Dunsmore v. Dep't of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families

1

ANNAMARIE DUNSMORE, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND THEIR FAMILIES, ET AL. Defendants.

C. A. No. 20-CV-01381

United States District Court, D. Delaware

August 4, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RESTREPO Circuit Judge

In October 2018, nineteen-year-old Annamarie Dunsmore gave birth to a son. Shortly thereafter, hospital staff observed Dunsmore engage in unsafe childcare practices and reported the behavior to the Delaware Division of Family Services (DFS). The report led DFS to open a neglect investigation and DFS caseworker Celeste Simmons was assigned to Dunsmore's case. After meeting with Dunsmore and consulting with those involved in her care, Simmons determined Dunsmore needed additional support in parenting her baby. Following the directives of the hospital and Dunsmore's family interventionist, Simmons facilitated her discharge to Bayard House, a residential program for at-risk and homeless young mothers. Dunsmore lived with her baby at the Bayard House until May 2019, two months after DFS closed its case. In October 2020, Dunsmore sued the Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families (DSCYF)^[1] and Celeste Simmons alleging discrimination and violations of her constitutional rights. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural History

Up until the time she gave birth to her son, Annamarie Dunsmore lived with her mother Judith.^[2] Judith had a history of drug abuse and was struggling with her ongoing addiction to heroin before, during and after Dunsmore's pregnancy. In June 2017, Judith sought family interventionist services from Wraparound Delaware, an organization that offers DFS home services to families referred by DSCYF. Judith was incarcerated until September 2017, but the Wraparound family interventionist worked closely with Dunsmore and helped her develop life skills while Judith was in prison. When Dunsmore became pregnant, the family interventionist remained involved and helped her develop a plan for the pregnancy, which at times Dunsmore did not follow. During the pregnancy Dunsmore's relationship with her mother became “very toxic” and involved “a lot of arguing and hostility between them” until “the friction between the two created an unhealthy environment” for Dunsmore. Joint Appendix (“JA”) 684.

In September 2018, when Dunsmore was nine months pregnant, she told her mental health counselor Mariella Roberts that she had “little support” in her life; her mother was a drug addict, her father was not involved in her life, and her younger thirteen-year-old brother, with whom she was closest, was living in foster care. She had no contact with her maternal grandfather, who reportedly abused drugs, and her maternal grandmother died in 2010. Dunsmore had been emotionally abused and neglected by Judith, who left home when Dunsmore was four and returned only intermittently after that point. Dunsmore entered foster care at age nine, where she remained until 2016. Dunsmore reported she was in and out of a relationship with DV, the eighteen-year-old father of her baby. DV was abusive towards Dunsmore and had physically assaulted her in the past. Id. at 376-77. On October 1, 2018, Dunsmore told her counselor that Judith had been getting high daily, and DV was “moving to Dover to live with [his] new girlfriend.” Id. at 381.

Through the Wraparound family interventionist, Dunsmore applied to live at the Bayard House on October 12, 2018, five days before giving birth. In the intake notes, Bayard House reported that Dunsmore was looking for housing because her home “was not a safe environment for the baby” due to her mother “using drugs in the house.” Id. at 353. It further noted that she was not in a relationship with the father of the baby, and her “[c]ounselor and parent aid [were her] only supports.” Id.

Dunsmore gave birth on October 17, 2018, at Christina Care Hospital in Delaware. Two days after the delivery, hospital social worker Katherine Elizabeth Goemaat was called to conduct a “family support, social assessment” consult after nursing staff observed the parents engaging in unsafe feeding and sleeping practices. Id. at 436.

Specifically, nurses saw the parents asleep with the baby despite repeatedly being told not to, and saw Dunsmore fill a bottle with unsterilized water to feed the baby. During the consult, Goemaat noted “both parents were looking at their phones almost the entire interview.” Id. They told Goemaat they were not in a relationship and planned to move to separate locations but neither could provide their new addresses. Dunsmore had a learner's permit but no car; she admitted that transportation would be difficult but stated that “Wraparound workers can take her places.” Id. Goemaat concluded that both parents had poor support systems: Dunsmore's mother was in detox, she had no friends that could be “supportive or helpful,” and her one supportive relative, an aunt, lived in Pennsylvania. Id. Following the meeting Goemaat told hospital staff not to discharge the baby until she spoke to Dunsmore's Wraparound family interventionist. Id.

Later that day, Goemaat spoke with Wraparound family interventionist Lachrysta Dublin, who informed her that Dunsmore was “actually supposed to move to Bayard House” and “would not be living with baby independently.” Id. In response to the raised safety concerns, Dublin informed Goemaat that Dunsmore has “cognitive deficits, that she graduated from [high school] with an [individual education plan], but [has] difficulties processing new information.” Id. After speaking with Dublin, Goemaat reiterated to hospital staff that the “baby [is] not to be discharged until [she] speak[s] with Bayard House and confirm[s] that they can take [Dunsmore] and baby,” and she “confirm[s] the level of supervision” provided by the program. Id. at 436-37.

Goemaat informed Dunsmore that DFS would have to be notified of the safety concerns involving the baby. She noted the parents loved their baby but “are just unable to meet his needs safely at this time.” Id. at 435. Goemaat concluded the baby “cannot be discharged to mom unless they are going Bayard House” because “[Dunsmore] lacks adequate support at home.” Id. She then consulted with DFS employee Shannon Brady, who assisted Dunsmore throughout her pregnancy. Brady relayed that Dunsmore “was aware that if she did not utilize resources and education there was a risk that DFS would get involved,” and that she agreed with the decision not to discharge Dunsmore to her mother's home. Id..

True to her word, Goemaat reported her concerns regarding risks to the baby's safety to DFS. Upon receipt of the report, a DFS intake worker utilized the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Intake Screening tool to determine the appropriate response. The SDM tool identifies the nature of the reported conduct and defines the maltreatment type and/or parental risk factor. Once it is determined that the allegations warrant a response, the SDM Priority Response tool determines the urgency. Id. at 277.

Here, a DFS intake worker documented Geomaat's report of Dunsmore's conduct and the SDM intake tool generated a maltreatment type of neglect, with a submaltreatment type of neglect without injury and of basic needs: food/clothing and shelter. The intake worker, through the SDM intake tool, also identified certain parental risk factors. The primary risk factor was Dunsmore's family history; specifically, her “time spent in foster care, her lack of solid living and well-being plan for herself and her newborn, and the instability of her mother's home, where she intended to live after giving birth.”^[3] Id. at 334. A supplemental risk factor was also identified due the hospital's report of Dunsmore's “possible parental cognitive or other deficits.” Id. at 281, 334. According to the Deputy Director of DSCYF, cognitive functioning is not a determining factor in maltreatment type, but it does determine the urgency of the response time. The intake worker assigned the report a priority 1 response, which required a DFS caseworker to visit in-person within twenty-four hours. Id. at 281.

The assigned DFS investigative caseworker was Defendant Celeste Simmons, who went to the hospital on October 22, 2018 to conduct a safety and risk assessment and begin the investigation. Simmons learned from hospital staff that Dunsmore had not been discharged because they determined she required additional support, given that her mother was in detox and her father was living in a motel temporarily. Id. The hospital had also reported that Dunsmore had a cognitive delay and had an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) in high school. Id. at 669. Simmons met with Dunsmore and observed she “had to repeat things several times to ensure that [Dunsmore] understood what [was] being said.” Id. Dunsmore told Simmons she has mental health issues, and was diagnosed with PTSD, ADD, depression and anxiety “which comes from her mother's addiction.” Id.

Prior to Dunsmore's discharge to the Bayard House, DFS social workers Simmons and Brady, hospital social worker Goematt, and Wraparound family interventionist Dublin all agreed that Dunsmore should be transferred with her baby to the Bayard House. Dunsmore's mother Judith later testified that Bayard House was a better option than her own apartment post-delivery, given her ongoing struggles with heroin addiction. See id. at 140-41 (“I went to rehab. I said I can't use . . . I found out that it was better for her to stay [at Bayard House]. I just figured it was better for her to stay there.”).

Defendant Simmons and Wraparound family interventionist Dublin accompanied Dunmore to the intake meeting at Bayard House where they discussed with...