The Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5686
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- BIC, a 23-month-old, died on Jan 20, 2008, in the care of Melissa Wells; father Randy Coons’s girlfriend is alleged to be responsible.
- Plaintiffs (Larry and Mary Crosetto and the Estate of BIC) allege Gillen created the danger and violated their right to familial association.
- Gillen is a long-time social worker with Kansas SRS; there were multiple prior reports of abuse or neglect in the Coons/Wells home.
- Gillen allegedly refused to accept evidence, failed to act on abuse reports, and treated the Coons children differently from other cases.
- After BIC’s death, state review criticized Gillen for hands-off handling of the Coons case; district court granted Gillen summary judgment on qualified immunity; state-law claims were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger-creation claim viability under qualified immunity | Gillen’s affirmative conduct/inaction shocks conscience | No qualifying conduct that shocks the conscience; other factors required | Reversed in part on danger-creation element; need analysis of other factors on remand |
| Familial association claim viability | Rights to familial association were violated even without intent to kill | No specific intent to deprive association; claim fails | Affirmed summary judgment on familial-association claims |
| Two-year limitations period applicability | Injury occurred with death in 2008; timely filing in 2010 | Claims argued to have accrued in 2007 | Two-year period applies; claims timely as to death injury; remanded for other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Trujillo v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Santa Fe Cnty., 768 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1985) (familial association claim standards; specificity of intent required)
- Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386 (10th Cir. 1990) (no specific intent to deprive familial relationships shown)
- Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (shocks-the-conscience standard for danger-creation claims (conduct/inaction included))
- Christiansen v. City of Tulsa, 332 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003) (six-factor danger-creation test and immunity analysis)
- Gray v. Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth., 672 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirmative-conduct requirement; inaction can support liability under danger-creation theory)
- Deshaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (general rule: state not required to protect individuals from private harm; exceptions)