GJA v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES
347 P.3d 310
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2015Background
- Father (GJA) and step‑mother (KA) sued Oklahoma DHS after allegations that two children, son and daughter, were abused while in the mother’s custody — daughter allegedly sexually abused; son allegedly denied medical care.
- Plaintiffs alleged DHS was notified of the abuse, failed to investigate or report the sexual abuse, and sought damages for negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and a constitutional (Due Process) claim under Bosh.
- DHS moved to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6), asserting sovereign immunity under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), specifically 51 O.S. § 155(4) and (29), and that Bosh did not authorize the claimed constitutional remedy here.
- Trial court sustained the motion to dismiss, finding DHS immune under § 155(4), Bosh inapplicable to Plaintiffs’ facts, and no basis for civil conspiracy or other tort recovery against the State; Plaintiffs’ request for discovery before ruling was effectively denied.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GTCA §155(4) bars Plaintiffs’ tort claims | DHS failed to enforce statutory duties to investigate/report abuse, so Plaintiffs can recover for negligence and related torts | §155(4) exempts the State from liability for adoption/enforcement or failure to adopt/enforce laws | Dismissal affirmed; §155(4) immunizes DHS for alleged failure to enforce child‑protection duties |
| Whether GTCA §155(29) applies (placement of children) | Plaintiffs argue DHS mishandled child safety functions generally | DHS invokes §155(29) to bar liability related to placement decisions | §155(29) inapplicable — children were not placed by DHS; claim not premised on placement |
| Whether Bosh creates a constitutional cause of action here (Due Process) | Plaintiffs invoke Bosh to sue for deprivation of constitutional rights caused by DHS investigatory failures | DHS contends Bosh is limited to excessive force/conditions in custody and does not cover investigatory omissions | Bosh is construed broadly to protect constitutional guarantees, but the petition alleges negligence/gross negligence, not the extreme, intentional or custodial deprivations required for a Bosh‑type claim; constitutional claim fails |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying discovery before ruling on dismissal | Plaintiffs requested stay for discovery/amendment to develop constitutional claims | DHS opposed; no discovery had been initiated and no timely motion for extension was filed | No abuse of discretion — Plaintiffs offered no specific discovery scope or timely motion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Bldg. Auth., 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (recognized private cause of action under Okla. Const. art. II, § 30 for excessive force despite GTCA immunities)
- Smith v. City of Stillwater, 328 P.3d 1192 (Okla. 2014) (GTCA is exclusive remedy for governmental negligence; states immunity scope)
- Indiana Nat'l Bank v. State Dep't of Human Services, 880 P.2d 371 (Okla. 1994) (standards for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Skurnack v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Services, 46 P.3d 198 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (DHS immune when acting to enforce child‑protection statute)
- Bryson v. Oklahoma County, 261 P.3d 627 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (GTCA did not bar a prisoner’s excessive‑force constitutional claim)