Greenfield v. DFS Director Miles
211 A.3d 1087 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Delaware public employees are immune from liability for discretionary acts performed in good faith and without gross or wanton negligence, and to overcome this immunity, a complaint must plead specific facts supporting an inference of gross negligence; moreover, a state-created danger claim under federal due process is generally unavailable where the state did not affirmatively create the danger or limit an individual's freedom to act.
Facts:
- In January 2009, Ethan Ford was born, and hospital tests detected marijuana in his system.
- DFS caseworker Trina Smith investigated, Tanasia Milligan (Ford's mother) admitted smoking marijuana during pregnancy, but a drug screen was never completed despite Smith's attempts to schedule it. Smith visited the home, found Ford 'well-cared for,' and closed the investigation as 'unsubstantiated with concern.'
- In September 2012, DFS investigated a report that Ford and his half-sister, Autumn Milligan, were found outside in diapers after midnight; the children were determined to be developmentally delayed, and Tanasia did not follow through on referrals for evaluations, leading to case closure.
- In Spring 2013, DFS investigated a report that the children were locked in a room for long periods and could not communicate appropriately, finding them clean and well-fed but developmentally delayed, leading to case closure.
- In April 2014, Tanasia Milligan and her boyfriend, Willie Reeder, appeared at Tiffany Greenfield’s house under the influence of drugs to pick up the children, with Reeder forcibly taking them.
- DFS caseworker Crystal Bradley investigated the April 2014 report, met with Tanasia and the children multiple times, spoke with Tanasia by phone, but did not interview motel residents or other collateral contacts, and notes did not indicate an examination of reported marks on the children. The case was moved to treatment, and Tanasia later failed to comply with the treatment plan.
- Less than three months after the April 2014 DFS investigation was closed, Autumn Milligan died, and Ethan Ford suffered permanent and irreversible damage.
- Ethan Ford was subsequently removed from Tanasia Milligan’s custody and placed under the legal guardianship and physical custody of his maternal aunt, Tiffany Greenfield.
Procedural Posture:
- Tiffany Greenfield, as next friend and guardian ad litem for Ethan Ford, filed a complaint in Delaware Superior Court against two former DFS directors, three DFS caseworkers (Smith, Rich, Bradley), one DFS supervisor (Zebroski), and the Budget Motor Lodge.
- The DFS employees moved to dismiss the complaint.
- In February 2017, the Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding claims time-barred, lacking particularized facts for gross negligence, and failing to identify specific defendants for § 1983 claims, but granted Greenfield leave to file an amended complaint.
- Greenfield filed an amended complaint, alleging the same claims with additional factual detail and adding DFS supervisor Nancy Craighton as a defendant.
- The DFS employees again moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
- In October 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the amended complaint, ruling that the alleged tortious actions of caseworkers Smith and Bradley involved discretion and did not rise to the level of gross negligence, claims against supervisors were also dismissed, and Greenfield had failed to plead elements for a state-created danger claim. The court also found the claims time-barred.
- Greenfield appealed the Superior Court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.
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 a complaint adequately state a claim for gross negligence against state child-welfare workers, or a state-created danger claim under federal law, when it alleges their discretionary acts of investigation and case closure were deficient but fails to plead particularized facts supporting an inference of an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care, or show that the state affirmatively created the danger or limited the guardian's ability to protect the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, Justice
No, a complaint does not adequately state a claim for gross negligence against state child-welfare workers, nor a state-created danger claim under federal law, when it alleges their discretionary investigative actions were deficient but lacks particularized facts supporting an inference of gross negligence, and fails to establish that the state affirmatively created the danger or limited the guardian's freedom to act, as required by due process. The Delaware State Tort Claims Act (DSTCA) immunizes public employees for discretionary acts unless performed with gross or wanton negligence. The court found that the DFS defendants' investigative activities, such as deciding how to assess a home environment or follow up on concerns, were discretionary, involving professional judgment rather than clear, non-negotiable mandates. For example, caseworker Smith's decision to close the 2009 case after a home visit, despite a drug screen not being completed, and caseworker Bradley's actions in the 2014 investigation, including multiple contacts but alleged failures to interview collateral sources, were considered exercises of discretion. To overcome immunity for discretionary acts, a plaintiff must plead particularized facts showing 'gross negligence,' defined as an 'extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care.' The allegations against Smith and Bradley, even if indicative of ordinary negligence, did not rise to this 'extreme departure' threshold, especially given the context of their numerous contacts and referrals to treatment. The court also rejected the state-created danger claim, noting that it had not been previously considered by this court but that under federal law, specifically DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, a state's failure to protect an individual from private violence does not violate the Due Process Clause unless the state created the danger or limited the individual's freedom to act on their own behalf. Here, no such affirmative action or limitation by DFS was alleged.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Strine, Chief Justice
Yes, a complaint can adequately state a claim for gross negligence against state child-welfare workers involved in subsequent investigations, particularly at the supervisory level, when it alleges a pattern of repeated failures to ensure compliance with remedial actions and closes cases despite known risks, which could support an inference of gross negligence at the pleading stage; however, the initial investigation and the state-created danger claim were not adequately pleaded. Chief Justice Strine agreed with the majority regarding the high pleading standard for public employee liability, the discretionary nature of the DFS defendants’ duties under § 906, and the rejection of the state-created danger claim. However, he respectfully dissented regarding the dismissal of gross negligence claims against DFS defendants involved in the last three investigations, including the DFS Director. Strine argued that while the first investigation's closure might be a 'close call,' the pattern of subsequent investigations was different. He emphasized that after multiple reports and the mother's repeated non-compliance with DFS's reasonable requests (e.g., drug screenings, children's evaluations), DFS repeatedly closed the cases as 'unsubstantiated with concern.' This pattern, where DFS imposed conditions for child safety but then closed cases when those conditions were flouted, suggested a 'disregard of known risks so substantial as to support an inference of gross negligence' at the pleading stage. He specifically highlighted the failure to investigate reported marks on the children in the final investigation. Strine believed that a DFS director has a duty to implement systems to address such patterns of non-compliance and repeated investigations, and the absence of such action in the face of escalating risks could imply gross negligence.
Analysis:
This case sets a high bar for holding public employees, particularly child-welfare workers, liable for alleged negligence in performing their duties, reinforcing the protection provided by the Delaware State Tort Claims Act. It clarifies the distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts in the context of child protection investigations, emphasizing the broad scope of discretion afforded to social workers in exercising professional judgment. Furthermore, by explicitly rejecting the state-created danger claim under federal law based on DeShaney, the decision limits avenues for challenging state inaction in protecting individuals from private harm, making it more challenging to sue child protection services for tragic outcomes unless active creation of danger or limitation of protective options can be shown.
