978 N.E.2d 429
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- K.L. was removed from her mother’s care shortly after birth in a CHINS action; DCS placed K.L. with Glen and Ann Black after a home study showed suitability.
- DCS discussed adoption by the Blacks and informed D.L. that he could terminate parental rights and still visit if he consented to adoption.
- DCS removed K.L. from the Blacks’ home in 2009 without a court order, based on a 20-year-old substantiated report against Glen, with no accompanying investigation.
- The Blacks were not afforded an opportunity to challenge the substantiated report or removal, and DCS later withdrew its consent to the Blacks’ adoption petition.
- D.L., K.L., and the Blacks sued DCS and employees seeking damages for various claims; seven counts were dismissed on quasi-judicial immunity grounds and the court found standing issues for Ann, Glen, and Steven.
- The appellate court held DCS lacked quasi-judicial immunity but had statutory immunity for all but the fraud claim, and Ann and Glen had standing while Steven did not, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quasi-judicial immunity applicable to DCS actions | Family argues immunity does not attach; actions were not under court direction. | DCS actions fit the second Snyder scenario as part of judicial process. | DCS not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for the challenged actions. |
| Statutory immunity under Ind. Code § 31-25-2-2.5 | Immunity should extend to DCS employees for actions/omissions in CHINS context. | Statutory immunity applies broadly to DCS employees for official acts. | DCS entitled to statutory immunity for all dismissed claims except fraud. |
| Standing of Ann, Glen, and Steven to sue DCS | Extended-family liberty interests may confer standing in K.L.’s interests. | Steven lacks custodial relationship and cannot show a protectable liberty interest. | Ann and Glen had standing; Steven did not. |
Key Cases Cited
- H.B. v. State of Indiana, Indiana Div. of Family & Children, 713 N.E.2d 300 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (immunity framework for quasi-judicial immunity and related functions)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (functional approach to immunity based on function, not actor)
- Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279 (7th Cir.2004) (adjudicative function or direct court-like oversight guiding immunity)
- Millspaugh v. Cnty. Dept. of Pub. Welfare of Wabash Cnty., 937 F.2d 1172 (7th Cir.1991) (immunity for in-court CHINS actions but not initial seizures or orders)
- Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir.1982) (liberty interests of custodial relatives in foster contexts)
- Thelen v. Catholic Soc. Serv., 691 F. Supp. 1185 (E.D. Wis.1988) (protective liberty interests in prospective adoptive/foster arrangements)
- J.A.W. v. State, 687 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind.1997) (probation-like functions and judicial-order-enforcement immunity (vacated on transfer))