Opinion ID: 4422276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: B.N.F.’s Removal

Text: Plaintiffs-Appellants Paul and Darla Fisher are the adoptive parents of B.N.F., their teenage daughter, and foster parents to two younger children. On April 27, 2015, Defendant-Appellee Julie Barth, a supervisor at OCDJFS, received a report detailing a sexual-abuse complaint B.N.F. had made against Paul. The situation was unique because Paul had a college degree in social work, was licensed by the State of Ohio as a social worker, was familiar with the legalities and processes related to investigation of abuse allegations, and had worked previously for OCDJFS. The matter was assigned to Defendant-Appellee Betsy Gordon, a caseworker within the division, due to her expertise in sexual-abuse investigations. That same day, Barth and Gordon went to the Fishers’ house, accompanied by Ottawa County Deputy Sheriff Matt Gandee, with whom the Fishers had a personal rapport. Only Darla and B.N.F. were home. Gordon spoke with Darla and explained the allegations, while Gandee and Barth spoke with B.N.F. privately in a separate room. Barth noted that B.N.F. stayed consistent in her allegations during their conversation. At some point, Gordon stepped outside to speak with personnel from child welfare agencies in Lucas and Allen Counties, which had legal custody of the two younger foster children. Both agencies determined that the foster children would be placed in respite care—a temporary home— pending the outcome of the investigation into B.N.F.’s allegations. Once back inside the Fishers’ house, Gordon explained to Darla what the county agencies had decided and expressed concerns about B.N.F. remaining in the home with Paul during the investigation. Gordon then explained -2- Case No. 18-4163, Fisher, et al. v. Gordon, et al. that she “was aware off the top of [her] head of two options: that Paul would leave the home while the agency was investigating or that [B.N.F.] would leave[.]” (Gordon Dep., R. 44, PageID 1042.) In response, Darla stated, “[m]y husband is not going to leave the home.” (Id.) Gordon asked Darla if she could think of “any other options” to ensure B.N.F.’s safety, to which Darla responded, “No.” (Id.) Darla then gathered her children’s clothing and repeated that B.N.F. would go because Paul would not be leaving. At no time did Darla disagree with the plan or indicate that she thought B.N.F. should stay in the home. Darla also confirmed in her deposition that Gordon informed her that separation was necessary for safety purposes. While Barth was not present for the conversation between Gordon and Darla, she did say that it was her understanding that Gordon had given Darla the safety spectrum of options, and that Darla had consented to B.N.F.’s removal. Barth also asked Darla if she had any kin, family, or relatives with whom B.N.F. could stay during the pendency of the investigation, to which Darla replied in the negative. Darla does not recall this part of the conversation. Paul returned home with the two foster children as Darla was gathering the children’s belongings. Shortly after Paul arrived, respite care providers came to take B.N.F. Barth testified that once Paul returned home, she explained what course of action was decided upon. Similarly, Gordon stated that she had a conversation with Paul—whom she knew well from his previous employment at OCDJFS—and explained that B.N.F. would “temporarily [be taken] out of the home on the safety plan. And obviously he knew about it, because he was telling [B.N.F.] to be a good girl and listen and not get into trouble.” (Id. at PageID 1053.) It later became clear though that Paul was already aware of the allegations because he had been in contact with Darla via text message. -3- Case No. 18-4163, Fisher, et al. v. Gordon, et al. Like his wife, Paul admitted that he did not object to B.N.F.’s removal. Paul explained that he did not express disagreement because “[m]y wife had taken [sic] the decision.” (P. Fisher Dep., R. 42, PageID 594.) He elaborated: “Darla had made the decision, people were there, the clothes were packed, the kids were being shuffled off. Am I to publicly undermine my wife?” (Id. at PageID 594–95.)