Opinion ID: 706008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gregory's Duty to Protect Anthony Generally

Text: 23 In essence, Gregory argues that this case is on all fours with DeShaney, and that he bore no duty to protect Anthony from a danger that neither he nor the State played any role in creating. Likewise, although it was Gregory who made the decision to return Anthony to the Camp household after a court had made the DCFS his guardian, Gregory reasons that in doing so he placed Anthony in no worse position than if he had taken no action whatsoever. 24 We believe the fact that the DCFS had been made Anthony's guardian represents a key point of distinction from DeShaney, however. Camp had sought to surrender her own guardianship responsibilities because she believed she could not provide him adequate care and supervision. With the agreement of both Camp and the state, the complaint tells us, the court made the DCFS Anthony's guardian. At that juncture, whether the DCFS had a duty to intervene on Anthony's behalf was moot; it had already assumed a role that made it constitutionally liable (at least to some extent) for Anthony's well-being. 25 That the DCFS had a cognizable duty to protect Anthony as his guardian is reflected in a series of cases holding government officials liable for placing minors in foster homes where they suffered abuse or neglect. Prominent among these is our opinion in K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (7th Cir.1990), which post-dates DeShaney. In that case, an abused child who had been removed from the custody of her parents was then shuffled among a series of foster homes in which she continued to suffer abuse and was deprived of the special care she required in view of her history. The child sued DCFS officials, contending that they had deprived her of due process by placing her in foster homes that they knew to be either abusive or unable to care for her properly. We agreed that the plaintiff might have a viable claim in this circumstance. We noted at the outset that the Due Process Clause quite clearly prohibits a public officer from intentionally harming an individual physically without justification, citing, inter alia, K.H., through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d at 848. The extension [of this principle] to the case in which the plaintiff's mental health is seriously impaired by deliberate and unjustified action is, we observed, straight-forward. Id. We proceeded to distinguish DeShaney: 26 This is not a positive liberties case, like DeShaney, where the question was whether the Constitution entitles a child to governmental protection against physical abuse by his parents or other private persons not acting under the direction of the state.... Here, in contrast, the state removed a child from the custody of her parents; having done so, it could no more place her in a position of danger, deliberately and without justification, without thereby violating her rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment than it could deliberately and without justification place a criminal defendant in a jail or prison in which his health or safety would be endangered, without violating his rights either under the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment (held applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) if he was a convicted prisoner, or the due process clause if he was awaiting trial. In either case the state would be a doer of harm rather than merely an inept rescuer, just as the Roman state was a doer of harm when it threw Christians to the lions. 27 The Roman analogy is sound even if one concedes, as one must in the light of DeShaney, that the State of Illinois has no constitutional obligation to protect children from physical or sexual abuse by their parents. The state could have left K.H. to the tender mercies of her parents without thereby violating her rights under the Constitution. But having removed her from their custody the state assumed at least a limited responsibility for her safety.... The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services could not have subjected K.H. to sexual abuse and then defended on the ground that by doing this it did not make her any worse off than she would have been had she been left with her parents.... Once the state assumes custody of a person, it owes him a rudimentary duty of safekeeping no matter how perilous his circumstances were when he was free. The distinction follows the lines of tort law. There is no duty to rescue a bystander in distress, but having rescued him from certain death you are not privileged to kill him. This is not to say that you assume responsibility for his future welfare. You do not. Our point is only that the absence of a duty to rescue does not entitle the rescuer to harm the person whom he has rescued. 28 914 F.2d at 848-49 (citations omitted). Consistent with our analysis in K.H., cases from our sister circuits also recognize that public officials may be held liable for damages when they place a child in a foster home knowing or having reason to know that the child is likely to suffer harm there. Doe v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 649 F.2d 134 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom. Catholic Home Bureau v. Doe, 464 U.S. 864, 104 S.Ct. 195, 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983); Taylor by & through Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1065, 109 S.Ct. 1337, 103 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989); Yvonne L. by & through Lewis v. New Mexico Dep't of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883, 892 (10th Cir.1992); Norfleet by & through Norfleet v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289, 292-93 (8th Cir.1993). 29 Indeed, the Supreme Court in DeShaney was itself careful to acknowledge and distinguish this line of authority. Although the Court expressed no view on the validity of these cases, it did note that the state's placement of a child in a foster home presented a question distinct from the state's obligation to intervene in the first instance. 489 U.S. at 201 n. 9, 109 S.Ct. at 1006 n. 9. Thus, as our opinion in K.H. reflects, DeShaney does not preclude liability when the state, as guardian of a child, places that child in an environment where harm results. See also DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 812 F.2d 298, 303 (7th Cir.1987), aff'd, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989); Bank of Illinois v. Over, 65 F.3d 76, 78 (7th Cir.1995). 30 To be sure, there are differences between this case and K.H. First among them is that Gregory is not alleged to have placed Anthony in an abusive home, at least not one we would normally think of as abusive. The complaint does not suggest that anyone in the Camp household was prone to strike Anthony, or to molest him, or to deprive him of food or clothing, or to denigrate him emotionally. The focus of K.H. was confined to this realm: The only right in question in this case is the right of a child in state custody not to be handed over by state officers to a foster parent or other custodian, private or public, whom the state knows or suspects to be a child abuser. 914 F.2d at 852 (emphasis in original). Camp moves a step beyond this narrow right; her theory is that Gregory knowingly returned Anthony to a household that could not supervise and guide Anthony to the degree he required. This is a theory that K.H. neither addressed nor endorsed. Yet, it is not one we are prepared to reject out of hand. It is no great leap to suggest that the adult custodian of a child is obligated not only to feed and clothe the child and refrain from hurting him either physically or mentally, but to monitor his activities and to step in to prevent him from harming himself. The examples spring easily to mind when the child in question is particularly young--keeping him away from electrical sockets and out of medicine cabinets, for example. As a child grows older we presume, barring some disability, that he is increasingly able to exercise his own judgment and keep himself out of harm's way. Yet, the custodial duty of supervision continues--ensuring that the child returns home at a safe hour, that he attends school, and that he does not abuse drugs or alcohol. Thus, we do not suppose that anyone would think it appropriate for the DCFS to knowingly place a child with adults who provided food, shelter, and clothing, but who routinely left the child unattended and unsupervised--be that child six years old or sixteen. See, e.g., In re B.T., 204 Ill.App.3d 277, 149 Ill.Dec. 573, 561 N.E.2d 1269 (Ill.App.1990); 720 ILCS 5/12-21.5 (Smith-Hurd 1995 Supp.); 720 ILCS 640/1 (Smith-Hurd 1993). Indeed, DCFS regulations explicitly incorporate the responsibility of supervision in the criteria for foster parents. Ill.Admin.Code tit. 89, Sec. 335.318(c), (d) (1995). Thus, we believe a child placed in the guardianship of the state has a due process right not to be placed by the state with a custodian whom the state knows will fail to exercise the requisite degree of supervision over the child. This is precisely the right that Camp alleges Gregory denied to Anthony; and it is the denial of that right, she further alleges, which resulted in Anthony's death. 31 In this case, of course, Gregory did not place Anthony with a stranger, but returned him to his aunt. That fact is important for two reasons. First, our cases acknowledge a difference between the state placing a child with a relative and placing him with a foster home. Second, DeShaney emphasized that although the state may have been aware of the danger that Joshua faced in his family's home, it had done nothing to create those dangers nor had it done anything rendering Joshua more vulnerable to them. Neither of these points necessarily bars Camp's claim, however, in view of the facts alleged. 32 In K.H., we acknowledged that there is indeed a difference between placing a child with a member of her family and placing the child with a foster parent (914 F.2d at 852), explaining that [s]tate employees who withhold a child from her family run the risk of being sued by the family for infringing their liberty of familial association, and we do not want to place child welfare workers on a razor's edge--damned if they return the child to its family and damned if they retain custody of the child or place him in a foster home or institution (id. at 853) (citation omitted). That concern is not implicated here, however. Camp, after all, had affirmatively sought to terminate her guardianship over Anthony because she believed herself unable to provide the degree of care and supervision he required, and the state court apparently agreed. Thus, Gregory faced no peril in removing Anthony from the Camp household--that is exactly what Camp wanted, and it was a desire she unequivocally reiterated when she wrote to Gregory just prior to Anthony's death. Moreover, the DCFS did not relinquish its guardianship over Anthony when Gregory decided to return Anthony to the Camp household rather than seek an alternate placement immediately. Thus, to the extent Gregory and the DCFS bore a duty for Anthony's safety when it was appointed guardian, that duty did not terminate when Anthony was placed again with Camp. 33 Moreover, given the circumstances leading to the appointment of the DCFS as Anthony's guardian, we believe that the alleged danger he encountered in the Camp household due to Camp's inability to care for him adequately is one that may be attributed to Gregory. Again, we must distinguish this case from DeShaney. Had the state simply turned a deaf ear to Camp's pleas in the first instance, it would have no constitutional liability under DeShaney. But once the DCFS became Anthony's guardian, Gregory shouldered a responsibility to provide Anthony with a safe environment. When he returned Anthony to an environment he allegedly knew to be inadequate, Gregory might be said to have resurrected the danger that had motivated Camp to surrender guardianship in the first place. 34 Gregory maintains nonetheless that he could not have violated Anthony's liberty interest because he did nothing to interfere with Anthony's ability to avoid or extricate himself from dangerous situations or with Camp's ability to help him do so. This argument derives from a series of cases recognizing that state officials who might not otherwise have a cognizable duty to rescue a person from harm expose themselves to liability when they prevent others from coming to that individual's aid. See Ross v. United States, 910 F.2d 1422, 1432-33 (7th Cir.1990) (collecting cases); see also DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. at 1005; Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1174-75 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc); Johnson v. Dallas Indep. School Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 201-02 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1361, 131 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). Arguing the converse of that principle here, Gregory suggests that because he did nothing to confine Anthony in a physically harmful situation, and because nothing he did prevented Camp from coming to Anthony's aid and extricating him from danger, he in no way deprived Anthony of liberty. This argument is misplaced. Even if we assume that Gregory's conduct in no way interfered with the ability of any private citizens (including Camp and Anthony himself) to rescue Anthony from the dangers that culminated in his death, that assumption does not detract from the affirmative duty to intervene on Anthony's behalf which sprang from the DCFS being made his guardian. 35 This is not a case in which a public official is charged with hampering private efforts to aid a victim, but rather one based on the official's failure, as his appointed guardian, to come to that victim's aid himself. At the same time, the notion that Gregory did nothing which interfered with Camp's efforts to protect Anthony or that precluded Anthony from helping himself is not necessarily accurate. As far as Anthony is concerned, it is not at all implausible to assume that as a minor, and particularly one with special educational and custodial needs, he may not have possessed the degree of maturity necessary to extricate himself from potentially harmful situations. And, indeed, that is the crux of Camp's claim--that Anthony required a heightened level of supervision, guidance, and instruction that she could not provide. Furthermore, if what Anthony really needed was a different caretaker, then Camp's own attempts to secure him one presumably were halted once the court appointed the DCFS Anthony's guardian. At that juncture, we assume, Camp was not free simply to relocate Anthony to a different household; nor, needless to say, was Anthony himself able to do so as an unemancipated minor. That ability had been officially turned over to Gregory; and at a minimum, we may suppose that Camp believed he would shoulder the burden of either finding a different placement for Anthony or supplementing Camp's efforts by providing the educational and counseling references she sought. 36 Camp did relinquish her guardianship over Anthony voluntarily, whereas a number of foster care cases have stressed the involuntary character of the change in guardianship as key to recognizing a due process claim. See Taylor, 818 F.2d at 797; Milburn by Milburn v. Anne Arundel County Dep't of Social Servs., 871 F.2d 474, 476 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 850, 110 S.Ct. 148, 107 L.Ed.2d 106 (1989); see also Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1303-04 (5th Cir.1995) (en banc). But in this case Camp sought to surrender guardianship allegedly because she was unable to care for Anthony adequately, the court presumably agreed when it granted her request, and the state did assume guardianship. We are unwilling to decree that simply because Camp, as opposed to the state, initiated the transfer of guardianship, under no set of facts could a state official be liable for a subsequent deprivation of due process. See Walton, 44 F.3d at 1309 (special concurrence) (The question is not so much how the individual got into state custody, but to what extent the state exercises dominion and control over that individual.) (emphasis in original). 37 We also find it significant that Gregory allegedly misrepresented to the Illinois court that all was well with Anthony's continued residence in the Camp household. If, in fact, he did so, he may have effectively prevented any independent assessment by that court of whether the concerns that had led to the DCFS' guardianship were being addressed. Camp's entreaties to Gregory suggest that nothing had changed; but Gregory allegedly concealed that fact from the court. Thus, in a very real sense, it could be said (if the facts bear out the complaint) that Gregory did frustrate the efforts of other private persons and public officials to improve Anthony's situation. 38