Opinion ID: 4520785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prevention Plan

Text: On the evening of that same day (the day of A.M.S.’s birth), two CHFS social workers— Defendants Kammer and Kara—visited Holly in her hospital room. Defendants asked Holly for the names of her other children and where they went to school, and inquired about Holly’s “drug abuse.” Holly insisted that there was an error with the initial test because she did not use drugs, worked at a childcare center, was her son’s basketball coach, and volunteered in a school cafeteria. Kammer asked Holly to submit to another drug test, and Holly agreed. Holly’s urine 2 The SOP criteria track Kentucky Revised Statute Section 600.020, which in relevant part defines an “abused or neglected child” as “a child whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm when . . . his or her parent, guardian . . . or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child . . . [e]ngages in a pattern of conduct that renders the parent incapable of caring for the immediate and ongoing needs of the child, including but not limited to parental incapacity due to a substance use disorder as defined in KRS 222.005.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 600.020(1)(a)(3). Section 222.005 defines “substance use disorder” as “a cluster of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological symptoms indicating that the individual continues using the substance despite significant substance-related problems.” Id. § 222.005(12). 3 Kara’s surname is unknown. Defendants’ Notice of Appeal identifies her as Jane Doe “Kara X.” No. 19-5208 Schulkers, et al. v. Kammer, et al. Page 5 was tested for the second time at 7:55 p.m. that evening. The results from the umbilical cord test performed earlier that day were still pending. At that point, Kammer, who was still in training at the time, called her supervisor, Defendant Allison Campbell. Campbell spoke with Holly and asked her, “[h]ow did the heroin get into your system?” R. 34, Am. Compl., Pg. ID 514. When Holly insisted that the test was a false positive, Campbell told her, “[w]ell, until this gets figured out you are no longer allowed to be around any children without the supervision of approved individuals.” Id. After the conversation with Campbell, and while the toxicology results of the umbilical cord test and second urine test were still pending, Kammer presented Holly with a predominately handwritten, single-page document, titled “Prevention Plan.” According to Plaintiffs, Kammer explained to Holly that if Holly failed to follow the Prevention Plan’s terms, all of the children in her house would be removed from Holly’s care “and after that” the CHFS would seek a court order. Id. at Pg. ID 514–15. The Plan provided that Holly was required to have “supervised contact with all children by approved supervisors until notified by CHFS.” R. 67-9, Prevention Plan, Pg. ID 1659. According to the Plan, “supervision” means that Holly could not be alone with her children and must remain within “eye & earshot” of approved supervisors “at all times (24/7).” Id. Kammer approved David Schulkers (Holly’s husband) and Mary Schulkers (Holly’s mother-in-law) as supervisors. Kammer informed Holly and David that “if the supervisor steps out of the room, Holly has to follow and if the supervisor has to go to the bathroom Holly has to remove herself until the supervisor returns” and “said [that] if any restrictions were violated the children would ‘be removed.’” R. 34, Am. Compl., Pg. ID 515. Stamped at the bottom of the document and in all capital letters, the Prevention Plan stated: “Absent effective preventative services, placement in foster care is the planned arrangement for this child.” R. 67-9, Prevention Plan, Pg. ID 1659. However, the CHFS had not planned any arrangement for foster care for A.M.S. Instead, that language is stamped on every prevention plan that the CHFS provides. Under these conditions, the Schulkers signed the document less than 30 hours after giving birth and under the belief that if they did not agree to the Prevention Plan, all of the children in No. 19-5208 Schulkers, et al. v. Kammer, et al. Page 6 their house would be removed from Holly’s care “and after that” the CHFS would seek a court order. At one point, while Kammer and Kara were still in the room, Holly’s night nurse questioned the Prevention Plan and reported that A.M.S. was clearly healthy and that the nursing staff and doctors believed that Holly’s first urine test was a false positive. The nurse also pointed out that, in the past, other women with open cases were allowed to leave the hospital with their newborns, and that she had seen several situations in which the CHFS would not get involved regarding “presumptive positive” results on expectant mothers until after the results were confirmed with umbilical cord testing. In response to these comments, Kara pulled the night nurse aside in the hallway and said, “[w]e are supposed to be working as a team, why are you pitting them against me?” R. 34, Am. Compl., Pg. ID 515–16. After Defendants left, Holly’s night nurse informed Holly and David that St. Elizabeth uses a lower threshold level for a positive drug test result than required by federal regulations.