Opinion ID: 1257672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allegations of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint

Text: We take the facts from plaintiffs' second amended complaint: In early 1983, CSD and the county investigated reports from a day-care center that Shannon had been bruised. CSD and the county did not question plaintiffs, nor did they ask a physician to examine Shannon. In late 1983, a school counselor communicated with CSD about bruises on Shannon. Again, CSD and the county investigated without questioning plaintiffs or asking a physician to examine Shannon. On January 9, 1984, CSD received another report about bruises. Goldsby communicated with Mother. Mother told Goldsby that Shannon was physically awkward and clumsy, played hard, and therefore acquired bruises. She also told Goldsby that she had taken Shannon to a Well Child Clinic, where a nurse told her not to worry about the bruises. Goldsby responded that the situation did not merit taking Shannon into protective custody. Mother, however, was extremely upset over the accusatory manner of the Goldsby interrogation. She communicated with Father, who communicated with CSD and complained bitterly. In retaliation, CSD and Goldsby had Walliker take Shannon into protective custody on January 11. This was done without a full, fair and impartial investigation. Before removing Shannon, defendants did not try to eliminate a need to remove Shannon from her home. On January 12, 1984, plaintiffs attended a juvenile court hearing. The referee ruled that Shannon should be placed in foster care. The decision was based on the complaint allegations filed by [Goldsby], and the failure of [Goldsby and Walliker] to present an accurate and informed report based on full, fair and impartial investigation or to give plaintiffs adequate notice of the complaint allegations or to defend against same. Before the ruling, defendants did not investigate or communicate with friends, neighbors, relatives, or a physician about Shannon. After the hearing, plaintiffs were not allowed to visit Shannon for two weeks. Then they were allowed extremely limited visitation. While Shannon was in foster care, she incurred further bruises, including a two-inch bruise on her forehead. On February 10, 1984, plaintiffs brought Shannon home. Welter told them that CSD would not again interfere with custody without first giving notice. He also assured them that Shannon would not be taken into CSD's custody again. On February 16, 1984, however, Walliker took Shannon into custody without notifying plaintiffs. Another juvenile court hearing was held. At the hearing, Walliker arrested plaintiffs for criminal mistreatment. Plaintiffs were told that they could not visit Shannon until the criminal charges were resolved. Welter and Walliker, by failing to fully and completely inform the juvenile court referee    caused [the referee] to inform plaintiffs that Shannon was to be placed in foster care `before they had a dead child.' Shannon was placed in Waverly Children's Home. She was transferred to foster care and then returned to the children's home. The home reported that Shannon was clumsy, played hard and incurred several bruises about her body while in CSD's custody at Waverly. Welter and Walliker did not bring this mitigating evidence to the attention of the court. On April 10, 1984, Father and Mother were allowed to visit Shannon for 30 minutes. Subsequently, they were allowed to visit for one hour each week. Finally, on May 23, 1984, a trial court acquitted Father of criminal mistreatment. The charge against Mother was dismissed. On June 19, 1984, the juvenile court returned Shannon to plaintiffs' custody.