Tamika Boone, V State Of Wa Dshs
48502-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- Patricia Smith operated a private in‑home day care licensed by DSHS from 1986 until license revocation in 2006; she did not disclose her youngest son or consistently list resident Abdullah Ali on licensing forms.
- In 1992 and 1997 DSHS/law enforcement investigated separate referrals of alleged sexual misconduct at Smith’s day care and found the allegations unsubstantiated; no founded findings involving the Boone children during those years.
- Between 2004–2006 the Boone children intermittently attended Smith’s day care; no reports involving them were made while they attended.
- In January 2006 DSHS investigated new referrals (including MT) and, after learning Ali had a disqualifying criminal history and Smith had been untruthful on applications, summarily suspended and later revoked Smith’s license.
- In 2006 the Boone mother reported her children were sexually abused by Smith’s husband and son; DSHS later founded the allegation against Smith’s husband.
- In 2015 the Boones sued DSHS alleging negligent investigation, failure to run background checks, and failure to report (mandatory reporter duties); the superior court granted summary judgment for DSHS and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent investigation under RCW 26.44.050 | DSHS had a duty to investigate prior referrals (1992,1997,2006) with reasonable care toward any foreseeably endangered children (including Boone children); failure to check Ali caused later abuse. | Duty to investigate attaches to the subjects of a report; DSHS did not owe Boone children a duty under RCW 26.44.050 for reports that did not name them. | Court refused to expand the negligent‑investigation duty to non‑reported children; Boones not in protected class. |
| Failure to perform background checks (RCW 43.43.832) | DSHS negligently failed to conduct or follow up on background checks that would have revealed Ali’s disqualifying history earlier. | Statute’s purpose is to inform employers; no clear legislative intent creating a private right/duty to individual parents; DSHS owed no specific duty to Boones. | No actionable statutory duty to Boones under RCW 43.43.832; legislative‑intent exception to public‑duty doctrine not met. |
| Mandatory reporting (RCW 26.44.030) | Once DSHS knew Ali may have unsupervised access, DSHS had reasonable cause to suspect abuse and thus a duty to report/protect. | Mandatory reporting triggers only when there is reasonable cause to believe a child suffered abuse/neglect; mere knowledge of access is insufficient. | Court held no reasonable cause pre‑2006 to trigger mandatory‑report duties to Boones; no statutory reporting claim. |
| Causation / Public duty doctrine | Even if duties existed, earlier action (background checks, license revocation) would have prevented Boone children’s attendance and abuse. | Any chain of causation is speculative/attenuated; Ali’s disqualifying convictions post‑dated earlier years; licensing/background statutes impose public duties, not individual guarantees. | Court found causation too speculative and legal causation lacking; public duty doctrine and absence of clear statutory intent bar individual claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.W. v. Dep’t of Social & Health Servs., 149 Wn.2d 589 (2003) (defines negligent‑investigation cause of action under RCW 26.44.050 and sets framework for class and causation issues)
- Tyner v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wn.2d 68 (2000) (discusses proximate cause and legal causation in claims against the State)
- Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 (1989) (articulates Bennett test for implying remedies from statutes)
- Donohoe v. State, 135 Wn. App. 824 (2006) (public duty doctrine and legislative‑intent exception analysis for regulatory licensing schemes)
- Lewis v. Whatcom County, 136 Wn. App. 450 (2006) (distinguishes duty where plaintiff was specifically alleged abused in the investigative report)
- Yonker v. Dep’t of Social & Health Servs., 85 Wn. App. 71 (1997) (recognizes state duty to investigate upon receiving a report of possible child abuse)
- Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc’n Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871 (2013) (explains public duty doctrine as a tool to determine whether duty is to public at large or to an individual)