Deal v. Brooks
389 P.3d 375
Okla. Civ. App.2016Background
- Child born May 2006; in September 2010 DHS took the child into emergency custody and placed her in foster care. Pre-placement visitation with biological father (Brooks) progressed from supervised to unsupervised and overnights.
- DHS recommended placement with Brooks on May 11, 2011; the court was informed the child remained with Brooks after a May 25, 2011 hearing; the child was murdered by Brooks about ten days later.
- Plaintiffs (maternal grandparents) allege DHS employees withheld adverse information, failed to investigate bruises and abuse reports, and negligently recommended placement; two DHS workers later pled guilty to suppressing evidence and were terminated.
- Plaintiffs sued DHS asserting negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death; DHS moved for summary judgment asserting GTCA immunity (51 O.S. §155 exemptions, including placement-of-children exemption) and that intervening criminal acts broke causation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for DHS on GTCA grounds and entered final judgment as to DHS; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the GTCA exempts DHS from tort liability for acts/omissions in placement of children | Deal: DHS breached duties in investigating and disclosing information before placing child with Brooks; statutory notice complied with GTCA so tort claims should proceed | DHS: 51 O.S. §155(29) bars any claim based on an employee’s act/omission in the placement of children; alternative exemptions argued | Court: §155(29) applies; GTCA cause of action is unavailable for these placement-based tort claims (affirmed) |
| Whether a Bosh-based constitutional (due process) claim survives GTCA immunity and summary judgment (danger-creation/substantive due process) | Deal: DHS employees’ affirmative acts/withholding created or increased danger to a child in state custody, meeting danger-creation elements and supporting a conscience-shocking due-process claim | DHS: GTCA immunizes state; injuries resulted from private criminal actor (father) and intervening acts preclude constitutional liability | Court: GTCA does not bar constitutionally based claims where state actors, acting within scope of employment, recklessly created/increased a known, obvious, substantial risk of serious, immediate, proximate harm; genuine disputes of material fact exist on danger-creation elements and scope-of-employment, so summary judgment reversed as to the Bosh/due-process claim and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosh v. Cherokee County Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (state immunity under the GTCA does not bar constitutional damages claims for excessive force in custody)
- Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (danger-creation test and six elements for a substantive due-process claim when state action places a child at risk)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (general rule that Due Process Clause does not impose affirmative duty to protect from private violence; exceptions exist when state custody or state-created danger is present)
- Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1992) (recognized substantive due-process interest of persons in state custody in safe conditions, personal security, and bodily integrity)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligence by state actors generally does not constitute a substantive due-process violation)