Commerce Bank v. Augsburger
223 Ill. Dec. 872, 680 N.E.2d 822, 288 Ill. App. 3d 510 (1997)
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of parental immunity extends to foster parents, barring negligence claims that arise from the exercise of parental authority and discretion in supervising and disciplining a foster child.
Facts:
- The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) contracted with Youth Services of Mid-Illinois, Inc., a private entity, to place dependent children in foster homes.
- Youth Services, acting as an independent contractor, placed three-year-old Louise Osborn, a DCFS ward, into the foster care of Matthew and Sarah Augsburger.
- The Augsburgers' agreement with Youth Services identified them as independent contractors.
- While in the Augsburgers' care, Louise Osborn was confined inside an enclosed shelf of a wooden cabinet within a bedroom closet.
- As a result of the confinement, Louise Osborn died from asphyxiation and hyperthermia.
- The lawsuit alleged the Augsburgers had negligently and improperly supervised the child by placing her in the confined space and failing to monitor her.
Procedural Posture:
- Commerce Bank, as administrator of Louise Osborn's estate, filed a lawsuit in the circuit court of McLean County against the Augsburgers and others.
- The complaint included counts against the Augsburgers for negligence leading to the child's injury and wrongful death.
- The Augsburgers filed a motion to dismiss the counts against them, asserting the affirmative defense of parental immunity.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted the Augsburgers' motion and dismissed the negligence counts.
- Plaintiff, Commerce Bank, appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- On appeal, the Augsburgers (appellees) also argued for the first time that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of parental immunity bar a negligence claim against foster parents for actions concerning the supervision of a foster child in their care?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Green
Yes, the doctrine of parental immunity bars a negligence claim against foster parents for actions concerning the supervision of a foster child. The court first determined that the Augsburgers were not entitled to sovereign immunity because their relationship with the state was too attenuated, as they were independent contractors to another independent contractor (Youth Services), and the state lacked direct control over them. The court then extended parental immunity to foster parents, relying on the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Cates v. Cates, which preserved immunity for conduct 'inherent to the parent-child relationship.' The court found that the alleged negligence—improper supervision and placement of the child in a closet—falls squarely within the scope of parental discretion in supervision and discipline, which Cates protected. The court reasoned that foster parents require the same leeway as natural parents to make supervisory decisions without the fear of litigation, which could deter their performance.
Dissenting - Justice Cook
No, the doctrine of parental immunity should not bar a negligence claim against foster parents. The majority's decision improperly expands a doctrine that has otherwise been narrowing. The key policy behind immunity, preserving parental authority, is not a realistic concern in the foster care context due to the temporary nature of the relationship; if problems arise, a child can be moved to a new home. Furthermore, foster parents do not have the same broad discretion as natural parents, as their disciplinary methods are already closely regulated by DCFS. Therefore, the public policy justifications for granting immunity to natural parents do not apply with the same force to foster parents.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Illinois law by extending parent-child tort immunity to foster parents for the first time. The decision solidifies the standard from Cates v. Cates, emphasizing the nature of the alleged negligent conduct (supervision and discipline) over the legal status of the caregiver. By doing so, it raises the bar for plaintiffs, who must now plead and prove willful and wanton misconduct, rather than simple negligence, to hold foster parents liable for injuries arising from supervisory acts. This ruling creates a tension between protecting the discretionary authority of foster parents and ensuring legal accountability for the safety of children in their care.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commerce Bank v. Augsburger (1997)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"