Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Dall.

JOHN DOE, Appellant v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS, Appellee

No. 05-19-00997-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

August 11, 2021

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-07025

Before Justices Pedersen, III, and Reichek ^[1]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE

Appellant John Doe brought suit against appellee Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas ("Dallas Diocese"), alleging the Dallas Diocese committed fraud by not following its internal policies for responding to sexual abuse after he reported he was sexually abused by a Dallas Diocese priest.^[2] The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, citing the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, also known as the religious autonomy doctrine.^[3] The district court determined that (i) the Dallas Diocese's Sexual Misconduct Policy (Policy) was "an outgrowth of, or so integrally related to, the Dallas Diocese's dogma that it comprises part of the Dallas Diocese's religious representations, beliefs and teachings," (ii) Doe's fraud claim required Doe to prove the Dallas Diocese's material representations to Doe were false, and (iii) the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibited the trial court from adjudicating the truth or falsity of religious doctrines or beliefs. Because Doe's claims require resolution of matters of church government, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Background

A. Sexual Misconduct Policy

The Dallas Diocese is a religious organization that promotes the exercise of Christianity under the Roman Catholic denomination. The Dallas Diocese developed and promulgated a Policy, which describes how it responds to sexual misconduct and how it intends to treat the victims of sexual misconduct. The Policy provides:

The Diocese will act in accord with the principles of truth, honesty, and justice, while respecting confidentiality, privacy and the reputation of persons involved. ...

All Diocesan and Parochial Personnel who suspect, witness, or otherwise become aware of any incident of sexual misconduct involving Diocesan or Parochial Personnel must immediately report such information to the Chancellor.^[4]...

Upon receipt of a complaint of sexual misconduct, the Chancellor will notify the Bishop and assist him with the manner in which to proceed, including the undertaking of an investigation. ...

When all of the evidence has been collected and the investigation is complete, the Chancellor will report all material facts and findings to the Bishop. The Bishop, together with the Review Board, ^[5] will determine whether the alleged conduct is an act of abuse of a minor or vulnerable adult. ...

If the Bishop determines at any time there is sufficient evidence that sexual abuse of a minor or vulnerable adult by a priest or deacon has occurred, the Bishop will promptly transmit the complaint and the findings of the investigation to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.^[6]...

The Bishop and all Diocesan and Parochial Personnel charged with implementing this policy will be as open as possible with the people in our parish and community about instances of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults, with respect always for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved. ...

Care will always be taken to respect and protect the rights of all parties involved, particularly those of the persons claiming to have been sexually abused or harassed and of the person against whom the charge has been made.

B. Report of Sexual Misconduct

Before Doe sued, he reported to a Dallas Diocese priest multiple experiences of sexual abuse that he suffered at the hands of Father Timothy Heines. The priest reported Doe's statements to the Dallas Diocese's then-Monsignor^[7] Greg Kelly and Chancellor Mary Edlund. In September 2015, Doe met with Kelly and Edlund, and he discussed "being sexually assaulted by Heines in 2008 and the hot oil massages Heines performed on [him] in the church rectory while [he] was in high school." Doe further showed the Dallas Diocese "shirtless photographs that [Heines] had taken of him in the church rectory while [he] was in middle school and high school." The Dallas Diocese performed an internal investigation of Heines, which ultimately resulted in Heines's October 8, 2015 resignation from the ministry in the Dallas Diocese.

C. Allegation of Fraud

The weekend following Heines's resignation, the Dallas Diocese issued a letter to the parishioners at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Richardson, Texas, where Heines previously served as pastor. The letter read:

I write to you today out of pastoral concern about a difficult matter related to your Pastor, Father Timothy Heines.

I recently received a complaint about his involvement in serious boundary violations with adults. These incidents occurred in 1996 and 2008 prior to his assignment at St. Joseph. We have not received information regarding any incident here in the parish. I emphasize that this involved inappropriate relationships with adults.

Thereafter, the Dallas Diocese did not transmit the investigation to the Review Board to determine whether Doe's allegation of sexual abuse involved a minor or vulnerable adult until several months later.

On May 30, 2018, Doe filed a suit for fraud^[8] against the Dallas Diocese. Doe alleged five material misrepresentations regarding the Dallas Diocese's implementation of the Policy, involving (i) the investigation and reporting of his claims and (ii) the way it communicated with the community about Heines:

a. The Dallas Diocese did not act in accord with principles of truth, honesty, and justice in investigating John Doe's claim of sexual abuse. Instead, the Dallas Diocese lied to Father Heines'[s] current parish about why Father Heines' was removed from ministry. Bishop Farrell refused to acknowledge the sexual abuse John Doe suffered as a minor;

b. The Dallas Diocese was not open and transparent in communicating with the community about Father Heines'[s] abuse of a minor. Instead, the Dallas Diocese lied to Father Heines'[s] current parish about why Father Heines' was removed from ministry. Bishop Farrell refused to acknowledge the sexual abuse John Doe suffered as a minor;

c. Bishop Farrell did not report John Doe's sexual abuse to the diocesan Review Board;

d. Bishop Farrell and the Dallas Diocese made no effort to determine whether John Doe's sexual abuse constituted sexual abuse of a minor or vulnerable adult; and

e. The Dallas Diocese did not report Father Heines'[s] sexual abuse of John Doe to the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith.

On February 27, 2019, the Dallas Diocese filed its plea to the jurisdiction, which attached affidavits from Kelly and Edlund. On May 17, 2019, Doe responded to the plea to the jurisdiction, which contained a request for leave of court to amend his petition and attached his own affidavit along with the affidavit of Dallas Police Detective David Clark. Both Doe and the Dallas Diocese raised objections to evidence attached to the other's plea to the jurisdiction filings. The trial court heard the plea to the jurisdiction on May 24, 2019, and entered an order granting the plea to the jurisdiction and overruling all of the parties' objections. This appeal followed.

II. Issues Raised

Doe raises a single issue to our Court.

[Whether] [t]he trial court erred in granting the Dallas Diocese's Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismissing all of John Doe's claims with prejudice.^[9]

The Dallas Diocese raises a single cross-point on appeal:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit harmful error in overruling the Diocese's objections to Detective Clark's affidavit?

III. Standard of Review

A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of action based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without regard to the merits of the claim. Town of Fairview v. Lawler, 252 S.W.3d 853, 855-56 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000)). A trial court's ruling on a plea challenging subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. City of Dallas v. Redbird Dev. Corp., 143 S.W.3d 375, 380 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.) (citing Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998)). As part of our de novo review, we focus first on the plaintiff's petition to determine whether the pled facts affirmatively demonstrate that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. In re Episcopal Sch. of Dallas, Inc., 556 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, no pet.) (citing Texas Dep't of Parks &Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004)). We construe the pleadings liberally in the plaintiff's favor. Id. (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226). If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the trial court may consider evidence beyond the pleadings and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Id. (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226; Blue, 34 S.W.3d at 555). The court must grant the plea as a matter of law if there is an incurable jurisdictional defect. Id.

IV. Ecclesiastical Abstention

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. CONST. amend. 1. The Fourteenth Amendment further imposes this restriction on the states. Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem'l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 441 (1969).^[10] "The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires." Emp. Div Dep't of Hum. Res. of Or. v. Smith,...