Smith v. Tkach

TIMOTHY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TKACH; TICIA EAVES;TRACI ZIEGENHAGEN; KATRINA TOKOS;JULIA HEPWORTH; JESSICA LAYMAN;SUSAN PATTERSON; MARISSA CARTER;KATHLEEN SANTONI; JOHN CHOYNOWSKI;JON PETERSON; and BIRKSHIRE FARM CENTER, Defendants.

3:17-CV-0286 (GTS/ML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 22, 2019

APPEARANCES:

TIMOTHY SMITH

Plaintiff, Pro Se

6 Main Street Terrace, Apt. 2A

Johnson City, NY 13790

BROOME COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Counsel for DSS Defendants

Broome County Office Building

60 Hawley Street, P.O. Box 1766

Binghamton, NY 13902-1766

GIRVIN & FERLAZZO, P.C.

Counsel for Birkshire Defendants

20 Corporate Woods Boulevard

Albany, NY 12211-2350

OF COUNSEL:

CHERYL D. SULLIVAN, ESQ.

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD III, ESQ.

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Timothy Smith ("Plaintiff") against Birkshire Farm Center and Ticia Eaves ("Berkshire Defendants"), and John Tkach, Traci Ziegenhagen, Katrina Tokos, Julia Hepworth, Jessica Layman, Susan Patterson, Marissa Carter, Kathleen Santoni, John Choynowski, and Jon Peterson ("DSS Defendants"), are the following two motions: (1) the Birkshire Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (2) the DSS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 50, 51.) For the reasons set forth below, the Birkshire Defendants' motion is granted and the DSS Defendants' motion is granted.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

Generally, in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff explicitly asserts two causes of action.¹ (Dkt. No. 5 [Pl.'s Am. Compl.].) First, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by (a) wrongfully taking three of his children from his custody and placing them in foster care, and (b) making false allegations and statements against him that have led the Broome County Family Court to deny his efforts to have his children returned to him or to a family member. (Id.)

Second, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by wrongfully continuing to withhold his children from him. (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Berkshire Farms is allowing his children to be abused in foster care. (Id.)

In addition to these explicit claims, Plaintiff also appears to assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 in that he indicated on his Amended Complaint that his claims arise under both that section and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff additionally alleges that he suffered "sever[e] mental depression, mental distress and mental anguish" as the result of Defendants' actions, suggesting that he possibly also intends to assert a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York common law. (Id. at 13.)

Lastly, Plaintiff states as part of his discussion of the case that Defendants' actions are "a violation of [the] 1[st], 4th . . . 8th and 14th Amendments." (Id. at 11.)²

B. Undisputed Material Facts on the Birkshire Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with accurate record citations by the Birkshire Defendants in their Statement of Material Facts and expressly admitted by Plaintiff in his response thereto or denied without appropriate record citations supporting his denial. (Compare Dkt. No. 50, Attach. 2 [Berkshire Defs.' Rule 7.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 54, Attach. 1 [Pl.'s Rule 7.1 Resp.].)

1. Plaintiff's three children at issue in this case are Ar S, born in 2012, Am S, born in 2013, and Ay S, born in 2014.

2. The children's mother is Justine Crowley.

3. Plaintiff met Crowley in 2011 and lived with her in several locations over the

subsequent four years.

4. As of mid-2015, Plaintiff was living in Endicott, New York, with Crowley, their three children, three of Crowley's other children, a friend of Crowley, and the friend's three children.

5. Plaintiff later testified that living with nine children was "kind of "hectic," "a little bit [c]razy," and "a little [s]tressful."

6. Plaintiff, Crowley, and Crowley's friend all regularly used a car which was owned by Crowley's friend.

7. One afternoon in June 2015, Plaintiff got into an argument with Crowley outside their home.

8. Plaintiff had "had some beers" that day before his argument with Crowley.

9. The argument arose because Plaintiff was frustrated that Crowley and her friend would frequently go out, leaving the household's nine children in Plaintiff's care.

10. During the argument, Plaintiff broke Crowley's phone and slashed three of the tires of the household car to prevent Crowley from leaving him at home with the children.

11. At the time of the argument, the children were playing nearby in the next-door neighbor's yard, and they were visible to Plaintiff as he slashed the tires of the car and argued with Crowley.

12. Plaintiff was arrested as a result of the incident and pled guilty.

13. Pursuant to this arrest and guilty plea, Plaintiff served about four months in the Broome County Jail.

14. While Plaintiff was in jail, he heard from Child Protective Services caseworkers who had visited him in jail, as well as from fellow inmates and news reports, that Crowley was dealing drugs and "hanging with sex offenders," that a meth lab and heroin needles had been found in his home, and that the home had been "taped off" due to a drug investigation.

15. Crowley habitually neglected her children, left the house "a total wreck," left the children without supplies in the care of acquaintances, and ultimately abandoned the children entirely.

16. Crowley's father eventually visited, located the children, and took them home with him to North Carolina.

17. At some point after abandoning the children, Crowley was arrested for prostitution in Virginia.

18. In October 2015, Plaintiff was extradited to Pennsylvania pursuant to an outstanding fugitive warrant for misdemeanor assault; he then served about one month of jail time in Pennsylvania.

19. Plaintiff was released from jail in Pennsylvania on or around the first week of November 2015.

20. Plaintiff was homeless for about one month thereafter, during which time the Broome County Department of Social Services ("DSS") briefly provided him with a hotel room.

21. Plaintiff then obtained an apartment on John Street in Binghamton, where he lived for "at least six months" but "less than a year."

22. On March 11, 2016, Crowley's father brought the children to Binghamton intending to return them to Plaintiff, but the Broome County Family Court ("Family Court") issued an order placing the children in the custody of the DSS.

23. On March 11, 2016, the DSS took the children into its custody.

24. Defendant Berkshire Farm Center and Services for Youth is a New York not-for-profit corporation which contracts with Broome County to provide foster care management services.

25. Defendant Eaves is (and was at all times relevant to this case) a Family Specialist employed by Defendant Berkshire.

26. On March 11, 2016, after the Family Court had issued its order and DSS had taken custody of the children, Defendant Berkshire was retained by DSS to provide foster care management services to Plaintiff's children who had been placed in DSS's custody.

27. Defendant Eaves was assigned by Defendant Berkshire to assist DSS with identifying a suitable private foster home and transitioning the children into foster care.

28. Defendant Eaves has remained involved with the children's case as the assigned Case Planner.

29. Defendant Eaves does not have custody of the children (who remain in private foster homes to this day), but she supervises their visits with Plaintiff and Crowley, and she communicates with the parents to coordinate visitation and keep them apprised of the status of the family's case.

30. A Family Assessment and Service Plan ("FASP") report is an internal document that is shared amongst the team of caseworkers assigned to a family-including DSS personnel and Defendant Berkshire's employees-to assist them with day-to-day case management.

31. DSS personnel create an initial FASP after opening a new case.

32. Thereafter, the FASP is maintained by the case planner assigned to a family to track the status of the family's case and set goals for the future.

33. A FASP includes a "Family Service Plan" section that documents the case planner's opinions regarding birth parents' preparedness to care for their children.

34. The primary purpose of the "Family Service Plan" section is to provide guidance to the parents regarding what steps they may need to take to regain custody of their children.

35. From time to time, copies of FASP reports are provided to the birth parents to inform them of the steps they may need to take to regain custody.

36. The concerns and goals documented in the FASP reports are also discussed with birth parents at in-person meetings.

37. The initial FASP for Plaintiff's children was created by DSS personnel on or about April 8, 2016.

38. Defendant Eaves met with Plaintiff on May 4, 2016, for a Service Plan Review.

39. On or about May 23, 2016, Defendant Eaves completed the "Family Service Plan" section of the FASP.

40. The comments that Defendant Eaves entered into the FASP reflected her independent professional opinions regarding the problems facing Plaintiff's children and what could be done to resolve those problems, with the goal of ultimately removing the children from foster care and returning them to their birth parents' custody.

41. Defendant Eaves formed her opinions based upon her interactions with Plaintiff and upon the background information provided to her by DSS.³

42. The Service Plan included a list of Defendant Eaves' concerns regarding both Plaintiff and Ms. Crowley.

43. The Service Plan also contained a proposed set of goals for resolving each concern.

44. Each concern was accompanied by goal-setting comments under the headings "Outcome (Definition of Achievement)" an...