official may not be sued under § 1983 in her official capacity. See id. at 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304. Finally, regarding the claim against Benjamin in her individual capacity, the court held that Benjamin's conduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and, even if it was a violation, Benjamin was entitled to qualified immunity. Kauch only appeals the grant of summary judgment against Benjamin in her individual capacity, asserting that her investigation, including her use of the 1994 expunged material, violated his constitutional right to familial integrity.