428 F.Supp.3d 483
W.D. Wash.2019Background
- In October 2013, three-year-old J.L. presented with abdominal distension, weight loss, abnormal labs, and was evaluated at Seattle Children’s Hospital (SCH); providers found gross malnutrition and recommended admission; CPS became involved after parents resisted admission and behaved disruptively.
- Seattle police placed J.L. in protective custody and DSHS filed a dependency petition; a 72-hour shelter-care hearing was held and Commissioner Hillman ordered out-of-home placement based on reasonable cause of medical neglect.
- J.L. gained weight in hospital care but later lost weight in foster care; DSHS later changed its "founded" medical-neglect finding to "unfounded," and J.L. was returned to his father in July 2014; the dependency petition was dismissed in September 2014.
- Plaintiffs (Ms. Chen, Mr. Lian, and J.L.) sued State Defendants (DSHS, Kimberly Danner, Bill Moss, Jill Kegel) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Washington tort law alleging wrongful initiation/maintenance of dependency proceedings, constitutional violations, negligent investigation, IIED, and NIED.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing absolute and qualified immunity for § 1983 claims, failure to state state-law claims, and moved to strike portions of plaintiffs’ witness declarations; the court resolved most immunity/designation issues on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute immunity for social workers' actions | DSHS social workers’ investigatory and discretionary acts (not courtroom advocacy) are not protected by absolute immunity | Social workers who initiate/pursue dependency proceedings and act as in‑court advocates are absolutely immune | Court: Grants absolute immunity for initiating/pursuing dependency and in‑court advocacy; denies absolute immunity for investigatory acts, fabrication allegations, and placement/care decisions (those get qualified immunity review) |
| Qualified immunity for § 1983 due‑process and Fourth Amendment claims | Plaintiffs: DSHS investigators withheld/excluded material medical evidence and performed inadequate investigations that deprived parents of liberty interests | Defendants: acted reasonably given conflicting medical opinions and court found reasonable cause; police effectuated initial seizure; plaintiffs had process and counsel | Court: Grants qualified immunity on substantive and procedural due‑process and Fourth Amendment claims; no evidence of conscience‑shocking deliberate indifference or fabrication that overcomes immunity |
| Motions to strike treating providers’ declarations / expert testimony | Plaintiffs: treating providers are percipient fact witnesses and may testify from personal knowledge without expert disclosures | Defendants: portions of declarations are undisclosed expert opinions and should be excluded under Rule 26 | Court: Denies in part and grants in part — treating providers may testify as percipient witnesses about diagnosis/treatment but may not offer undislosed expert causation or opinions beyond personal treatment knowledge |
| State‑law negligent investigation (RCW 26.44.050/private right) | Plaintiffs: DSHS’s incomplete/biased pre‑hearing investigation and certain inaccuracies were material and proximately caused harmful removal | Defendants: Commissioner Hillman’s shelter‑care order supersedes and/or all material information was presented to court; no harmful placement or proximate cause | Court: Denies summary judgment as to negligent‑investigation claim against DSHS/Danner pre‑shelter‑care order (triable issues whether material facts were withheld); grants summary judgment as to Kegel (not involved pre‑order) |
| IIED and negligent infliction of emotional distress | Plaintiffs: Defendants’ conduct caused severe emotional distress and was outrageous | Defendants: conduct was not extreme or outrageous; no adequate causation proof | Court: Grants summary judgment for Defendants on IIED and NIED (plaintiffs fail to show extreme conduct and cannot meet objective causation/symptomatology without expert proof) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (absolute immunity analysis depends on the function performed, not title)
- Hardwick v. County of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2017) (absolute immunity for actions that are part and parcel of presenting the State’s case)
- Costanich v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) (social workers not absolutely immune for fabricated evidence or false statements in dependency affidavits)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (extreme facts where removals and invasive exams without judicial authorization shocked the conscience)
- Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2018) (procedural‑due‑process test for warrantless child removals—reasonable cause of imminent danger and proportional intrusion)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑step inquiry and flexibility in its application)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (framework for determining whether a right was clearly established)
- Tyner v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 1 P.3d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (DSHS duty of reasonable care in child‑abuse investigations; material omissions to court can be actionable)
- Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 921 P.2d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996) (addressed DSHS investigation failures; court discusses but declines to treat as controlling for clearly established federal immunity rules)