Opinion ID: 718597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Abuse Investigation

Text: 3 As recorded by the state agency, the January 24 complaint about the Gottliebs stated that Father pulls down his pants and underwear and dances around the living room in front of the children. This has occurred more than once. Mother is present when this occurs and laughs about it. On January 29, the County received another complaint; the complainant no longer sought anonymity and said she was the source of the January 24 complaint. The County's record of the complaint stated that according to the complainant (Source), 4 [y]esterday, Father pulled down his pants and underwear and danced around the living room. This has happened in the past. Mother is aware of this and she thinks that it's funny. Father wakes Dawn up at night and gets into bed with child. Father tickles Dawn's breasts. An attached comment sheet also noted: 5 Dawn stated Father tickles my boobies. Dawn also said that Father wakes her up and tells her that he has to get in bed with her because she can't sleep. Father then makes her hold him tight. Father tells child not to tell Mommy. Source is extremely concerned about confidentiality. Source watches Dawn after school at 3 p.m. and she picks Lee up at noon from nursery school. Source made first report, but was anonymous. Source wants contact this time. 6 Coppola, a senior caseworker for the County, was assigned to investigate the matter and was given the above information. 7 On January 30, Coppola contacted the Source, who repeated the substance of the above communications. In questioning the Source, Coppola focused on the substance of the allegations and did not conduct background inquiries to evaluate the source's reliability, or whether the source may have harbored any malice toward the plaintiffs. Gottlieb I, 871 F.Supp. at 627-28. In her deposition, Coppola stated that though she did not specifically ask whether the Source had any malice towards the Gottliebs, she saw no evidence of malice in the Source's responses to the questions that were asked. 8 On January 31, Coppola went to Lee's nursery school, but Lee was absent; Coppola spoke to the principal, though not to Lee's teacher. The principal said that Lee had had no behavioral problems.
9 On the following day, February 1, Coppola interviewed, seriatim, Lee, Dawn, their mother, and their father. Lee, interviewed at his nursery school, did not disclose any abuse; he laughed when asked about his father's pants falling down. 10 Coppola then talked with Dawn at her school in an interview lasting 45 minutes to an hour; Coppola took extensive notes of the interview and was deposed on the subject for several days. The school nurse was present for all but the first 10 minutes of the interview. At the outset, Coppola sought to build rapport with Dawn, stating that Coppola's job was to protect children. Coppola also asked questions designed to measure Dawn's ability to distinguish fact from fantasy. She determined that Dawn could count on her fingers; knew some colors, her age, and the names of family members; could remember and describe gifts, toys, and her birthday; knew that Coppola could not walk up a wall or fly, and that only birds and planes fly; and was familiar with non-threatening body parts such as Coppola's nose and eyes. Dawn played with toys brought by Coppola and said she wanted to draw. Dawn drew pictures that she then covered with black. 11 Before the nurse joined them, Coppola asked Dawn when [Dawn] was going to tell about Daddy losing his pants. Coppola testified at her deposition that Dawn, who thought it was pretty funny, 12 looked at me and she said ... How do you know that? And she said, It's an in-house secret, and daddy doesn't like tattletales. And I said, It's okay. You can tell me. And then she said how daddy lost his pants and everybody was laughing.... 13 Coppola told Dawn that it was all right to tell because Coppola knew all in house secrets. In the presence of the school nurse, Coppola asked whether Dawn knew other body parts, and Dawn identified breasts, buttocks, and the vaginal area in colloquial terms (e.g., boobies for breasts). Coppola then asked, Remember we just talked about in house secrets and you told me about Daddy['s] pants falling down[?]; Dawn responded that she did. Coppola reiterated that it was all right for Dawn to talk about in house secrets because Coppola knew about them, but that Dawn had to tell the truth: it[']s OK to tell but it has to be true[.] It has to really happen. Coppola repeatedly reassured Dawn that what had happened was not her fault and told Dawn it was all right to tell what had happened, so long as she was telling the truth. 14 Coppola asked, Did Daddy[']s pants fall down?, and Dawn giggled yes. Then Coppola, indicating her own private areas, asked, Has any one touched you here[,] here[,] or here[?]; Dawn said [Y]es. Thereafter, in response to a series of largely nonleading questions (e.g., Who touches[?]; What does he touch[?]; With what[?]; Where[?]; Who knows about this[?]; and How do you know they know this[?]), Dawn proceeded to state that on three occasions in the dark in her room, her father had inserted and moved his finger inside her vaginal area. Dawn said her father also touched her brother's anus. Dawn said her mother, aunt, and grandmother knew that her father touched her, that her mother and grandmother had told her father to stop, and that her parents had fought about it. Her father had stopped for a while but then had resumed. Dawn said she had never touched her father's private parts but that her brother had touched her private parts after seeing her father touch them. Dawn indicated that she was afraid to have anyone outside of the family learn of these events and feared that she would be punished if she talked about them outside of the home. 15 After the interview, Coppola asked the nurse whether Dawn had had any behavior problems; the nurse subsequently informed Coppola that there had been no behavior or attendance problems. Coppola also talked with Dawn's teacher and, speaking only in generalities, asked her to support Dawn and to inform Coppola if any problems arose. 16 Coppola immediately reported to Douthert, her supervisor, the substance of Dawn's statements, and Douthert told Coppola to contact law enforcement. Coppola and a state trooper, defendant Todd Zeltman, proceeded to interview Dawn at Dawn's baby sitter's home. According to Zeltman's deposition, Dawn made statements confirming Coppola's account of the initial interview. 17 Coppola then interviewed Dawn's mother, Jean, who denied that Dawn had told her of any sexual abuse. Jean stated that Dawn could have gotten the idea of her father inserting and moving his finger in her vagina by watching a pornographic video that Jean claimed Dawn had viewed accidentally the prior weekend. Coppola then spoke with Dawn's father, Andrew. Andrew said that his pants had once fallen down accidentally (an explanation Coppola testified she had found valid), and he denied sexually abusing Dawn. 18 After these interviews, Coppola informed the Gottliebs that the County would seek to take Dawn and Lee into custody pending completion of the investigation unless Jean could make suitable arrangements to separate the children from Andrew. Jean was offered the alternative of making suitable arrangements for herself and the children to stay elsewhere; she was told that it would not be suitable for them to stay with Andrew's mother or sister, who Dawn had said knew of the abuse. The Gottliebs were also offered the alternative of having Andrew move out of the home for 90 days. The Gottliebs spoke with an attorney by telephone. Then, rather than have the children moved or removed, Andrew left the home.
19 Although on February 1 Andrew had volunteered to take a lie detector test regarding Dawn's allegations, he withdrew that offer on the advice of counsel. The Gottliebs and the County then agreed on a cooperative course of action. Jean took Dawn to see a physician and a psychiatrist of the Gottliebs' own choosing [f]or validation purposes; after examinations, these doctors opined that there was no evidence of sexual abuse. Approximately one month after he left the home, Andrew was allowed to return and remain in the home. 20 Nonetheless, in April 1990, a state-agency follow-up report marked the matter indicated rather than unfounded, and a review body found that there was 'some credible evidence' of sexual abuse and inadequate guardianship of both children by their parents. No judicial proceeding was instituted, however, until October 1990, when the County applied in family court for an order directing that experts chosen by the County be permitted to examine Dawn to assess the allegations of sexual abuse. That application was withdrawn in November 1990, apparently based on an agreement between plaintiffs and the County to have County experts examine the reports of plaintiffs' doctors who had examined Dawn in February 1990. After completing their review of those reports in January and February of 1991, the County's experts expressed a desire to conduct independent examinations. The County did not make a new family-court application for examinations until June. That court denied the application on the ground that the existing expert opinions that no abuse had occurred, combined with the County's delays in seeking an order permitting its own experts' examination, persuaded the court that it was not in the best interests of the child to undergo any further examinations in connection with events alleged to have occurred some 17 months prior to the County's June 1991 application. 21 Eventually, after a state administrative proceeding, the complaints against the Gottliebs were expunged from the record.