376 P.3d 1127
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- In June 2005 Patricia McCarthy reported that her husband Fearghal hit their toddler CCM; a Clark County deputy (Kingrey) arrested Fearghal and a criminal no‑contact order prevented him from contacting his children. Patricia later admitted the allegation was false.
- DSHS/CPS social worker Patrick Dixson investigated after a hospital referral; Dixson made a “founded” finding months later that was later changed to “inconclusive.” Dixson did not timely interview the children or Fearghal and delayed reports.
- Vancouver City prosecutor Jill Petty handled the criminal prosecution; Patricia alleges Petty pressured and coached her and encouraged protective/divorce filings and additional charges.
- Fearghal and his sons sued Clark County, DSHS, and Vancouver for multiple claims, primarily negligent investigation under RCW 26.44.050, plus false arrest, negligent supervision, malicious interference, failure to arrest, WLAD discrimination, outrage, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (published portion) that negligent‑investigation liability under RCW 26.44.050 did not attach to these defendants for the reasons explained, and (unpublished portion) rejecting all other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark County liable under RCW 26.44.050 for negligent investigation by Deputy Kingrey (and whether the criminal no‑contact order is a “harmful placement decision”) | Kingrey’s investigation was incomplete/bias (didn’t interview children, ignored exculpatory facts) and his actions led to separation from children, so RCW 26.44.050 liability applies | County: even if investigation deficient, the arraignment no‑contact order under criminal statute is not a RCW 26.44.050 “harmful placement decision” | Court: Question of fact on negligence, but no‑contact order issued at criminal arraignment is not a “harmful placement decision”; Clark County not liable under RCW 26.44.050 |
| Whether DSHS liable under RCW 26.44.050 for Dixson’s investigation and delay (proximate cause of continued separation/protective orders) | Dixson’s delays and failures were negligent and impeded removal of criminal/civil no‑contact and restraining orders | DSHS: even if investigation was deficient, DSHS did not control court proceedings and did not proximately cause the superior court’s orders | Court: Genuine issue on negligence exists, but Dixson’s investigation was not shown to be the proximate cause of any harmful placement decision; DSHS not liable under RCW 26.44.050 |
| Whether Vancouver is liable for negligent investigation / malicious interference because Petty took investigative (non‑prosecutorial) actions | Petty allegedly pressured and coached Patricia, directed evidence gathering and reporting, and encouraged protective/divorce filings—acts beyond prosecutorial advocacy | Vancouver: Petty’s actions were within traditional prosecutorial functions (witness contact, charging strategy) and thus immune | Court: Even viewing allegations favorably, Petty acted within prosecutorial role; absolute prosecutorial immunity applies and Vancouver not liable |
| Whether Clark County liable for false arrest / false imprisonment based on Kingrey’s arrest of Fearghal | Arrest was wrongful because investigation was deficient and later allegations were false | County: Kingrey had probable cause (Patricia’s detailed eyewitness report corroborated by grandmother) which is a complete defense | Court: No genuine issue—probable cause existed at time of arrest; summary judgment for Clark County on false arrest/imprisonment |
Key Cases Cited
- M.W. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 149 Wn.2d 589 (2003) (recognizes narrow negligent‑investigation cause of action under RCW 26.44.050 requiring a harmful placement decision)
- Tyner v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wn.2d 68 (2000) (DSHS liability where caseworker controlled and concealed material information leading to court placement decisions)
- Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33 (2005) (narrow construction of harmful placement decision and rejection of “constructive placement” theory)
- Petcu v. State, 121 Wn. App. 36 (2004) (proximate cause requirement for negligent investigation; dependency/shelter‑care context)
- Rodriguez v. Perez, 99 Wn. App. 439 (2000) (distinguishes prosecutorial vs investigative functions for immunity analysis)
- Gilliam v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 89 Wn. App. 569 (1998) (prosecutor acting as detective loses absolute immunity)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (U.S. Supreme Court on distinction between advocacy and investigative acts for prosecutorial immunity)