878 F. Supp. 2d 606
D. Maryland2012Background
- Ross was a licensed foster care parent with CCDSS and president of CCFPA in 2008; CCDSS removed five foster children, including K.R., from her home on Aug. 15, 2008 based on neglect allegations later deemed unsubstantiated; Ross challenged CCDSS’s handling by filing complaints with MDHR Ombudsman and later settling in 2010 with CCDSS changing the neglect ruling and keeping terms confidential; Ross gave up her CCDSS foster home license as part of the settlement and sought licensing through The Arc; in March 2010, state licensing advised delaying a home study due to Ross’s public criticism of CCDSS; The Arc declined to proceed with a home study until issues with CCDSS were resolved; Ross sued CCDSS and several CCDSS personnel in 2011, asserting federal and state claims, with amendments through 2012, and the court addressed standing and timeliness as part of the motion to dismiss/summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment allows entry into a foster home based on neglect allegations | Ross contends unsubstantiated neglect claims cannot justify entry | Defendants argue entry based on neglect investigatory purpose is reasonable | Partially denied; genuine factual dispute over pretext undermines immunity/summary judgment on certain aspects |
| Whether Ross and K.R. had protected liberty/property interests to require due process before removal | Ross and K.R. had a protected liberty or property interest in the foster relationship | Maryland law does not confer such interests on foster parents or foster children | Counts 3-4 dismissed for lack of protected interest; no due process violation proved |
| Whether Count 10 (First Amendment retaliation) survives | Removal actions were retaliatory for Ross’s whistleblowing/criticism | Removal based on safety concerns, with no clear retaliatory intent shown | Genuine dispute remains; summary judgment denied for count 10 |
| Whether there is a breach of confidence claim (Count 5) under Maryland law | Confidential information disclosed to The Arc violated confidentiality | Maryland does not recognize breach of confidence as pleaded; no independent duty; settlement confidentiality not binding on Murray-Miller | Count 5 dismissed |
| Whether the MTCA immunity and other claims bar negligence claim (Count 6) | Complaint shows ill-will or wrongful motive to override immunity | MD MTCA immunizes state employees absent malice/gross negligence | Complaint shows ill-will; MTCA immunity not bars; summary judgment denied on this aspect |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible on its face)
- Wilson v. Layne, 141 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 1998) (clearly established rights; qualified immunity analysis guidance)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (requiring proper justification for home entry; warrant/consent rule applied to home visits)
- Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 1999) (false light and defamation standards in Maryland context)