K.H. v. McClintock (Ex parte McClintock), 255 So. 3d 180

Background

Infant K.W. born Dec. 21, 2011; mother T.H. (a minor) was investigated by Jefferson County DHR after concerns about her ability to care for the child.
DHR worker Devaughn filed a dependency complaint and K.W. was removed and placed in foster care with Dennis Gilmer on Jan. 20, 2012.
K.W. died in foster care on Feb. 24, 2012. Directors McClintock and Streeter, and worker Devaughn (the petitioners) were sued by K.H. (father) and T.H. for wrongful death, negligence, wantonness, and negligent/wanton supervision/training.
Petitioners moved for summary judgment asserting State-agent immunity under Ex parte Cranman; trial court denied the motion.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus, holding petitioners met their burden showing Cranman immunity and plaintiffs failed to present evidence raising a Cranman exception (willful/bad-faith conduct or failure to follow mandatory rules). Court directed entry of summary judgment for petitioners.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioners are entitled to State-agent immunity under Ex parte Cranman (category 3: discharging duties under statute/rule/regulation)	DHR employees exceeded authority or failed to follow mandatory DHR policies (relative-placement preference; foster-home "Minimum Standards") when removing/placing K.W.	Petitioners were performing duties of DHR falling within Cranman category 3 and are therefore immune absent proof of Cranman exceptions	Held: Petitioners established entitlement to Cranman immunity; plaintiffs failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue that an exception applies, so summary judgment for petitioners is required
Whether plaintiffs produced evidence that petitioners acted willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, or beyond authority	Plaintiffs asserted procedural violations of DHR policies and inadequate training/supervision that led to fatal placement conditions	Petitioners argued no evidence showed they violated mandatory, detailed rules or acted in bad faith or beyond authority	Held: Plaintiffs presented only general allegations and no substantial evidence of duty-violating checklist-like rules or bad-faith conduct; burden not met
Whether DHR guidelines cited (relative-placement and foster-home standards) are mandatory such that failure to follow them negates immunity	Plaintiffs contended the guidelines require relative placement first and specific crib/sleep protocols for infants, making those non-discretionary	Petitioners noted plaintiffs offered no evidence of actual mandatory directives applied or that petitioners deviated from them in a checklist-mandated way	Held: Court treated the guidelines as insufficiently shown to create a Cranman exception on the record before it
Standard for appellate review of immunity-based summary-judgment denials	Plaintiffs implicitly relied on plenary review to preserve issues	Petitioners relied on mandamus review and established legal entitlement to immunity under settled standards	Held: Mandamus was appropriate; appellate review applies Cranman burden-shifting and summary-judgment standards (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (restates Alabama State-agent immunity rule and lists exceptions)
Ex parte Rizk, 791 So.2d 911 (Ala. 2000) (denial of immunity-based summary judgment reviewable by mandamus)
Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705 (Ala. 2002) (summary-judgment review standards when immunity asserted)
Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala. 2000) (adopts Cranman framework)
Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 So.2d 1046 (Ala. 2003) (burden-shifting: State agent shows entitlement; plaintiff must prove exception)
Ex parte City of Montgomery, 99 So.3d 282 (Ala. 2012) (discusses Cranman exceptions and checklist/mandatory-rule proof)
Ex parte Jefferson Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 63 So.3d 621 (Ala. 2010) (applies Cranman immunity to DHR employees)