Suzanne Kolley v. Adult Protective Services
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16079
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Jena Kolley, a 19-year-old with Oral Facial Digital Syndrome, was investigated for alleged abuse after statements that her mother hit her.
- Oakland County Adult Protective Services, police, and a Care House evaluator filed a guardianship petition leading to a court-ordered removal and placement in a foster/guardianship arrangement.
- The probate court appointed guardians and a Guardian Ad Litem; disputes arose over visitation and custody with Jena ultimately placed in her father’s home with full custody granted later.
- The Kolleys sued multiple investigators and agencies in federal court for alleged Due Process and First Amendment violations, and for related state claims; the district court dismissed federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The district court relied on Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dept. of Children and Family Servs. to dismiss the claims; the Kolleys appealed the district court’s judgment.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Pittman controls and that Michigan custodial decisions lie with the courts, not social workers, so the asserted rights were not violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Kolleys' due process claims survive | Kolleys claim deprivation of family integrity | Pittman controls; court, not social workers, decides custody | Claims fail |
| Whether procedural due process was violated by lack of notice of hearings | Social workers denied notice to Joseph Kolley | Michigan courts notify parties; social workers not sole decision-makers | Claims fail |
| Whether the Kolleys' First Amendment claim supports a family-association right | Right to family association was violated | Intimate association analysis falls under due process; Pittman controls | Claims fail |
| Whether discovery before dismissal was improper | District court erred by denying discovery prior to summary judgment | Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) does not entitle discovery; Pittman framework applies | Affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 2011) (substantive and procedural due process claims tied to custodial decisions rely on court—not social workers)
- Teets v. Cuyahoga Cnty., Ohio, 460 F. App’x 498 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished; applying Pittman to substantiate due process holding)
- Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (due process right to family integrity not automatic; requires shock to conscience or bad faith)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1971) (notice and hearing requirements for parental rights termination)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible vs. conclusory allegations)