Court Opinion

ID: 9594083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:27:05.833674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:15.162339
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the’ majority opinion but write to emphasize one aspect of this tragic case.
Even if placing Jonathan in the seclusion room could be seen as rising to that level of restraint of personal liberty, the Kings cannot show that the school acted with deliberate indifference to his needs because the specific risk at issue — his intent to commit suicide — had been assessed by the appropriate on-site psychologist, the person most responsible for suicide prevention at the school, and the Kings have not countered that assessment with expert testimony.
It is unchallenged that the associate director and acting school psychologist, Diana Henning, acting in her professional capacity, performed a suicide risk assessment on Jonathan in which she concluded that his suicidal statements were “learned behavior, . . . that it was an escape or an attention-getting technique,” in essence, “empty threats.” She concluded that Jonathan was an attention seeker, impulsive, and that he gained attention in negative ways — “he liked shock value.” During her conversations with Jonathan, he did not give the indications that Henning had been trained to look for to show that he was a genuine and serious suicide risk: he never indicated that he had a plan to actually commit suicide, he did not show intent to do so, and he did not show emotional distress. Rather, he indicated that he would make comments about suicide in order to “get out of math class” because he did not like the teacher, or because he was bored. He also said that he was kidding. This behavior followed a pattern that had been ongoing for several years.
Henning’s assessment was based on her own experience with Jonathan, numerous conversations with Jonathan, her consultations with psychiatrists about Jonathan, review of psychiatric hospital *560reports and other third-party reports regarding Jonathan, conversations with the school staff, and conversations with Jonathan’s mother, who indicated that she knew of his suicidal comments. Henning communicated this opinion to Jonathan’s placement committee, to the school staff, and to Jonathan’s mother. And she updated Jonathan’s teacher on his status from time to time. In other words, it is undisputed that the person at the school qualified to do so, a psychologist with direct and extensive knowledge of Jonathan’s behavior, had applied her professional judgment and concluded that Jonathan was not a suicide risk; and that opinion was disseminated throughout the school. Thus, even if Jackson and Trotter had full information about Jonathan’s previous suicidal statements on November 15, 2004, they could not have been acting with deliberate disregard of a strong likelihood that Jonathan would harm himself because Henning’s professional opinion was that there was no such risk, and they would have been entitled to rely on that opinion.
Decided November 5, 2009
Reconsideration denied December 10,2009
Orr; Brown & Johnson, E. Wycliffe Orr, Sr., William E. Cannon III, for appellants.
Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Jennifer L. Dalton, Robert C. Edwards, Assistant Attorneys General, Harben, Hartley & Hawkins, Phillip L. Hartley, Crim & Bassler, Harry W. Bassler, for appellees.
Jonathan Zimring, Dawn R. Smith, amici curiae.
One may question Henning’s judgment about Jonathan, especially in hindsight, but there is no expert testimony in the record doing so. In short, given Henning’s opinion, the Kings cannot show that the school acted with deliberate indifference to Jonathan’s threats of harming himself.