Brandon K. And Teri L. Roe v. State Of Washington
47987-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- In May 2010 CPS and the Cowlitz County Sheriff removed N.R., a minor with extensive bruising, and the Roes agreed to a voluntary out-of-home placement.
- Investigators collected multiple sources of information: babysitter Heather Bonnell’s report that N.R. said Teri caused the injuries; statements from other family members implicating Teri; the Roes’ alternative explanations (puppy, balance problems); medical/expert reports expressing concern that injuries were diagnostic of abuse; photographs of injuries; and a voice stress analysis of Teri.
- On July 14, 2010 Teri was arrested for third-degree assault of a child; a no-contact order was entered; CPS filed a dependency petition.
- Teri was acquitted of the criminal charge in 2011, the dependency was eventually dismissed in 2012, and N.R. was returned to the Roes.
- The Roes sued the State and Cowlitz County (federal civil-rights claims dismissed on summary judgment; state-law claims of negligent investigation, outrage, and malicious prosecution remanded and then dismissed on summary judgment).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding (1) the investigation was not incomplete or biased, (2) defendants’ conduct was not outrageous, and (3) probable cause existed as a matter of law for the child-assault charge, defeating malicious prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent investigation: Did CPS/law enforcement conduct an incomplete or biased probe that caused a harmful placement? | Roes: investigation relied entirely on the babysitter Bonnell (biased/unreliable), so it was incomplete and biased. | State/County: investigation used multiple sources (witnesses, medical experts, photos, voice stress analysis); not incomplete or biased. | Court: No genuine issue—investigation was not incomplete or biased; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Outrage (intentional infliction of severe emotional distress): Were defendants’ actions extreme/outrageous? | Roes: removal/placement and related actions caused severe emotional distress and were extreme given alleged investigative failings. | State/County: actions were reasonable steps to protect child based on visible, extensive bruising and supporting evidence. | Court: Conduct not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Malicious prosecution: Was there want of probable cause and malice in instituting criminal charges? | Roes: prosecution was wrongful given later acquittal and alleged investigative defects. | State/County: probable cause existed based on the full and fair disclosure of material facts; existence of probable cause is a complete defense. | Court: Probable cause established as matter of law (full and fair disclosure); malicious prosecution claim defeated. |
| Summary judgment standard: Were there genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment? | Roes: disputed facts about bias, completeness, outrageousness, and malice warrant trial. | State/County: record materials are unrefuted on key elements; reasonable minds could not differ. | Court: No genuine triable issues; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.W. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 149 Wn.2d 589 (recognizes limited parental cause of action for negligent investigation leading to harmful placement)
- Tyner v. State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wn.2d 68 (negligent investigation claim extends to suspected abusing parents)
- Keates v. City of Vancouver, 73 Wn. App. 257 (defines elements and extreme-conduct threshold for outrage)
- Rodriguez v. City of Moses Lake, 158 Wn. App. 724 (probable cause is a complete defense to malicious prosecution; full and fair disclosure standard)
- Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wn.2d 582 (probable cause definition and standard)