Opinion ID: 821083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Investigation, Review, and Expungement

Text: Appeal Each of the remaining allegations relates to procedures Mann believes were required during the pendency of the investigation, review, and subsequent expungement appeal, but they all fail to state a claim that Mann’s due process rights were violated. Mann says that due process required the Defendants to (1) issue an order of closure directing her to immediately stop operating the facility, and (2) initiate proceedings to revoke her license within ten days of a finding that the Center jeopardizes the health, safety, morals, or welfare of children. These claims find their roots in 225 ILL. C OMP. S TAT. 10/11.2, which provides in part: Whenever the Department expressly finds that the continued operation of a child care facility . . . jeopardizes the health, safety, morals, or welfare of children served by the facility, the Department shall issue an order of closure directing that the operation of the facility terminates immediately, and, if applicable, shall initiate revocation proceedings under Section 9 within ten working days. (emphasis added). No. 11-1971 17 Mann contends that the Defendants neither issued an order of closure nor initiated revocation proceedings against her. We assume that to be true. Mann, however, ignores two important words in the provision: expressly finds. As the district court concluded in its original motion to dismiss order, Mann does not allege that such findings were ever made. We presume this may have occurred on December 19, 2008, when DCFS determined the complaint was “substantiated,” or on January 12, 2009, when Sherrard issued his supervisory review decision, but even so, Mann does not allege that the Defendants were immediately required to close the Center or revoke Mann’s license at any point. That is because 89 ILL. A DMIN. C ODE § 383.50 allows the state to offer a corrective plan to the individual (which Mann agreed to) instead of pursuing the most drastic means available. In fact, Mann may have actually benefitted from the procedures she was afforded during the entire process. The protective plan, the additional reviews, the corrective plan, and the expungement appeal were all in place to prevent the closure of the Center or the revocation of her license, which she now claims should have occurred. Mann’s contention is circular: DCFS should have done more before preventing her from operating the Center, yet it should have per- manently prevented her from operating the Center before providing her with opportunities to avoid that result. In short, we believe the procedures in place were sufficient to provide Mann an opportunity to be heard and prevent an erroneous deprivation of a protected 18 No. 11-1971 liberty interest. See Dupuy I, 397 F.3d at 504 (“Due Process . . . ‘is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.’ ” (quoting Hudson v. City of Chi., 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004)). We move to the sufficiency of Mann’s claim that the Defendants failed to timely complete its investigation of the complaint against her. This allegation invokes 89 ILL. A DMIN. C ODE § 383.35, which states that an investigation shall be completed within thirty days upon receipt of a complaint. The investigation in this case took almost 120 days—though it was initially extended an additional thirty days in accordance with § 383.35(b). The Defendants concede that the investigation was not completed within the time frame prescribed, but a violation of state procedures does not automatically equate to a violation of Mann’s due process rights. See Anult v. Speicher, 634 F.3d 942, 947 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven if Plaintiff could show Defendant violated Illinois law, failure to comply with state procedures does not demonstrate the violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional due process rights.”). We must make an independent determination as to whether this delay could be a violation of due process. Boyd v. Owen, 481 F.3d 520, 524 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985)). In this case, which deals with allegations of child abuse and neglect, we do not believe that the sixty-day delay can support a due process violation finding. All parties benefit from a thorough review of a child abuse complaint. DCFS has a duty to ensure that No. 11-1971 19 children will not be subjected to abuse or neglect when they are in the care of a day care provider, and day care providers should not have a “substantiated” or “indicated” finding entered against them without a proper investigation and review. See Dupuy I, 397 F.3d at 507-09 (affirming the district court’s injunction requiring DCFS to provide child care workers with an opportunity to respond to allegations before a report is indicated and disclosed because the injunction’s requirements adequately balanced the competing interests of the state and the workers). An additional sixty days to make these determinations and balance the countervailing concerns is not an unreasonable amount of time. Moreover, despite the delay, the facts as pleaded demonstrate that Mann was given an opportunity to be heard at the January 6, 2009 supervisory review, which was completed within the time frame required. See 89 ILL. A DMIN. C ODE § 383.45(c). Mann was also granted an informal review of the supervisory review, and she was given an opportunity to have the indicated report expunged. See § 336.80. This information supports a conclusion that Mann was afforded all the process “due” and that the Defendants’ intrusion on Mann’s right to operate the Center was no greater than was necessary to address the complaint against her. See Dupuy I, 397 F.3d at 504 (“As long as substantial post-deprivation process is available, the pre-deprivation process required . . . need not be elaborate or extensive. Rather, in many situations, it ‘should be an initial check against mistaken decisions[.]’ ” (quoting Hudson, 374 F.3d at 560)). Mann’s allegation regarding the delay is insufficient to support a due process violation. 20 No. 11-1971 That leaves Mann’s allegation that the Defendants improperly and indefinitely closed the Center based on a meritless allegation. But even when viewed in the light most favorable to Mann, the facts alleged demonstrate that a child was hit in the face and injured by another child when the only two licensed day care providers at the Center were out of the room. As we have stated, Mann acknowledges that these events occurred and that they formed the basis of the complaint to DCFS. The complaint was not without merit. Cf. Hernandez, 657 F.3d at 481-82 (stating that the DCFS investigator did not have a reasonable suspicion that the child “had been abused or was in imminent danger of abuse”). Insofar as Mann claims that the complaint was meritless because the indicated finding was later expunged, that does not mean DCFS cannot act diligently to prevent the possibility of future harm or neglect when it receives a credible complaint. See Siliven, 635 F.3d at 929 (explaining that the state has a “strong interest in protecting children from abuse” and must take reasonable action in light of the particular facts known to it). The standard required for certain actions throughout the pendency of an investigation is different, and the allegation was not meritless when DCFS initiated its investigation of Mann and began a formal investigation into the complaint. See 89 ILL. A DMIN. C ODE § 300.100 (DCFS must have “reasonable cause” to begin an initial investigation when it receives a complaint and a “good faith indication that child abuse or neglect exists” to commence a formal investigation). We agree with the district court that Mann’s allegation that No. 11-1971 21 the Center was closed as a result of a meritless complaint cannot survive the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a final matter, Mann attempts to shoehorn the allegations in her Amended Complaint into an argument that the Defendants erroneously applied the “credible evidence” standard. She states that “DCFS officials failed in this case to take into account all available evidence.” Mann also contends in her brief that the Defendants failed to provide her with a timely appeal hearing. Neither of these contentions was alleged in Mann’s Amended Complaint, let alone presented to the district court, so they are waived. See Pole v. Randolph, 570 F.3d 922, 937-38 (7th Cir. 2009) (stating that issues may not be raised on appeal if they were not adequately before the district court). The district court provided Mann with an opportunity to amend her complaint; that time has since passed. We need not address the Defendants’ qualified im- munity defense because Mann has not adequately pleaded a cause of action for deprivation of a constitutional right.