GJA v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES
347 P.3d 310
Okla. Civ. App.2015Background
- Father (GJA), on behalf of two minor children, sued the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) after allegations that the mother sexually abused the daughter and withheld medical treatment from the son while in the mother’s custody.
- Plaintiffs alleged DHS employees were informed of the abuse, failed to investigate or act, and did not report the sexual-abuse allegation to police.
- Causes of action included negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and a constitutional due-process claim invoking Bosh v. Cherokee County.
- DHS moved to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6), asserting sovereign immunity under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), specifically § 155(4) (enforcement/failure to enforce law) and § 155(29) (placement of children).
- The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss; plaintiffs sought a stay to permit discovery/amendment, which was effectively denied. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GTCA §155(4) bars tort claims for DHS failing to investigate/report abuse | DHS’s failure to act is actionable; GTCA shouldn’t shield constitutional or tort claims arising from inaction | §155(4) immunizes adoption/enforcement or failure to adopt/enforce law, so DHS is immune | Dismissal affirmed; §155(4) applies—claims barred |
| Whether GTCA §155(29) (placement immunity) applies | Plaintiffs didn’t allege claims about placement; §155(29) not applicable | DHS asserted §155(29) immunity generally | §155(29) does not apply because children were not placed by DHS |
| Whether Bosh creates a private constitutional cause of action here (Due Process) | Bosh supports a constitutional claim for DHS’s conduct; discovery may reveal constitutional violations | Bosh is limited or inapplicable; alleged conduct is negligence, not a constitutional violation | Bosh recognized broadly as protecting constitutional rights, but petition’s facts do not allege an egregious constitutional violation; claim dismissed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying stay/additional discovery before ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Plaintiffs requested stay to conduct discovery and amend petition | DHS noted no timely motion for extension or identified discovery needs | No abuse of discretion; plaintiffs failed to timely or specifically seek enlargement, so dismissal without discovery affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (recognizes private cause of action for constitutional violations notwithstanding GTCA and articulates broader policy that constitutional rights cannot be immunized away)
- Smith v. City of Stillwater, 328 P.3d 1192 (Okla. 2014) (GTCA is the exclusive tort remedy against governmental entities and employees; immunity waiver limited to statutory scope)
- Skurnack v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 46 P.3d 198 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (DHS immune where it was attempting to enforce child-abuse investigation statute; enforcement exemption applied)
- Indiana Nat'l Bank v. State Dep't of Human Servs., 880 P.2d 371 (Okla. 1994) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal—pleadings assumed true and dismissal only if no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)