Opinion ID: 2258806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants Accuse Jeffrey Billado of Sexually Abusing Brandi

Text: In counts I through III, plaintiff Jeffrey Billado complains that defendant Woodward failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the allegation that he had sexually abused his children, reported that he had sexually abused and physically abused his children and ignored all evidence to the contrary. In counts XXII through XXIV, plaintiff alleges that defendant Dunigan filed a petition with the Franklin Family Court alleging he abused his daughter Brandi and his son Jeffrey, even though she knew that the allegations had previously been adjudicated unfavorably to SRS. Thus, she knew that her affidavit and the requested petition was without merit. Apparently, plaintiffs allege that defendants' actions interfere with their constitutional right of family integrity. Numerous courts have considered Civil Rights Act claims arising out of actions by state and local child welfare workers in investigating bona fide complaints of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, and moving through proper court proceedings to protect children, often by taking custody of them to prevent further abuse. Almost without exception, courts have found such actions to be protected by qualified immunity because there is no controlling constitutional right of family integrity or because the right is so amorphous and conditional that no worker could know that his or her actions were in violation of the right. See Doe v. Louisiana, 2 F.3d 1412, 1416-18 (5th Cir. 1993); Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d at 931; van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep't of Social Servs., 911 F.2d 863, 866 (2d Cir.1990); Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 187-90 (9th Cir.1989); Lux v. Hansen, 886 F.2d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.1989); Hodorowski v. Ray, 844 F.2d 1210, 1217 (5th Cir.1988). We adopted a similar rule of qualified immunity from state tort claims in Murray v. White, 155 Vt. 621, 632, 587 A.2d 975, 981 (1991) (law surrounding child sexual abuse investigations is not so clearly established that defendant reasonably should have known that her acts violated plaintiff's rights). We agree with the analysis from the above federal cases. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish this case, in part, by arguing that defendants violated certain SRS regulations governing the processing of child abuse complaints. For purposes of Civil Rights Act liability, this is a distinction without a relevant difference. The Act enforces federal law, not state law. Violations of state laws or regulations do not state a claim under § 1983. See Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir.1995) (Section 1983 guards and vindicates federal rights alone.); Doe v. Connecticut Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990) (allegation that defendant social worker violated state law in conducting child abuse investigation is irrelevant). To the extent that plaintiffs allege that defendants had improper motives in investigating the allegations that Jeff abused his children and reporting the findings, the summary judgment record does not support these allegations. On receiving the complaint of abuse from Melanie, Woodward interviewed all the relevant persons, including the children. Brandi said her father sexually abused her, and Jeffrey, Jr. said his father physically abused him. Woodward was free to believe these statements over Jeff's denials. Plaintiffs have no constitutional right to ensure that defendant correctly exercises her discretion at all times. See Napolitano v. Flynn, 949 F.2d 617, 623 (2d Cir.1991). The allegations against Dunigan apparently relate to her affidavit in support of an emergency detention order in October 1990 after the voluntary care agreement had expired. That affidavit reports the results of Woodward's 1989 interviews and that the report that Jeff had sexually abused Brandi had been substantiated by SRS. Contrary to the complaint allegation, there never had been an adjudication that Jeff had not sexually abused Brandi, and there was no reason not to report that history in support of the request to retain the children in foster care rather than returning them to the custody of either parent.