Gatlin v. Contra Costa Cnty.

1

EDISON GATLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-cv-00370-SI

United States District Court, N.D. California

December 21, 2023

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS FAC RE: DKT. NOS. 110, 115

SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On December 15, 2023, the Court held a hearing on two motions to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). After consideration of the parties' briefing and arguments, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motions to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

For the purposes of deciding the motions to dismiss, the Court treats as true the FAC's allegations, which are nothing short of tragic. Edison Gatlin was born prematurely on August 17 2005, “severely disabled with epilepsy, cerebral palsy and serious intellectual disabilities.” Dkt. No. 95 FAC at 1 & ¶ 55. His twin sister did not survive. Id. ¶ 55. Edison's parents, Clarissa Simms and Edward Gatlin, had one older child and, when Edison was six years old, welcomed twin girls into the family. Id. ¶ 56. Edison's parents were with him every day and saw to his needs; “Edison was a happy and healthy child in spite of his disabilities and he continued to thrive while in [his parents'] care.” Id. ¶ 58.

In early 2014, Edison's parents became estranged. Id. ¶ 59. His mother moved to Oakley California, with all four of her children. At this point in his life, Edison “was able to eat solid foods with assistance” and “developed no new health issues while under Clarissa's care.” Id. ¶¶ 59-60. His seizures were becoming less frequent and shorter in duration. Id. ¶ 60.

On September 19, 2014, defendant Kimberly Baker, working for Contra Costa County, removed Edison and his siblings from his parents' care “for reasons not related [to] their safety[,]” following Clarissa's arrest. Id. at 15 & ¶ 61. From the time he entered foster care in Contra Costa County, “Edison was bounced from one inadequate foster placement to another ....” Id. at 1. On September 24, 2014, Edison was placed in the home of Jeffery and Suzanne Collins. Id. ¶ 65. “As it turned out, on information and belief, the Collins' home was deficient in that Jeffery and Suzanne Collins were incapable of meeting Edison's complex medical and special care needs to such an extent that Edison's health deteriorated dramatically due to the Collins' inadequate and neglectful care.” Id. Edison's weight soon dropped “dramatically[,]” and “[o]n more than one occasion it was reported to the County, particularly to Defendant Baker, that Jeffery and/or Suzanne Collins would lay Edison on the ground in a vulnerable position relative to their other disabled child, that they were unable to control the several children in their home when left near or around Edison, and that he was left in a disheveled and dirty state.” Id. ¶¶ 66-67.

Edison remained in the Collins home until May 3, 2015. Id. ¶ 70. In the intervening time, defendants Craig Thurmond and Georgette Shipe became the County social workers on Edison's case, with defendant Leslie Davis supervising them. Id. ¶ 71. During his time in the Collins home, Edison's weight dropped from 75 pounds down to 50 pounds. Id. ¶ 83.

From the time Edison entered foster care, various of the County defendants “authorized and directed non-emergency medical examinations and treatment for Edison without his parent's knowledge and without first obtaining a court order.” Id. ¶ 74. This included non-emergency shunt revision surgery in January 2015; Edison's parents were not notified about the surgery, no court order authorizing the surgery was sought or obtained, and Edison's mother was excluded from the hospital. Id. ¶ 76. In April 2015, Edison again had surgery, this time to have a gastrostomy tube placed, necessitated by the malnourishment he was suffering in foster care. Id. ¶¶ 77-78.

On May 3, 2015, the County removed Edison from the Collins home because Ms. Collins was about to have surgery and would be unable to care for him. Id. ¶ 84. Defendant Shipe, in consultation with defendant Davis, decided to place Edison in the home of Jennifer Dillingham at Jenna-Ray Foster Family Home in Stockton, without assessing the home to ensure it was appropriate for Edison's complex medical needs. Id. ¶¶ 84-86. Dillingham had one other special needs foster child and four children of her own. Id. ¶ 87.

It was not until June 2015 that the County did a full assessment of Edison's needs, when Shipe and Davis scheduled an appointment with defendant Danielle Wells of Valley Mountain Regional Center, Inc. (“VMRC”) to complete Edison's assessment for services and develop his statutorily required Individual Program Plan (“IPP”). Id. ¶ 88. Although Edison's parents' parental rights had not been terminated, Edison's parents were excluded from the assessment meeting held on June 29, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 88-89. At the meeting, Wells determined that “Edison ‘requires supervision' at all times, and is unable to live independently[.]” Id. ¶ 94. Wells noted that Edison was “non-ambulatory,” confined to a wheelchair that he was unable to control independently, had no verbal language skills, and required “total care for all his toileting needs.” Id. Defendants Dillingham, Shipe, and Wells “agreed together that Dillingham would ‘manage and direct all of [Edison's] medical and dental requirements[,]'” despite a lack of parental consent or court order authorizing Dillingham to take over full medical authority for Edison. Id. ¶ 95.

In January 2016, defendant Kerissa Lynch took over as Edison's day-to-day case carrying County social worker. Id. ¶ 99. In February 2016, “[o]n information and belief, another special needs child died in Dillingham's home under suspicious circumstances[.]” Id. ¶ 101. No investigation was undertaken to ensure Edison's safety or Dillingham's ability to care for him. Id.

In January 2017, defendant Christy Roland of the County was assigned to assist Lynch in the day-to-day management of Edison's care. Id. ¶ 102. On or about September 26, 2017, Roland took over primary responsibility for Edison's case. Id. On May 24, 2018, Dillingham admitted to Roland and Wells that she was unable to meet Edison's medical care and supervision needs. Id. ¶ 104. A few weeks later it was reported to Roland that Edison had been injured while in his room alone at night; Roland knew of Edison's need for 24/7, one-on-one supervision. Id. ¶ 106. In August 2018, Roland learned of another incident indicating that Edison was still being left alone in his room 7 unmonitored. Id. ¶ 108. On August 20, 2018, Dillingham told Roland and Wells that she was still struggling with and unable to meet Edison's needs. Id. ¶ 109.

On November 5, 2018, Edison's teacher reported that he had a 10-minute seizure at school, which was extremely uncharacteristic for him. Id. ¶ 110. His seizure activity spiked again in January 2019. Id. ¶ 115.

On December 13, 2018, Roland and defendant Barbara Crespo (Roland's supervisor) learned from Wells that yet another special needs foster child in Dillingham's home had died of “possible neglect.” Id. ¶ 111. This was the second child to die in Dillingham's home while Edison was living there. Id. At Edison's status review hearing a week later, Roland and Crespo did not inform the dependency court about this recent death and ensuing investigation. Id. ¶ 113.

In February 2019, Edison arrived at school with unexplained injuries to his left eye and his legs, and he had a heavy smell of urine on him. Id. ¶ 116. On March 7, 2019, it was reported that Community Services, a sub-part of VMRC, had investigated Dillingham and “dinged” her because she did not have nighttime supervision for Edison despite the IPP requiring 24-hour supervision. Id. ¶ 117. According to the FAC, during the investigation,

it was learned that Edison was sequestered away from others, in his own room where he was left alone unmonitored throughout the day, especially at night. Edison would bang on the walls when left alone in his room. He would be left in his activity chair in his bedroom with a movie on repeat until his feeding time. He would only be checked on at random times throughout the day.

Id. ¶ 118. On March 15, 2019, Edison again had unexplained facial injuries, which were reported to Roland. Id. ¶ 120.

On April 3, 2019, defendant Julie De Diego of VMRC wrote an email to Roland complaining about Roland's lack of follow-up. Id. ¶ 121. De Diego complained that in spite of VMRC's concerns from months prior, Roland had taken no steps to ameliorate VMRC's concerns about Edison's care and safety. Id. De Diego stated that VMRC did not support Edison's placement in the Dillingham home. Id. That same day, De Diego and Tracy Vaughn (also of VMRC) recommended Edison be placed at Angel's Haven 2, described as “a small family home” in Stockton. Id. ¶ 125. Two weeks later, County social workers Crespo and Roland, on VMRC's recommendation, obtained a court order authorizing them to move Edison to Angel's Haven 2. Id. ¶ 126. Neither Crespo nor Roland had themselves assessed Angel's Haven 2 to determine whether it was an appropriate placement. Id. at ¶ 126 n.3. Nor had De Diego or Vaughn physically inspected or assessed the Angel's Haven 2 facility before Edison was placed there. Id. ¶ 128. Nevertheless, Roland, Crespo, De Diego, and Vaughn conferred and agreed that Angel's Haven 2 could meet Edison's needs. Id. ¶ 129. Had they inspected the home, they would have discovered that Angel's Haven 2 had only one staff member on site 24/7 (defendant John Mark Rafael Romero), and one staff member during daytime hours (defendant Marisse Casuco), to service five residents, including at least one other special needs child who required intensive 24/7...