Paul Wright v. Yacovone et al
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER granting 39 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 3/21/2014. (pac)
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 20111 !~lnR 21 Pr1 3: l~ 1
FOR THE
CLERK
DISTRlCT OF VERMONT
-x'cl3 Y -----c-~i; CLE'lK-
PAUL WRlGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE YACOVONE, STEVE DALE,
LISA KELLER, RAYMOND KELLETT,
KELLI ZUMBRUSKI, GYLA DZIOBEK,
and JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:12-cv-27
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 39)
Plaintiff Paul Wright brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants Dave Yacovone, Steve Dale, Lisa Keller, Raymond Kellett, Kelli
Zumbruski,1 Gyla Dziobek and John Does. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his
constitutional rights when they substantiated him for child abuse and released a letter
informing his ex-wife of the substantiation with a recommendation that she file the letter
in Vermont Family Court.
Presently before the court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
39.) On February 4, 2014, the court held oral argument in this matter and subsequently
granted Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of his equal protection claim as to all Defendants
and his procedural due process claim as to Defendants Yacovone, Dale, Keller, Dziobek,
1 Since the filing of this case, Defendant Zumbruski's last name changed to Kilanski. Because
the parties refer to her as Zumbruski, and because that was her name during the events that
precipitated this suit, this Order will refer to her as Defendant Zumbruski.
and Does. As a result, only Plaintiffs procedural due process claim against Defendants
Kellett and Zumbruski remains. 2
Plaintiff is represented by Brian R. Marsicovetere, Esq. Defendants are
represented by Vermont Assistant Attorney General David R. Groff.
I.
Factual Background.
A.
Undisputed Facts.
Plaintiff is a resident of Brattleboro, Vermont. On February 11,2005, Plaintiff
and his former wife, Sandra Judd, divorced. They have two minor children, C.W. and
F.W.
At all relevant times, Defendant Dale was Commissioner of the Vermont
Department of Children and Families ("DCF"); Defendant Keller was Director of DCF' s
Brattleboro field office; Defendant Kellett was a DCF "Casework Supervisor" in the
Brattleboro field office; Defendant Zumbruski was a DCF caseworker in the Brattleboro
field office; and Defendant Dziobek was a Supervisor in DCF's Central Intake Office.
Defendant Yacovone is the current Commissioner of DCF.
In the course of Plaintiffs divorce, he stipulated that Ms. Judd should be granted
sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities ofC.W. and F.W. Pursuant to
this same stipulation, Plaintiff was granted full access to the children's medical, dental,
law enforcement, and school records, and substantial visitation rights.
In 2008, Ms. Judd sought to move to Oregon with the children. In response,
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking full physical and legal custody on the basis that the move
would undermine his visitation rights. Ms. Judd opposed the motion. At the custody
hearing, the children's classroom and extracurricular teachers and numerous other
individuals testified that the children were "well adjusted, doing fine in school, and had a
loving relationship with [Plaintiff]." (Doc. 46-2
~
3.) At no point did anybody, including
Ms. Judd, allege that the children were abused. The Family Court judge determined that
Ms. Judd could not move with the children to Oregon.
Plaintiff sues Defendants Kellett and Zumbruski in both their individual capacities for
monetary damages and in their official capacities for injunctive and declaratory relief.
2
2
In 2009, Plaintifflearned that C.W. was seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Neil Senior, who
had prescribed him "Vyvance." After consulting with C.W.'s primary care physician,
Plaintiff became concerned about the drug's side effects, the quality ofC.W.'s mental
health treatment, his diagnoses, and whether medication was the best course of treatment.
Thereafter, at the direction of Ms. Judd, the children's physicians and counselors ceased
communicating with Plaintiff and denied him access to the children's medical records. In
response, Plaintiff filed a verified motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities in
the Windham County Superior Court's Family Court Division, requesting medical
decision-making authority with regard to the children. In the motion, Plaintiff raised
various concerns about the side effects of the medication that C.W. was experiencing.
In Ms. Judd's opposition to Plaintiffs motion, she alleged that Plaintiff mistreated
the children during visits, noting that the children reported being "physically restrained at
times by their father and in one instance ... of being smothered and of having difficulty
breathing." Id.
~
7 (internal quotation marks omitted). This was the first time Plaintiff
had been accused of mistreating the children. Ms. Judd advised the Family Court that the
allegations were not previously brought forth because she feared Plaintiffs retribution
against the children.
Following Ms. Judd's allegations of abuse, on April 22, 2010, a mental health care
provider, Ms. Ingrid Longo, reported to DCF that Plaintiff was "very controlling and
abusive to the kids," was "opposed to the kids taking medicine," and that on several
occasions laid on top ofF.W. "to restrain [him], to the point that [he] becomes terrified
that he can't breathe and screams." (Doc. 39-1
~
5) (internal quotation marks omitted).
According to Ms. Longo, F.W. became aggressive at school and had nightmares
following these incidents. Ms. Longo also reported a number of other claims regarding
Plaintiff s alleged abuse, including accusations that Plaintiff neglected the children and
that the children were afraid ofhim.3 Ms. Longo also stated that Plaintiff is an "Arab."
Plaintiff was born and raised in the United States and has no Arab ancestry.
3
Ms. Longo's report included claims that:
3
In response to Ms. Longo's report, DCF conducted an intake used to determine
what level of field response, if any, was necessary. Consistent with DCF's rules and
practices, the intake worker recorded the information reported and did not determine
whether it constituted a report of abuse or neglect, as defined in rules or statutes. The
intake report includes Ms. Longo's assertion that Plaintiff is an Arab and also lists
"cultural factors" as a "contributing factor" to the alleged abuse. (Doc. 39-2 at 2,3.)
DCF's intake worker recommended that Ms. Longo's allegations not be accepted for
assessment or investigation.
Pursuant to DCF's customary procedures, the central intake supervisor, Defendant
Dziobek, reviewed the intake report. Defendant Dziobek concluded that an assessment
was warranted because "the parent's behavior overall may pose risk to [the] children"
even though there was no specific incident that placed the children at "significant risk."
(Doc. 39-2 at 4.) In reaching this decision, Defendant Dziobek gave no consideration to
the assertion of the reporter that Plaintiff was an Arab. The intake report was assigned to
Defendant Zumbruski for assessment.
During the ensuing weeks, Defendant Zumbruski contacted and interviewed
numerous witnesses, including Ms. Judd, one of the children's therapists, school
personnel, Dr. Senior, F.W.'s teacher, C.W.'s school counselor, and both of the boys.
When interviewed, Ms. Judd reported many of the allegations of abuse documented in the
Longo report. 4 Ms. Judd also stated that she could not afford an attorney to alter the
during visits with Plaintiff a child developed cracked lips and sores on his lips,
and lost weight; that the boy's physician had noted a drop off in growth; that one
child gets agitated and impulsive after visits with Dad; that Plaintiff did not
supervise the boys in public, resulting in one becoming lost; that Plaintiff would
not take one child to the hospital after he broke his toe; that the children reported
to their mother that they were afraid of Plaintiff; and that both children told their
mother that Plaintiff had stated that he would rather pay for their funerals than for
child support.
(Doc. 39-1 at ~ 5) (internal quotation marks omitted).
4
Ms. Judd's allegations included:
the alleged manner of Plaintiff's restrain[t] of [his] children; Plaintiff's reported
statement preferring to pay for the boys' funerals instead of child support; that at
4
custody order. Ms. Judd had been represented by counsel in prior contested hearings in
Family Court. C.W.'s school counselor advised DCF that C.W. said he hated Plaintiff
and did not want to go to his house. The counselor stated that she told C.W. to discuss
these issues with his mental health provider, and sought a release to speak with the
provider herself. The counselor thought that the problems could adversely impact C.W.'s
ability to perform in school. A staff person at F.W.'s school reported that she was glad
DCF was involved with the boys, that she had concerns about one of the boys
emotionally, and that the boys and their mother had complained about Plaintiff's
caretaking. A therapist for one of the boys stated that Plaintiff refused to provide medical
treatment for one boy, mocked the boys, and was abusive. Dr. Senior stated that Plaintiff
"is a boy. He is unbelievable." (Doc. 39-1
~
24) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendant Zumbruski attempted to contact the children's pediatrician but did not speak
with him. Finally, Defendant Zumbruski interviewed both boys separately, who each
repeated some of the allegations included in the intake report, including that Plaintiff
neglected them and was physically abusive.
Defendant Zumbruski contacted Plaintiff to notify him of the assessment into the
allegations of abuse. Plaintiff denied the report and claimed it was motivated by Ms.
Judd's attempt to influence the Family Court proceedings. Plaintiff referred Defendant
Zumbruski to those proceedings for additional background information and stated that he
would need to obtain legal advice. Defendant Zumbruski also advised Plaintiff's family
law attorney that an assessment was being conducted. Plaintiff was never contacted
again by Defendant Zumbruski, and she did not request to visit Plaintiff's home for an
inspection. Aside from obtaining the custody order and docket entry of Plaintiff's Family
least one boy said he did not want to return to Plaintiff s house; that Plaintiff was
verbally abusive to the boys; that the boys behave differently, including
aggressive behavior, after visits with [Plaintiff]; and that Plaintiff pays no
attention to boys in public and loses them often.
(Doc. 39-1
~
17.)
5
Court case, Defendant Zumbruski did not examine any of the family court history as part
of her assessment.
Meanwhile, Ms. Judd contacted Defendant Kellett to inquire into the status of
Plaintiff's visitation rights given the concerns raised in Ms. Longo's report. Defendant
Kellett stated that Ms. Judd was required to comply with the Family Court Order.
On June 4,2010, Defendant Zumbruski recommended that Plaintiff be
substantiated for emotional maltreatment ofC.W. and F.W. That same day, Defendant
Kellett substantiated Plaintiff for child abuse and Defendants Kellett and Zumbruski
closed the case without further action. Plaintiff was classified as a level one offender, the
most severe child protection level. Under Vermont law, "substantiation" may occur only
after an "investigation." See 33 V.S.A. § 4912(10) (defining a "substantiated report" as a
determination reached after an "investigation"). The conversion ofthe matter from an
assessment to an investigation was not documented as of June 4, 2010.
On June 4, 2010, Defendants Zumbruski and Kellett sent letters to Ms. Judd and
Plaintiff. In the letter to Ms. Judd, they stated: "In April of 20 10, [DCF] received a report
of concern that caused us to open an assessment into the safety of your children [C.W.]
and [F.W.]. Based on the information we gathered, we have determined that a
reasonable person would conclude that this abuse did occur." (Doc. 46-2 ~ 20).
(internal quotation marks omitted). In light of Ms. Judd's prior inquiry into visitation and
custody issues, Defendant Kellett placed a handwritten note on the bottom of the letter to
Ms. Judd stating: "Please submit this to Family Court if you want to modify the visitation
order." Id.
~
22 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the June 4, 2010 letter to Plaintiff, Defendants Zumbruski and Kellett advised
Plaintiff that he had been substantiated for child abuse and that his failure to appeal the
decision would result in his placement on Vermont's Child Abuse and Neglect Registry
(the "Registry"). On June 7,2010, Plaintiff appealed the substantiation to DCF's Child
Abuse Registry Review Unit. On June 17,2010, Defendant Kellett instructed Aaron
Pelton, a DCF employee, to amend the original intake report that designated the matter
for an "assessment." Mr. Pelton wrote "[Appended on 6/17110 10:52 a.m. by apelton] per
6
Ray Kellett: On June 3, 2010, the request for track reassignment from JP A Assessment to
investigation was approved by District director Lisa Keller." Id.
~
26 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
On June 18,2010, Ms. Judd filed in Family Court a Verified Emergency Motion
to Restrict Defendant's Parent/Child Contact and a Motion for Appointment of Guardian
Ad Litem. She attached the substantiation letter to support her claim that there had been
a substantial change in circumstances warranting the temporary suspension of all visits.
The letter indicating Plaintiff s substantiation for child abuse remains on file with the
Family Court and is accessible for public inspection.
On September 21, 2010, the independent reviewer who heard Plaintiff s appeal
concluded that "the evidence d[id] not meet the current legal and policy standards for
substantiation." Id.
~
32 (internal quotation marks omitted). Following this finding, DCF
refused Plaintiffs request to notify everyone who may have received notice of the initial
substantiation that DCF had reversed it. Plaintiff spent approximately $9,733.72 in
attorney's fees and costs in appealing DCF's substantiation. Id.
~
33.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed as the executive director of the
Human Rights Defense Center and Prison Legal News. His job responsibilities include
"advocating for the rights of prisoners by speaking at educational institutions," "media
advocacy, and interactions with donors, supporters, and volunteers." Id.
~~
36-37. As
executive director, he encourages people to volunteer with the organization, many of
whom are "high school and college students and some are minors." Id.
~
37.
Plaintiff has never applied for employment with a childcare facility, school, or
health care facility in Vermont. He has also not applied for a home daycare license and
has not applied to be a foster parent. He alleges no intent to pursue any of these
activities. Throughout the events alleged in this suit, Plaintiffs rights with regard to his
children have not changed, and his visitation with them was never suspended. Plaintiffs
name was never placed on the Registry.
7
B.
Disputed Facts.
The parties dispute whether Defendant Zumbruski refused to provide Plaintiff and
his family law attorney with the specific allegations that precipitated the assessment.
The parties also dispute whether Defendants Zumbruski and Kellett followed Vermont's
statutory procedures before substantiating Plaintiff for child abuse. Plaintiff contends
that DCF never opened an "investigation," under Vermont law and thus never undertook
certain investigative steps, such as inspecting the scene of the alleged abuse, that are
required for an "investigation" but not for an "assessment" because the latter does not
result in a finding of abuse. See 33 V.S.A. §§ 4911-4923. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendants falsified evidence to cover up their failure to follow statutory procedures
when they amended DCF's intake report to indicate that the matter was reassigned to an
investigation. Plaintiff asserts that a June 16, 2010 email from Defendant Kellett
indicates that approval for track reassignment was not received on June 3, 2010. The
email states, in pertinent part:
"There was no indication before the assessment commenced or during the
assessment that it would lead to substantiation. . .. When [Zumbruski] put
the information together, we met and then decided the information would
support a substantiation of Emotional Maltreatment. At that point I didn't
even think to explore if the track needed to be changed. If I missed that, I
apologize. Should I change something at this point?"
(Doc. 46-1 at 7) (alterations in original) (quoting 46-21 at 2.)
Defendants counter that Vermont's statutory procedures were followed and they
note that Defendants Keller, Kellett, and Zumbruski each testified that authorization for
reassignment from an "assessment" to an "investigation" was received prior to
substantiation. Although Defendant Keller could not recall the date of the conversation,
she remembered the conversation in which it was approved and relied on outside
documentation to determine that it occurred on June 3, 2010.
The parties further dispute whether Defendant Zumbruski mischaracterized certain
statements made by C.W.'s school counselor; specifically, that C.W. "goes to talk to her
a lot" and that the school did not believe C.W. should be spending time with his father.
8
(Doc. 39-3 at 4.) Plaintiff contends that these representations are false and notes that the
school counselor denied making them in a letter sent to Defendant Keller. Defendants
respond that, when deposed, the school counselor confirmed that C.W. talked with her "a
lot" about hating Plaintiff, though she only met with C.W. twice. (Doc. 39-1
~
21)
(internal quotation marks omitted). They also point out that the school counselor never
told Defendant Zumbruski that her statements reflected her personal opinions and not the
official position of the school.
The final six paragraphs of Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts deny and/or
explain the specific allegations of abuse in the report. (Doc. 46-2 ~~ 39-44.) Defendants
note that Plaintiff never communicated this information to Defendants, and the only
evidence supporting these assertions is set forth in Plaintiff's Declaration. Plaintiff does
not contend that he provided this evidence to DCF before its substantiation decision.
Rather, he contends that if a hearing had been held prior to substantiation, he would have
had an opportunity to present this evidence.
II.
Conclusions of Law and Legal Analysis.
A.
Standard of Review.
Summary judgment must be granted when the record shows there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the
initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 323,
(1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In deciding the motion, the trial court must
resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party, and deny the motion if a rational juror could decide in favor of that party under the
applicable law. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). "There is no material fact
issue only when reasonable minds cannot differ as to the import of the evidence before
9
the court." Commander Oil Corp. v. Advance Food Servo Equip., 991 F.2d 49,51 (2d
Cir. 1993).
B.
Whether the Disputed Facts Preclude Summary Judgment.
Although there are several contested facts in this case, they are not material in a
summary judgment determination because, even accepting Plaintiffs version of these
facts as true, they do not preclude judgment as a matter of law in Defendants' favor. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (providing that disputed issues of fact do not foreclose summary
judgment if they are not material to the court's determination); see also Anderson V.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (explaining that "the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment [because] the requirement is that there be no
genuine issue of material fact" and that "[0]nly disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment [because] [fjactual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be
counted").
C.
Plaintiff's Stigma Plus Claim.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants Kellett and Zumbruski deprived him of a
constitutionally protected interest in his reputation by defaming him and imposing on him
a legal duty to both defend himself against the substantiation of child abuse and respond
to the motion in Family Court to suspend his visitation rights. He further argues that had
he not appealed the substantiation, his employment would have been jeopardized. He
contends that if the disputed facts are construed in his favor,
[i]t is possible for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendants wanted
to assist plaintiffs ex-wife in overcoming his motion for medical decision
making because she alleged she did not have money for counsel, and
because plaintiff was questioning the appropriateness of medications
prescribed by mental health professionals. A reasonable jury could
conclude that the defendants substantiated him for abuse after an
assessment, without a properly authorized investigation, and that, while
contested family court parental rights and responsibilities litigation was
pending, they provided a fraudulently manufactured substantiation letter to
10
his ex-wife and advised her to file it with a family court if she wanted to
modify custody.
(Doc. 46-1 at 6.) He points out that "branding [a person] as a child abuser ... certainly
calls into question [his or her] 'good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.'" Valmonte v.
Bane, 18 F.3d 992,1000 (2d Cir. 1994), (quotingBd. a/Regents a/State Colleges v.
Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972)).
Plaintiff, however, does not further claim that his rights and responsibilities with
regard to his children, or his visitation, were altered by the allegedly false substantiation.
Instead, he argues that his legal status was altered "because the defendants interfered in
his family court proceedings by providing a false substantiation to his ex-wife, and ...
there is now a permanent state-created false public record of child abuse, which would
not otherwise exist as a public record because such records are confidential by statute."
(Doc. 46-1 at 13.) Plaintiff further alleges that he suffered a financial loss in terms of
legal fees incurred in contesting "the state-sponsored public record of a false
substantiation." Id.
Defendants counter that the statement that a reasonable person would believe that
Plaintiff abused his children states an opinion rather than fact and that, in any event, the
statement is true because there is ample evidence, including the statements of Plaintiff's
children, which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that the abuse had occurred.
Assuming arguendo that the statement is defamatory, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails
to identify a tangible, state-imposed burden on any protected interest. The court agrees.
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a right to be
free from a false stigmatizing statement if it is coupled with the "deprivation of a tangible
interest." Algarin v. Town a/Wallkill, 421 F.3d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Paul v.
Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 708-09 (1976) (requiring both the "stigma" reSUlting from a
defamatory statement plus an alteration in legal status in order to find deprivation of a
liberty interest warranting the safeguards of procedural due process). In Vega v. Lantz,
the Second Circuit explained:
11
To establish a "stigma plus" claim, a plaintiff must show (1) the
utterance of a statement sufficiently derogatory to injure his or her
reputation, that is capable of being proved false, and that he or she claims is
false, and (2) a material state-imposed burden or state-imposed alteration of
the plaintiffs status or rights. This state-imposed alteration of status or
burden must be in addition to the stigmatizing statement. Thus, even where
a plaintiffs allegations would be sufficient to demonstrate a governmentimposed stigma, such defamation is not, absent more, a deprivation of a
liberty or property interest protected by due process.
Vega, 596 F .3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Vega thus
imposes "a threshold requirement-the existence of a reputation-tarnishing statement that
isfalse, id. at 82, as well as a requirement that the statement be "capable of being proved
false[.]" Id. at 81; see also Strasburger v. Bd. ofEduc., 143 F.3d 351,356 (7th Cir. 1998)
("True but stigmatizing statements that preclude further government employment do not
support this type of claim. Nor do statements of opinion, even stigmatizing ones, if they
do not imply false facts.").
In this case, the substantiation letter advised that an assessment into allegations of
abuse was conducted and that, "[b]ased on information we gathered, we have
determined that a reasonable person would conclude that this abuse did occur."
(Doc. 46-2 -020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff contends that this is a
statement of fact because "[ a] government official's public statement that he or she has
determined that a citizen has engaged in illegal conduct is a statement of fact, not
opinion." (Doc. 46-1 at 10.) Plaintiff cites Holmes v. Town ofEast Lyme, 866 F. Supp.
2d 108 (D. Conn. 2012) for this proposition, but there a public official announced that the
plaintiff was not being appointed to further government employment based upon an
investigative report that revealed a "pattern and history" that "raised questions about the
legitimacy about the request for payments that have been made" and thus the statements
at issue were "not just statements of opinion, but [we ]re accusations of theft of services
which a reasonable juror could find sufficient for proof of a stigma plus violation." Id. at
126.
12
Here, as Defendants point out, the statement at issue present a closer question
because what a reasonable person would conclude reflects "an evaluative process, a
weighing of evidence, and ajudgment call." (Doc. 39 at 14.) It would also be difficult to
determine the truth or falsity of what a reasonable person would conclude where the
record is not bereft of any evidence of possible child abuse but, instead, contains
substantial evidence from a number of sources, including the children themselves, that
arguably supports DCF's determination. Plaintiffs reliance on the fact that the
substantiation was later reversed merely underscores the conclusion that, in this case,
based upon the evidence provided to DCF at the time, reasonable minds could differ as to
whether the alleged abuse occurred.
Whether a statement is opinion or fact is a question of law for the court. See Mr.
Chow a/New Yorkv. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., 759 F.2d 219,224 (2d Cir. 1985) ("It is also
clear that the determination of whether a statement is opinion or rhetorical hyperbole as
opposed to a factual representation is a question oflaw for the court."). In Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the United States Supreme Court held that,
"[u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious
an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and
juries but on the competition of other ideas." Id. at 339-340. The Court has since
explained that "Gertz was [not] intended to create a wholesale defamation exemption for
anything that might be labeled 'opinion. '" Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1,
18 (1990). Instead, courts are instructed to consider whether a statement of '''opinion'
... reasonably implies false and defamatory facts." Id. at 20. In other words, "[w]hen a
statement fairly characterized as opinion implies that it is based upon facts which justify
the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, it is a 'mixed opinion' and is
actionable." Flagler v. Trainor, 2013 WL 5935097 at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 1,2013) (other
internal quotation marks omitted) (applying New York law); see also Knelman v.
Middlebury Call., 898 F. Supp. 2d 697, 721-22 (D. Vt. 2012) (recognizing that a
defamation claim may lie for a '''mixed' opinion" under Vermont law) (citing
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 (1977) ("A defamatory communication may consist
13
of a statement in the form of an opinion, but a statement of this nature [is] actionable only
if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.")).
In this case, although couched as an opinion regarding what a reasonable person
would conclude, the statement clearly suggests a repository of facts, based upon
information that DCF had gathered, that support a conclusion that the abuse occurred.
The court, however, need not reach the thorny issue of whether the statement is opinion
or fact, because, assuming arguendo, that it was both false and factual, Plaintiff cannot
prove the "plus" part of his stigma-plus claim. See Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75,87 (2d
Cir. 2005) (explaining that, by itself, "[a] free-standing defamatory statement ... is not a
constitutional deprivation, but is instead properly viewed as a state tort of defamation")
(alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Second Circuit has held that to satisfy the "plus" prong, "deleterious effects
which flow directly from a sullied reputation would normally ... be insufficient. These
would normally include the impact that defamation might have on job prospects,
Of,
for
that matter, romantic aspirations, friendships, self-esteem, or any other typical
consequence of a bad reputation." Valmonte, 18 F.3d at 1001. As a result, "the damage
[to one's reputation] must be accompanied by some significant deprivation." 0 'Neill v.
City ofAuburn, 23 F.3d 685,691 n.2 (2d Cir. 1994).
There is no constitutional right to be free from an erroneous child abuse
substantiation. See Southerlandv. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127,152 (2d Cir. 2012)
(recognizing the competing interests between the parents and the government, the court
explained that '" [a]n investigation [of child abuse] passes constitutional muster provided
simply that case workers have a reasonable basis for their findings of abuse"') (quoting
Wilkinson ex reI. Wilkinson v. Russell, 182 F.3d 89, 104 (2d Cir. 1999)); see also
Cornigans v. Mark Country Day Sch., 2006 WL 3950335, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. July 12,
2006) ("[W]ell-intentioned reports that are ultimately ruled unfounded are to be expected
in the efforts to identify and combat child abuse. ").
The majority of courts have further concluded that the "plus" element is not
satisfied simply because a person is the subject of an investigation or even listed on a
14
child abuse registry. See, e.g., Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir.
2005) (acknowledging that inclusion on the child abuse registry was stigmatizing, but
affirming the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's "stigma plus" claim because state law
did not recognize any right to adopt an unrelated child, which was plaintiff's alleged
"plus"); Miller v. California, 355 FJd 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that
plaintiffs identified a triable issue of fact regarding whether being falsely listed as a
suspected child abuser was defamatory, but denying plaintiffs' "stigma plus" claim
because plaintiffs experienced no change in legal status following the listing); Glasford v.
NY State Dep't ofSoc. Servs., 787 F. Supp. 384, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (dismissing
plaintiff's "stigma plus" claim, explaining that the "complaint ... does not allege that
plaintiff's employment prospects suffered as a result of the report in the [child abuse
register],,).
In the instant case, the child abuse assessment and substantiation never resulted in
a change in Plaintiff's legal status. The substantiation was ultimately reversed, and thus
Plaintiff was never placed on the Registry. There were no changes to his rights and
responsibilities with regard to his children. Although Plaintiff claims that being placed
on the Registry would have prevented him from speaking at schools and recruiting
volunteers as part of his current employment with a non-profit organization, he cites no
authority for this claim and Vermont law is to the contrary. See 33 V.S.A. § 4919(a)(3)
(restricting disclosure of those on the Registry to, inter alia, "an employer if such
information is used to determine whether to hire or retain a specific individual providing
care, custody, treatment, transportation, or supervision of children or vulnerable adults,,).5
Plaintiff's further claim that there is now a state-sponsored public record of the
substantiation is undercut by the undisputed facts which reveal that Plaintiff's ex-wife,
not DCF, filed the substantiation with the Family Court and nothing prevented Plaintiff
from correcting the public record with his own filing. A suggestion that a document may
The statute does not apply to Plaintiff's potential speaking engagements at schools because he
would not be "providing care, custody," or "supervision of children." Id.
5
15
befiled in a pending court proceeding does not give rise to an injury "by operation of
law." Valmonte, 18 F.3d at 1001.
To the extent that Plaintiff claims the cost of appealing an erroneous substantiation
decision satisfies the "plus" prong, his argument is unavailing. Plaintiff was not
statutorily required to obtain counsel and could have represented himself in Family Court
and before DCF's Child Abuse Registry Review Unit. As a result, the attorney's fees he
incurred were not the result of a "state-imposed burden." Vega, 596 F.3d at 81 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
As for Plaintiff s claim that DCF failed to follow statutory procedures and falsified
its documentation of the alleged abuse, Plaintiff has no free-standing constitutional right
to statutorily mandated procedures. "Process is not an end in itself. Its constitutional
purpose is to protect a substantive interest to which the individual has a legitimate claim
of entitlement." Olimv. Wakinekona,461 U.S. 238, 250 (l983). As a result, "state
statutes do not create federally protected due process entitlements to specific statemandated procedures." Holcomb v. Lykens, 337 F.3d 217,224 (2d Cir. 2003). The
alleged procedural flaws in DCF's investigative process therefore do not provide the
requisite "plus" for Plaintiffs procedural due process claim. See Patterson, 370 F.3d at
336 ("[I]t is the plaintiffs reputational interest, and how that interest can [a]ffect his
standing in the community and his future job prospects, that is at issue [in a stigma plus
claim].") (emphasis supplied); see also Balentine v. Tremblay, 2014 WL 519653, at *3
(2d Cir. Feb. 11,2014) (summary order) (holding that a "purported denial of process is
not a 'plus'" and rejecting the plaintiffs attempt to "bootstrap his complaint by relying
on the denial of a notice and a hearing for both the denial of procedural guarantees and
the deprivation of his liberty or property right").
In summary, because Plaintiff cannot establish each essential element of his
stigma plus claim, summary judgment in Defendants' favor is required. See Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. at 323 (finding that "the moving party is 'entitled to a judgment as a
matter oflaw'" where "the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on
an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof').
16
In light of the court's judgment as a matter ofIaw in Defendants' favor on Plaintiff's
procedural due process claim, the court does not reach Defendants' entitlement to
qualified immunity although the court agrees with Defendants that it is available. As
Defendants observe, "[n]o holding of the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court has ever
found that merely defending against placement on a child abuse registry is [a] sufficient
interest to invoke the due process protection of the Constitution." (Doc. 39 at 27.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 39.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this
2J.5~ay of March, 2014.
lsi Christina Reiss
Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court
17
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?