Opinion ID: 4520785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The In-School Interviews

Text: Later that same day, Kammer and another CHFS social worker went to a public elementary school to interview three of the Schulkers’ children, B.O.B. (age 8), B.R.B. (age 9), and E.M.S. (age 9), and then went to a public middle school to interview the Schulkers’ fourth child, E.E.S. (age 13). Neither Kammer nor the other social worker obtained a warrant to conduct the interviews. Holly and David did not consent to the interviews, and they were unaware that the interviews were being conducted. At Defendants’ behest, the school staff removed each child from their respective classrooms. Beginning with B.R.B., each child was brought into a room with Kammer and the other social worker, and the door was then shut. School personnel were not permitted to stay with the children during the interviews. The interviews lasted approximately thirty minutes, during which time the children were questioned about “mommy using drugs,” alcohol use, and whether there was arguing or physical violence in the house. According to Plaintiffs, the children did not believe that they were, nor were they, free to leave the room until they were released by the social workers. Plaintiffs allege that the children returned home that afternoon terrified and crying, stating that they were afraid of being “taken away” and wanted to know if their mother or father was going to jail. This was when Holly and David first learned of the interviews. E. The CHFS Continues to Require the Schulkers to Comply with the Prevention Plan On multiple occasions that week, Holly’s counsel requested that Campbell or Kammer issue a finding of “unsubstantiated,” and close the case against the Schulkers, given the evidence that the initial urine test was a false positive. Each request was denied without explanation. No. 19-5208 Schulkers, et al. v. Kammer, et al. Page 9 On Thursday, February 16, 2017, at her counsel’s request, Holly took a hair follicle drug test in order to further negate any allegation of long-term drug use. The results of the hair follicle test were “negative” for any drug use, and Holly e-mailed those results to Campbell and Kammer on February 21, 2017. Also on February 21, 2017, Holly’s counsel e-mailed Campbell, Kammer, and other CHFS staff to notify them that Holly and David would no longer follow the restrictions of the Prevention Plan and that any further action must proceed through a court. Pursuant to the Plan, Holly and Holly’s counsel were under the impression that until the Plan was formally lifted, Holly was at risk that the CHFS could remove all of Holly’s children from her care. After receiving Holly’s counsel’s e-mail, Campbell decided to contact her supervisor, Jessica Brown, for guidance regarding Holly’s requests to lift the Prevention Plan. In a phone conversation, Brown told Campbell to lift the Prevention Plan. Later that same day, Brown sent an e-mail to Campbell with instructions to respond to Holly’s attorney and to inform her that they “agree that a negative hair follicle test in conjunction with the other information obtained . . . warrant[s] lifting the supervision plan at this time. We will be reaching out to the family to update our prevention plan to reflect this change.” R. 67-5, Brown Dep., Pg. ID 1576. However, Campbell did not send that e-mail to Holly’s counsel and did not inform the Schulkers that they were no longer under the restrictions of the Prevention Plan. Over the next six weeks, Holly’s counsel and Holly made repeated requests to be released from the Prevention Plan, but the CHFS would not lift the Plan. The Plan remained in effect and the CHFS continued its investigation. At some point during the week of March 17, 2017, Kammer contacted David’s ex-wife, the biological mother of E.E.S. and E.M.S., as part of the investigation. On March 29, 2017, the CHFS again expressly refused to close the investigation. According to Plaintiffs, Holly and David “lived in fear the [CHFS] would take their children (as [it] promised to do) for their failure to follow the Prevention Plan” during that time. R. 34, Am. Compl., Pg. ID 521. No. 19-5208 Schulkers, et al. v. Kammer, et al. Page 10 Finally, on April 7, 2017—approximately two months after Holly gave birth to A.M.S.— the case was labeled “unsubstantiated.” On April 10, 2017, the CHFS notified Holly by letter that the case had been “unsubstantiated,” meaning that the Prevention Plan was terminated.