Randy Mulholland v. Government County of Berks
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2006
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Mulholland and Kurtz, who consider themselves married, faced a 1996 incident involving their daughter Linda and alleged sexual misconduct by Mulholland; Linda’s statements led to police involvement and an indication of abuse by BCCYS.
- BCCYS classified Mulholland as an ‘indicated’ perpetrator and filed a CY-48 report to ChildLine; DPW ultimately expunged the ChildLine listing in 2010 after a lengthy administrative process.
- Over the years, BCCYS repeatedly interacted with the family and, in 2006, sought removal of Mulholland’s and Kurtz’s children and Heddy’s children from the home based on Mulholland’s ChildLine listing.
- Mulholland and Kurtz alleged procedural and substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Berks County (and BCCYS/Kovarie were dismissed from remaining claims).
- The district court granted summary judgment to BCCYS and Kovarie, and later ruled on the § 1983 claims against Berks County; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding no policy or custom established municipal liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monell policy or custom needed for liability | Mulholland and Kurtz asserted BCCYS policy/custom caused due process violations. | Berks County contends no single policy or custom led to the alleged violations. | No Monell policy or custom shown; district court proper |
| Adequacy of notice and exculpatory information | County policy failed to notify Mulholland and update ChildLine with exculpatory data. | Notice and appeals framework under CPSL sufficient; policy not to add exculpatory updates. | County not liable; CPSL process adequate and DPW notice/bureau issues not imputable to County |
| Removal of children and due process | Removal based on Mulholland’s ChildLine listing shows gross negligence/shock to conscience. | Agency reasonably relied on ChildLine status and CPSL procedures; actions not shocking to conscience. | Removal upheld as reasonable under CPSL; no substantive due process violation |
| Appeals strategy to elevate status from indicated to founded | Policy to change status during appeals demonstrates deliberate policy. | Litigation position on status change was case-specific, not policy. | Not a Monell policy; not shockingly arbitrary |
| Evidentiary ruling on police report | Report was highly prejudicial and should have been excluded. | District court acted within Rule 403; probative value outweighed prejudice. | Ruling within discretion; not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966 (3d Cir. 1996) (monell liability requires policy or custom)
- Monell v. N.Y. City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (establishes municipal liability framework)
- Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) (policy/custom vs. respondeat superior)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2006) (final policymaker authority for Monell)
- Croft v. Westmoreland Cnty. Children & Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) (reasonable suspicion standard for removal of child)
- Miller v. City of Philadelphia, 174 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 1999) (due process shocks the conscience standard)
- Ziccardi v. City of Phila., 288 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2002) (reasonable suspicion and harms in child welfare)
- McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 2005) (municipal liability for single policymaker decision)
- Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1986) (rejected broad vicarious liability)
- Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003) (initial deprivation required for §1983 claim)