428 P.3d 1279
Wash. Ct. App.2018Background
- A.A., a six‑year‑old, was placed with his father Anthony Viles after DSHS removed him from his mother Jessica Wrigley’s home; about three months later Viles beat A.A. to death.
- Before placement, Jessica repeatedly told DSHS social workers that Viles had a history of violence (including threats against her), criminal history, and that A.A. would be in grave danger if placed with him.
- At the January 2012 placement hearing, DSHS personnel and the AAG did not fully disclose all information they had gathered about Viles to the court; the juvenile court ordered a 30‑day placement and later found placement with Viles was in A.A.’s best interest and dismissed the dependency petition.
- The Wrigleys sued DSHS asserting negligence claims grounded in former RCW 26.44.050 (negligent investigation) and other negligence‑based theories; their complaint did not initially plead general common‑law negligence.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing all negligence‑based claims, finding DSHS owed no duty; the Wrigleys’ later motion for leave to amend to add a general negligence theory was denied as prejudicial and untimely.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: it held DSHS owed a duty under former RCW 26.44.050 and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend; it remanded for further proceedings. The court declined to decide duties arising from the shelter care order or the special‑relationship doctrine because those issues were not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether former RCW 26.44.050 created a duty to investigate Viles based on reports Jessica made about him | Wrigley: her reports about Viles’ violence, criminal history, and prediction A.A. would be harmed constituted a “report concerning the possible occurrence of abuse or neglect,” triggering a statutory duty to investigate | DSHS: no report of abuse or neglect by Viles of any child was received, so RCW 26.44.050 did not apply | Held: RCW 26.44.050 includes reports suggesting a reasonable possibility of future abuse; DSHS owed a duty and summary judgment on that claim was reversed |
| Whether the shelter care order imposed an independent duty on DSHS to prevent placement with Viles | Wrigley: the shelter care order created a duty to protect A.A. from placement with his father | DSHS: issue not preserved/was not properly litigated below | Held: Issue not addressed on appeal under RAP 9.12 (not raised to trial court) |
| Whether a special‑relationship (or general negligence) duty existed giving rise to additional negligence claims | Wrigley: DSHS had a special protective relationship with children in its custody and owed ordinary care | DSHS: not argued below; trial court dismissed negligence claims | Held: Declined to address under RAP 9.12 because not raised below; remand allows amendment to plead general negligence |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend to add general negligence | Wrigley: amendment would state an alternative theory based on the same facts; DSHS would not be prejudiced | DSHS: late amendment would cause prejudice and unfair surprise given litigation history and scheduling | Held: Trial court abused its discretion; leave to amend should have been granted (prejudice not shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyner v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wn.2d 68 (2000) (RCW 26.44’s purpose is child protection and places an affirmative duty of investigation on the State)
- M.W. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 149 Wn.2d 589 (2003) (statutory duty to investigate under RCW 26.44.050 implies a narrow cause of action for negligent investigation where an incomplete or biased investigation leads to a harmful placement decision)
- M.M.S. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 1 Wn. App. 2d 320 (2017) (absence of reports of possible abuse can mean RCW 26.44.050 is not triggered; distinguishes duties to search closed dependency files)
- HBH v. State, 197 Wn. App. 77 (2016) (addressed whether DSHS owes a duty of ordinary care to foster children based on a special protective relationship)
- Wilson v. Horsley, 137 Wn.2d 500 (1999) (denial of leave to amend turns on prejudice to the nonmoving party; factors include undue delay, unfair surprise, and jury confusion)
- Herron v. Tribune Publ’g Co., 108 Wn.2d 162 (1987) (CR 15 interpreted liberally to allow amendments presenting alternative legal theories when based on same facts)