IN THE CIRCUIT CGURT 0F CUIWTY, NHL lira If?; . r, g-il'fy I Jana neE, . r? E, 3 Plaintiff, v. CivilAetien H: {33 Judge sit a tee - . VIRGINIA OF HEALTH AND Hll'h'l?tl'i RESDURCES and messes seasavtsems], Defendants. MPLAINT Plaintiff Jane Dee,? by eettnsel, alleges the fellewing against Defenth 1 West 1fit'ginia Department ef Health and Human Reseurees and Defendant Unknewn DHHR Supervises-ts): Par ur' feline at Venue: 1. Plaintiff was and is at all times relevant herein a eitiaen and resident ef West liv'irginia. 2. Defendant DHHR is a 1West Virginia entityr and eitiaen fer 1tvhieh venue exists in Kanawha Ceunty. See W. Fe. Carr's 56-1-1; Defendant DHHR is the state agenev that is statuten'lz.r mandated te previde Child Preteetive Serviees te the ehildren in West 1 v?irgina, which during the relevant time, inelnded Plaintiff. s. The individual Defendant[s} deserihed aheve as ?Unhnevm Superviserfs)? are supervisers whe were empleved by DHHR in lWest 1 Ir'irginia duri ng the relevant peried ef time and made the deeisiens at issue that are discussed helew. Plaintiff attempted te learn their identities threugh the eelleetien ef Hewever, eeunsel's attempts have been 'Given the sensitive nature ef the sexual abuse efa miner deseribed herein, eeunsel uses the pseudenynt, Jane Dee, te deserihe the Plaintiff. The identity' ef the Plaintiff is knevm te the Defendants by virhle ef the ere?suit Hetiee previeusl}.r sent te DHHR. ll]. stymied by failure tn pmduee all relevant rccerds. The individuals Defendants described abuse as *?Unltnewn DHHP. Supc?iscrs" are likely 1driest Virginia citizens and residents- Plaintiffsersed nntice en Defendant in with W. Va. Cede 55?] T-E mere than 3t! days pricr tn the filing nf this acticn. This seelts te receycr damages up tn the limits cf liability cf any applicable . insurance pclicy. Addifierral Fnetnnf Plaintiff was hem in December cf 1993. Plaintiff lived with her mether until she was 11 years when as a result cf abuse and neglect by her mcther, Defendant DHHR. Plaintiff frem her mcther?s Defendant DHHR placed Plaintiff in faster care in Wayne Ceunty, West Virginia. After being in multiple fnster placements, Plaintiff learned the identity cf her hielegical father and they met fer the first time {as Plaintiff remembers it} in 2013 when Plaintiff?s matemai grandmether breught him aleng en a visit Pn'er in this time, Plaintiff believed her biclcgical father tc be her mether?s husband, but when her mether diynrced, she learned that her biclcgical father was different than that nf her sisters. Defendants neyer sheuld have placed Plaintiff with her bielcgical father. tn the then 1 year-eltl [and grade} Plaintiff at the time, her hielcgical father had a histery cf abuse. Previeusly. he was arrested by the Huntingten Pclice Department en March 16,2il?4 and charged with Domestic Battery, bf which he later served cne menth in jail and six menth en prnbatinn. I 1. tc a discharge summary, Plaintiff ?was in faster care and leaking fer alternative placements. . . . The patient?s father was in te visit [in ED 1 when asked if the patient wculd pcssihly like tc live with her father the patient said she would kill herself if she had te live with her father." {Highland 14 cf 125). 12. [in July 15, 201i], Plaintiff was Dl-ll-lft.? 13. ?Faster Care Pelicy? prevides: ?2.4.2 Placement and Relative Family Relatives may net be approved as a placement rescurce until staff, er cemparahle agency staff in anether state via ICPC, has assesses] the relatives'ahility te prcvide fer the care and safety ef the child. If Department staff, cr ccmparahle agency staff in state via ICPC, ?nds that the relative can meet the certi?catien requirements fer a Fastert'adeptive family, the relative may became certi?ed as a festertadeptive caretaker and receive hearding care each menth. Acecrding in federal requirements, all relative caretakers wish tc became ceni?ed parents must meet the same certi?cation standards as hen-related festen'adcptive parents, hcwever, waivers fer nen~safety standards may be granted." (2013 editien is available at: hafcc?tt??Updatest?aE??-l -13.pdf]t2 14. August 21, Defendants impruperly and recklessly placed the then ll yearreld Plaintiff in the custody cf her hielcgical father, when had a as a perpetratur cf abuse. [Her sisters were placed in the cf ether adults and did net reside with them.) EThe pclicy in place during the relevant peried cf time was the same er substantially similar as this El] 1 editiun Of the pclicy pasted enline and the EDIE editiun. 3 By August El, Defendant DHHR placed Plaintiff in the custody of her biological father, and Plaintiff?s biological father got full custody on Uctober 1, Hill}. {Prestera Records at 9 of 51). 16. A Prestera record, dated October 19, 2ft] [1 documents: ?Etoundaryr issues with father.? Within months after she moved in, her biological father began to rape and otherwise sexually abuse Plaintiff. 1a. In November 201i], Plaintiff became pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse with her biological father, although the pregnancy was not continued until early 20] 1. Defendants failed to brotherly investigate and remove the 11-12 year-old Plaintiff from the crous an horri?c situation in which it lac her. ls. Prestera Center Medical Services Note, dated December If], 20] document the following: i Plaintiff is ?now having con?ict with father." I ?Dad acting bizarre today, asking to be put in the nut-house, asking ifhe can get any medications for himself.? I Plaintiff?s biological father?continues to have dif?culty knowing how to effectively parent an eleven year old girl with mental health issues. He admits his own issues interfering with this. Explored his family background that contributes to this including a history of being physically abused and a father who is in prison for child molestation charges-? 2ft. A Prestem record, dated January 2m 1, again documents ?having con?ict with father-? 21. On January 23, EDI Plaintiff's biological father was arrested by the Barboursville Police Department and charged with Domestic Battery. 12- 23. 24. 25. 25. r. Section 3.15 cf Child Protective Services Policy provides, in part, that "[w]hen there is reason to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected or is subject to conditions that are likely to result inabuse or neglect, as a result of domestic 1riolencc occurting between the adults in the hotne a shculd be made to This policy underscores DI-lI-Ilit?s recognition that domestic abuse among spouses is a condition lilter to lead It: abuse or neglect of a minor child- By February 1, Eli] 1, Plaintiff?s biological father had hen ?released and is baclt home.? {Prestera Plaintiff and her biological father were staying with each other overnight after her biological father obtained permission for this arrangement. The record continues, ?they are supposed to stay at step mom?s grandmother until court bi'c cop had ?led domestic charges on her dad. She [Plaintifr] did say that [he] did get permission for her to stay with him tonight. . . [Plaintiff] is going to stay with dad At that time, Defendants did not have Plaintitfrentoyed from the home, despite the Domestic Battery charges and the well-documented issues existingbetwecn Plaintiff and her biological father. at Prestera record, dated February 13. till 1, documents: ?Continues to have con?ict with father." {Prestera Medical Services Note]. A Prestera Family Report, dated February 22, I?l 1, states: "Etloo-dworlt completed yesterday revealed that . . . [Plaintiff] is pregnant. Ultrasound completed at emergency room indicates . . - [Plaintiff] is likely at ?The latest edition of the CPS Policy, which was revised in December of 1 E, is available online at the above website. The policy in place during the relevant period cf time was presumably the same or substantially similar as this Elli 3 edition. 5 ES- 29. 3t}- 14-15 weeks gestatien." The tspert eentinues: "Parents are upset and father dees net wish her te eentinue pregnanev. [Bielegieal father] . . . indicated due te his ewn anger management issues. he dees net believe he can handle the stress her earrving te term weuld ereate. He stated if she has the baby, she earmet remain his etts?tetl}r fer this reasen. He is Willing to leave and sign his rights ever te . . . [stepmether]. Hewever, [steprnether] . . . is uneertairt if she can handle the situatien and she shared her ewn persenal issues related te abertien and hew . . . [Plaintiff?s] pregnanev affeets her . [Plaintiff] elaitns she snuek eut ef the heuse and met up with a be},r in the neighb-erhee-d and had sex with him. She states she knewthis individual frern the skating rink. She indieated she will terminate the pregnanev if that is what her father wants." Id. Later, en February 22, 201 1, while her bielegieal father was net present, Plaintiff een?ded in her stepmother that Plaintiff?s bielegieal father was the one whe impregnated her. The stepmether ealled Plaintiff?s therapistt'eeunseler at Prestera, l'vlatj,r Hendershet and reperted what Plaintiff had said te her. (State Peliee i? at 131}. Ms. Hendershet advised that she weuld have In eenvev this infermatien te CPS, er in ether wards, Defendant. {fell frern Februar],r 22, indieate that a eall that evening eenveving the inferrnatien that Plaintiff stated her bieiegieal father had impregnated her and etherwise detailed faets surrounding the sexual assault. The DHHR emplevee the te eall Superviser fer adviee en what te tell reperter er what aetiens te take. He answer, ne eall baelt." Client Centaet Repert 2?22-1 Five minutes later an the evening ef Febmarj-r 22, 20] 1, an unnamed superviser was ealled "en pager te see if anv aetiens needed te be taken tenight eeneerning? Plaintiff?s herne. Uri}. 3E. 33. 34. 35. 3d. A Pregress Sununaty letter by Plaintist therapist written menths later deeurnents the events ef February 22, Elli 1, inasmueh as it states that the stepmether ealled the eeunseler at Prestera and teld her that Plaintiff said Plaintiff's hielegjeal father "was the father ef her ehild. [Stepmether] . - - put the Prestera therapist en speaker phene te diseuss with her . - - [father, and Plaintiff]. 1 Ii'v'itl'i her father present, . . . [Plaintiff] admitted she had made these allegatiens; hewever, at that time she said this was not true. This therapist called the [Df?iR] werlter ef the day and questiened hew te She advised that sinee [Plaintiff] . . . had resented, she eeuld remain in the heme that evening with [the stepmether?s] . . . supervisien. Family was advised ef this. Beth . . . [the bielegieal father and stepmether] expressed eeneern aheut . . . [Plaintiff] remaining in their heme and were sensidering having her remeved." (4323:?2011 Pregress Summary letter - Mary Hendershet Prestera}. Remarkably, Defendant DHii'Ft?s werlrer apparently whelly Plaintiff?s unlikely reeantatien inthe presenee ef her rapist-hielegieal father and diseeunted the Plaintiff?s earlier statement made eutside the presenee ef her rapist-bielegieal father. Rather than taking Plaintiff eut ef the situatien entirely at this peint, Defendants impreperly and recklessly left Plaintiff in the eustedy ef her stepmether, whese allegiance was plainly te the bielegieal father, net Plaintiff, whem she despised. Therefere, the stepmether was Plaintiff?s caretaker frem February 22, Edit threugh late March EDI The stepmether and Plaintiff had hen repeatedly at edds frem the time she meved inte the residence in t} and eentinuing until this time in Elli and this tensien is well-deeumented in the netes and varieus gathered thus far in this case. [in Fehntary 23,301 i, in an individual therapy sessien, Plaintiffesplsined "Daddy get me pregnant", and she gave detailed infermatien regarding her allegatiens. (dilli??l 1 Progress 33. 39. dd. I11-1. 42- Surnmarjr letter - Hendershotr'Prestera}. Plaintiff said she later recanted hoeause, didnlt want my daddyr to go- to jail." reeords indieate that Prestera?s therapist advised CHI-IR. as fellows on Feith 23, 201 ?Mary states they are sounding more guilty and hiding more as the da}.r goes on.? (DHHR Client Contaet Reports - 2-3-1 1). DHHR failed to give this statement from the Prestera therapist the weight it deserved. During a phone call on February 23, 201 1, DHHR personnel determined to wait another dayr to eenduet the inte?iew ef Plaintiff at the school as opposed to doing it that Ida}r at the residenee ?for the Baf?tj' of the child and hoeause of an unoertain reaetion from family.? {in Fohruar},r 24, Edi 1, eondueted a brief forensie intewiew of Plaintiff in the DHHR o?iee. During this interview, Plaintiff said the person who impregnated her was ?an unknown ho}r in the area." Client Contact Reports - 2-24-1 Pin-stirrer DHHR note from that day stated ?she reported an older be}! in the neighborhood took her up behind a Uri]. This obviously differed from when she stated it was a boy from the skating rink. Afterthe forensic interview on February 24., Bill 1 the subsequent meetings DHHR personnel had with Plai ntii?f thereafter were either in the presence of one or both of her stepmother and hiologieal father. Client Contact Reports]. Later, on February 2d, PHI 1, spoke with a Cahell County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, who ?was eoneerned about getting a tissue sample from the fetus in order to rule out the father as the maltreateL? Client Contaot Reports). Later, on or about March 2, 2011, the Cabal] Count}.r Assistant Proseeuting Attorney again eontaeted DHHR about 43. 45. 4?5. ehtaininga DNA. sample frem the eut-ef?state decter fer which the stepmether indicated they wculd he geing fer an ahertien, and the next day,the Assistant Preseeuter advised she wean de the prepesed Drder fer the Ceurt. (DHHR Client Centact Rep-ens}. [In February 25, 2m 1, neted: ?New referral received an 2f25fll stating: [sic] Reperter states that a parent claiming te he a neighher cf . . . [Plaintiff's] reperted last 1 Wednesday that . . . [Plaintiff] is 14 weeks pregnant and her father. . . is suppesedly the father ef her tecerds indicate that there is nete regarding new referral received en 3?25! but that deeument has net been previded te Plaintiff.) Client Centact Repette]. 0n March 1, 1, te any ef the autherities and in an attempt te destrey evidence in the criminal investigatien ef Plaintiff? hielegieal father, Plaintiff?s stepmether and a ?end secretly transperted Plaintiff te Kanawha Ceanty fer an ahertien- March 3, 231 1, Mary Hendershet called DHHR and theegh Plaintiff was new saying it was the ?hey in the neighherheed?, l'vls. Hendershet teld DH HR she was cencerned when Plaintiff started ?saying things aheut her sleeping with her father in his bed and such." Client Centact Reperts). in March cf 2011, the Cali-ell Ceunty Assistant Preseeuting Attemey centacted the State Pelice. State Pelice recerds indicate: Friday, ?3r'tl4r'l l, at apprcairnstely 1130 hears this ef?cer received an investigatien frern Cahell Ceur'rty Assistant Presecuter, Margaret Phipps Brewn. The eemplaint invelves atwelve [12} yeaJ'efage thathenarne impregnated at the age ef eleven {1 This efficer was advised that the female, . . . made a statement that her father . . . had getten her pregnant then recanted and stated that same hey she met at the skating rink had ?dene it?. This of?cer was advised to contact Cabell County Deparnnent of Health and Human Resources worker. . . for additional information. On the same date this of?cer received via fax a State of West 1iv'irginia Dapar?tment of Health and Human Resources Bureau for Children and Families report. This rcport contains a social smrunary from Roger Justice that describes a referral where . . . [the stepmother was told Plaintiff was pregnant by her biological father]. It was reported that. . . [the stepmother] went to the victim?s school and reported to the principal that the victim was pregnant but the father was currently unknown- [The stepmother] . also stated that . . . [Plaintiff] was to leave school on Thursday for an abortion at Women and Children?s Hospital in Charleston and that she would be back on school on Friday. [The stepmother] . . . allegedly reported that the victim had requested an abortion and that ?if she could lie donor and spread her legs for that, she can lie down for this.? {State Police Notes 5? of 131; see also DHHR. Client Contact Reports}. Dn March Pill 1, Trooper Moore of the West ~"It?irginia State Police contacted a DI?ll IR supervisor. Shortly thereafter on hilarch 201 l, DHHR. appears to employ a second, different ?worker? or case agent on Plaintiff matter. State Police records further state: ?Cln Monday, WIDTH 1., this of?cer did reoeive via e?mail, a Referral for Child Protective Services West Virginia Child Protective Services System Intalce Worksheet dated [1323311 and prepared by Weible. This Intel-re Worksheet provides this of?cer with the referral information on . . . [stepmothen father, and Plaintiff]. In this referral a reporter states that stepmother was told that . - - [Plaintiff] was pregnant by her husband and [Plaintiffs biological] . . . father . . . . Find that [her biological father and Plaintiff] had sea: in their bed. . . and ?that she liked it, wanted to do it again? and described sexual positions. Reporter states that child was sexually inappropriate when she began living with the family and that she was trying to split them up. [Plaintiff] . . . denied saying this and stated that she was pregnant by a *boy at the skating rinlr?. And onetime [Plaintiff] . . . said that the ?baby is dad?s?, that "when mom would go to work, they would start out on the couch wrestling and then one or the other would go the bedroom and he would use his ?thingy dingyI {penis}. The father . . . stated he had wake up at times and [Plaintiff] . . . was at the foot of the bed and he told her to go l? SD. 51. 52. 53. heel: to her room. When asked ?are you telling me you had sex with her?, he stated ?that he sleeps so heavily that he doesn?t ltnow.? (State Poliee Roeords I of In the poliee interview with the biologieal father on Mareh E, 231 l, he said ?adten the ease worker asked him about it [the pregnancy] he told her he didn?t see how it was him. This of?eer stated, ?ol-tay, let the, I don?t understand that, you don?t see how it was you?? Later, in that same interview, the biologieal father admitted to having sexually inappropriate eontaet with Plaintiff. {State Police Reeords Id of 13]) In the poliee interview with the stepmother on Mareh E, 201 1, it was doeumented that a?er being asked who the father of the ehild was by the stepmother and the stepmother?s mother, Plaintiff ?kept erying and she said well it was my daddy. [The stepmother] - - - stated she then asked - - - [Plaintiff] what do you mean it was your daddy? and . . . [Plaintiff] said ?well my daddy did it.? [State Polioe Records 1? of During this interview, that stepmother elaimed to law enforcement that Plaintiff tried to toueh her biological father inappropriately. a report, dated March ll, 2:11 1, from an Individual Therapy session at Prestera, states that the Plaintiff "reports the doetor told her she probath lost the baby. {Plainti?} . . . reports she said her dad was responsible so that the attention would be taken off of her. However, she could not clarify how she thought that this would alleviate the pressure on her. [Plaintifl] . . . is now stating that she snuelt out of the house in the a?emoon when her dad was sleeping, met with a boy she had met ones in the skating rink, and had sex with him-? {in March 1, DHHR spoke with Prestera?s Mary Hendershot in whieh it was roeorded that ?Mary doesn?t know what or who to believe and was hoping to ?nd answers with the Departments [sis] help.? Client Contaet Reports}- 11 54- 55. 5ft- 53. records indicate that in its phone sell with Trooper Moore on Marsh 11, 2011, Moore relayed the following: ?She said all went well but there was one concern that made her feel uneasy. She explained during the interview she asked . . . [stepmother] point blank if she thought . . . {the biological father] could have sex with . . . [Plaintiff] and said . . . [stepmother] thoughtabout it for a minute and asked if she thought. . . [Plaintiil] could have sex with . . . [biologieal father]. Trooper Moore said the natne ehange made her wonder for a moment but she said well just answer best you can and . . . [stepmother] replied with ?anything?s possible i guess.? Client Contaet Reports]. In February-Marsh of 1, Plaintiff?s biologieal father offered to to submit to a DNA or lie detector test. (DHHR Client Contact Reports]. However, those were not done. A. Prestera report, dated Marsh 14, 2011, states that Plainti?mhad initially aeeused dad, then resented and gave the deseription of a neighborhood boy. [T]here is a court order for but she has already passed everything. Not supposed to meet or have any eontaet with dad." Following the secret abortion, Plaintiff's stepmother took Plaintiff to her regular DB, representing that Plaintiff had rnisoarried. Thereafter, on March 16, 1, Plainti? underwent the surgieal proeedure tenor-m as dilation and eurettage involving general anesthesia. Urn Marsh 24, Bill 1, two personnel ?discussed the impending [ate] of violenee and . . . both felt that this is still an issue? at Plaintiff's home. Client Contact Reports}. Regarding in home sentiees, one CHI-fit employee noted this ?would help to assure the [sis] ehilds [rte] safety by their being a quick response when things get heated so that there would not be the [sin] violence". Client Contact Reports}. 12 Defendants sent her back In live With biglegical father after Plaintiff said that her bielegical fame-r raped and imm'egltated her. 59. Five minutes aflerthe afercmentiened call between twe DHHR empleyees mentiened abeve acting the petential fer vielence en March 24, Bill 1, the DHHF. werker ?was instructed the family sheuid and is able te return (DHHR. Client Centact Reperts}. Despite requesting them, Plaintiff has net been previded the recerds that sheuld accempany such an impartant decisien. drill. (in March 23, EDI 1, Mary Henderahet called DHHR, and netes re?ect the fellewing exchange: ?Weriter asked Mary abth what had happened and she said that initially, she stated [sic] is was semc tandem buy; the pregnancy was reperted and Parents called Mary that evening and - . . [Plaintiff] was making allegatiens he {dad} was the ene te have sex. [Stepmether and bielegical father] stated ?They want her eat.? The child allegedly recanted the again. Mary reperts that he Dad teld her that this was all her [sic] fault and Mary reminded hire that they wanted her [sic] cult ef' the heuse. l'viary believes. . . is really jealeus ef the child. Dad did admit that . - - [Plaintiff] acted inapprepriately and teacher] his private area. He said that nething cenld have happened and then later said I sleep very heavy and at times she is at the feet cf the bed. Allegedly his wife was [sic] a werk. [Staph-tether] . . . spanked her with belt then sheved her allegedly." [Didi-[R Client Centact Reperts}. 51. a Prestcra nete, dated March 31, let 1, that Plaintiff ?is back in the heme since making allegatiens against her father." Similarly, anethcr Prestera recerd, dated April 12, 2m 1, netes: ?Custedy new with father, back te living with dad.? {Prestera Medical Services Nate). 62. In bath the interview ef the and the bielegical father an April 25, 1, again neted that the bielegical father has ?anger issues.? (DHHR Client Centact Reperts}. lIi 63. 55. I56. 63. 59- Despite the herritie allegatiens made by the then 12 vear-eld Plaintiff [and theugh she later reeants], Defendant nevertheless ailewed her te live with her hielegieal father. Putting Plaintiff haek in the heme ef the hielegieal father whe raped and impregnated her understandava had a devastating impaet en her. Further, Plaintiff eentineed te suffer repeated abuse at the hands ef her hielegieal father during that time peried hehveen Mareh end Ueteher 2011. Dn May E, 20] 1, ?re State Peliee interviewed Plaintiff?s hielegieal father again. {State Peliee 21-15 ef 131). During the interview, Plaintiffr hielegiea] father simmed te suggest that the see he had with his daughter was semehew aeeidental and may he semething that he slept threugh, but this was ehviettsI},r false. The repert ef the interview netes at one peint: ?This effieer asked . . . [him] ?well, is there any way ses eeuld have happened hetwaen . . . [Plaintiff] and pen that merning, is there any way?? [The hielegieal father] . . . stated, ?there, there?s a ehanee, yes.? Defendants nevertheless eentinued the plaeernent ef Plaintiff with her hielegieal father. A Prestera dated July 27, Ettl l, indieates has net Ital-ten ettsted}r ef her-? [Prestera Medieal Services Nate} In ef??l 1, an infennant and friend efPlaintiff?s stepmether ealled the peliee and and advised the peliee abeutthe seeret Marehl?'] 1 aheniert [unhehnewnst te- the autherities} and ether en'tieal infermatien fer ?ie eriminal eases against Plaintiff?s hieiegieal father and stepmether. 14 TDDetebm 1, Plaintiff?s bielegieal father saw his wife (Plaintiff stepmether} get arrested, and at that titne, he transperted Plaintiff te Dhie and drepped her at her sister?s grandmn?ter?s heuee. On Deteher 21, l, Plaintiff?s hielegieal father is arrested fer the first time. Plaintiff's Fear and Reluctan at Plaintiff?s bielegieal father made clear in Plaintiffthat she was not fa say anything aheut the sexual ccntacf he had with her in 201i]. As indicated above, Plaintiff? biclegical father teld Plaintiff that if'shc teld the truth abeut the tapes and sexual assaults, that he weuid harm er kill her and her sisters. In February 2011, after finding nut that Plaintiff had teld the stepmether and Prestera that he was the father ef PlaintifPs ehild, Plaintiff?s bielegieal father teld the 12 year eld Plaintiff te get her stuff and mate eat- Next, he put a knife te ene ef her stuffed animals and made a slashing metien and ethensise pretended te disemhewei it deem the middle ef its breast and further teld Plaintiff that ?this is what?s geing te happen" tn her and her family sisters], if she teld about the truth ef what happened relating tn the rapes and sexual assaults by him. During this time after the 12 yeareld Plaintiff was sent back ta live with her bielegieal father bet-seen March and Deteber E?l 1, Plaintiff" hielegieal father teld herte keep quieter she?d be back in the faster care system ?er weree." Plaintiff lived in prefeund fear ef her bielegieal father freni the time she married in with him in EU 1 '3 until he was ?nally incarcerated in April 2013. 15 rs. FE. T9. 30. El. 32. 33. 34. ES. The aferementiened threats made by Plaintiffs hielegieal father precluded her frem exercising her he will and legal rights. as indieated abet-re, fellewing the call tn the Peliee frern the stepmether?s friend, Plaintiff?s hielegieal father was arrested en lEleteher 21, 1. Heweyer, Plaintiff?s hieiegieal father was net detained fer any meaningful peried eftirne until after r'ipril ef 21315. In PHI-1, Plaintiff?s hielegieal father was re-arrested and again was net imprisened- In September 21315, Plaintiff's 'eielegieal father entered a Kennedy plea fer incest with a miner. Again, during this time between 2011:] and. April 2D 13., Plaintiff" hielegieal father was net incarcerated. Plaintiff did net feel safe while her hielegieal father was net in eustedy ef the autherities. Indeed, apparently, the reasen the criminal preseeu?en against Plaintiff' hielegical father repeatedly stalled was because ef the then miner Plaintiff?s reluctance te eenfrent her rapist- hielegieal father. During this time, Plaintiff had nightmares aheut her hielegica] father attacking her. The aetietts ef Plaintiff?s hielegjcal father placed Plaintiff under a great deal efcenstant and extreme duress, te the paint where Plaintiff repeatedly and genuiltelf'yr feared fer her life and safety as well as the life and safety ef her sisters- These fears were well feunded. As explained sleeve, Plaintiff's hielegieal father had deniestie battery charges made against him in ltl?tt and while Plaintiff resided with him in Januanr ef 201 I. Then, en April 24, 2013, the then girlfriend ef Plaintiff?s hielegieal father [net the stepmether previeusly referred In in the eemplaint} was seen at a facility fer sex 115 3+5. effettders with a black eve and later Plaintiff bielegieal father admitted te striking his then girlfriend in the face with his ?st. Finally, en April 25. 3D 13, her bielegieal father was imprisoned. Defendants? Lcaal Resnensibilities Regarding the Placement ef Children and Investigatiens late 33. Mg?ens ef Sexual Assault The statutes and case law develeped in child abuse and neglect cases eutline the clearly established rights vielated bv the Defendants. The DHHR is the sele public agency respensible fer receiving, investigating and ceerdinating the investigatien ef child abuse er neglect reperts. Hi FetC'ee'e 49-15%? It was required te previde pretectivc te prevent ?uther abuse ef children and te meniter these services te ensure the safetyr ef these children. id. 49-5A-9fb}. Its mandate was te pretect abused children, net te distert the truth and recenunend the return te an abusive family. id. sea-sears}. Upen netiftcatien ef suspected child abuse, Defendant Di Hill was te centr?nencc er cause te be a ?tereugh investigatien ef the rep-curt and the child's and cenduct a face-te-facc interview with the children and a pretcctien plan- Id. It was required te cenduct vigereus investigatiens and assessments ef alleged cases ef child abuse se that an child is left withth assistance and te previde fer the prempt and effective ef parental rights in cases where there was a failure ef the parents te rcasenabI}r utilise fair eppertunities te end the abuse- Id. ?dft-?D-E. ?Sectien 611 cf Chapter 49 he lenger exists as ef the date ef this ?ling in E?l 9. These legal mquimments have larger been shifted te e?ter sectiens. I-Iewever, Plaintiff uses the ferm ef the statute that was in place at the time cf the miscenduct in this case. i? 39. 9D. 91. Any child alleged to be abused could be delivered for ten days into the custody of the departrnent if it found that an emergency existed including reasonable cause to believe that a child was or had been sexually abused or that his or her health and welfare was threatened. 49-1-3 and 49-6-5. Parental rights could be terminated upon a ?nding nfserual abuse. At the very least, state law required that upon a ?nding that a parent is unwilling to provide forthe child's needsthat the child be committed temporarily to the custody of the deparnnent. fat 1til?duti. Defendant Di ll-lft was required to respond immediately to all allegations of imminent danger or of serious physical abuse with a face?to?face interview within f2 hours with the child and the development of a protection plan. fat. Imminent danger includes situations when there is reasonable cause to believe that any child in the home is or has been sexually abused or not given adequate treatment of a serious illness or disease. Id. 1 -3. Additionally. in those cases in which the best interest of a child requires court action, it should have initiated legal proceedings. Id. wen?ere). Defendants were responsible for providing, directing or coordinating the appropriate and timely delivery of services to any child suspected or known to be abused or neglected, including services to the child's family and those responsible for the child's care. faT. All of these statutes. as well as the cases implementing this statutory scheme, outline the contours of the clearly-established law violated by the individual Defendants. To largely reiterate, Defendants were statutorily charged with the following duties in EDI l? EDIE: 13 The Department shall establish er designate in every cementhr a lccal child pretective service te perferm the duties and ?mctiens set fetth in this article. Id. The child pretective service shall be the sele public agency respensible fer receiving. investigating er arranging fer investigaticn and ceerdinating the investigatien ef all rep-arts ef child abuse er neglect. id ?d?t?dA?Qib]. The Department shall previde services tc prevent ?irther abused er neglect cf children and previde fer er arrange fer and ceerdinate and meniter the previsien ef these services necessanr te ensure the safety cf children. id. IlQ-bA-Qtfb). The lecsl child pretective services effiee shall investigate reperts cf child abuse er neglect. Id. The leeal child pretective service shall maximize the cf care and scrvice ef individual fer individual children and families. id. ditch-9&1 Each lccal child pretective service shall receive er arrange fer the receipt ef all reperts cf children knees] er suspected tc be abused er neglected en a hventv-feur heur, seven-dav-a-wcelt basis. fa?. . Each lecal child pretective service shall previde er arrange fer emergencyr children's services in be available at all times. Id. Each lecal child pretective service shall upen netificatien cf suspected child abuse er neglect, commence er cause te eemmehee a ?iereugh investigatien ef the repert and the child's enviremnent. fa'. Witl?n l-?l daysthere shall be a face-te-face interview with the child and the develepment ef pretecticn plan, if necessary fer the safer},r er health cf the child. id. 19 92. {1121'} Each lecal child pretective service shall respend immediater te all allegatiens ef imminent danger tn the physical well-being ef the child er ef scrieus physical abuse and within T2 heurs a face-te-faee with the child and devclepment ef a preteetien plan. fa: [l 1} Each lecal child protective service shall initiate the apprepriate legal preceeding. fa?. dQ-GA-Qifc). {12] Each lecal child pretective service shall be responsible fer previding, directing er ceerdinating the apprepriate and timelj.r deliver].r an}.r child suspected er knewn Is be abused er neglected, including services te the child's farnil},t and these respensihle fer the child's care. fal? 49-dA-9td}. Defendant Bureau fer Children and Farnilies?s heme page currentl].r states as fellewa: "What are the reap-ensilsililies ef IShild Welfare Services? - investigate reports efahase and neglect sf children - previdc services te children and families in their heme - place children in faster care they are unsafe in their awn hemes at? the is net sajefar them - ?nding permanent hemes fer children whe carmet return te their awn hemes - previde services te children transitiening inte adultheed while in faster care placement" (emphasis added}. ED 93. Despite the faets that, inter site, eutside ef his presenee the then 12 yeareld Plaintiff had eeme fer-ward and aeeused her hielegieal father ef raping and impregnating her; Plaintiff?s bielegieal father?s adrnissiens that he semetirnes weke up te the Plaintiff at the feet ef his bed, that he sieeps se that he didn?t knew whether he eeuld have been impregnated his daughter; and that he had inapprepriate sesual eentaet with her en ether Plaintiffs stepmether?s statement that ?anything is pessible? in respense te a questien aheut whether the bielegieal father eeuld have impregnated Plaintiff, the Prestera therapist?s statementthat the hielegieal father and stepmether were ?seunding mere guilty and hiding mere asthe day gees en? irrnnediatelj,? after the initial bielegieal father had a hi??l?j? ef trielenee and abuse knewn Ie the DHHR {and re?ned te in the in late- Marsh E?l 1 when the deeisien was made regarding plaeement}, ineluding multiple Dernestie Batter}.I eharges with different wemen, Plaintiff?s bieIegiea] father had been a victim ef abuse as a child and his father is in pii sen fer ehild melestatien charges, Plaintiff?s eriginal reeantatien was in the presenee ef her bielegieal father and step-mether after adtrieed her and may an [eager wished fer the 12 year-eld Plaintiff te live with them, Plaintiff?s alternate stery that it was a ?bey?whe impregnated her ehanged frem a be},r at the skating rink in a he}.r in the neighberheed, and failed te er identify the ?hey? whe suppesedly impregnated Plaintiff, Defendants nevertheless placed Plaintiifinte the eustedj.r ef her bielegieal father between late-Marsh ef and Deteber 21 94. 95. 96. 93. Defendants put Plaintiff back into the cf her biclcgical father withcut further con?rming DNA evidence er ccnducting a lie detector test intc the allegaticn that her biclegical father had raped, impregnated, and sexually abused her. Dgfendant?s Sgcia] Relaticnahip Defendants thrcugh premises and acticns had an affirmative duty tc act cn behalf of the Plaintiff inasmuch as it placed the Plaintiff with her biclcgical father and ccntinued with the matter as described abcyc. Defendants knew that their acticns and inacticns described abeyc wcuid harm Plaintiff. Defendants were in direct ccntact with Plaintif'fas described above. As then a miner child, Plaintiff justi?ably relied en Defendants tc pretect her, but unfertunately, they failed. Claim: I DRDINARY GROSS NEGLIGENCE RECKLESS 99. l?l. Plaintiff re-alleges and by reference all preceding paragraphs as fully set furth herein. I Defendants cwed a duty tu Plaintiff. Defendants breached this duty and were crdinarlly, negligentand reckless by, Mar cite, failing tc dc an investigaticn and check pricr tc placing Plaintiff in it] 1 intc the custedy cf her biclcgicai father, when had a treuhled cf abuse; failing tu immediately then 12 year-did Plaintiff ?'um the dangereus situatidn after her biulcgical father was tempurarily removed frern the heme fer Dcmestic Battery in January Edi l; placing the then 12 year did in the care of 22 l?l. IDS. Iii-4. IDS, her stepmother whose allegiance was plainly to Plaintiff?s biological father immediately following the allegation that Plaintiff's biological father raped and impregnated her; failing to immediately and completely remoye titan 12 year?old Plai ntiff from the dangerous situation after Plai ntiff came forward in February 2G1 and advised the appropriate people that her biological father had raped and impregnated her; and by sending Plaintiff baelt to live with her biological father in lvfarch of 2011 after Plaintiff previously stated that her father had raped and impregnated her- Moreover, Defendants failed to properly train its agents and employees. Defendants were aware that without proper training and supervision that minors under DHl?Ht?s care such as Plaintiff faced danger to their physical and emotional well being. Defendants? aforesaid misconduct violated the clearly?established law and regulations governing DHHR. Plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by Defendant?s negligence, including but not limited to being subjected to rape by her biological father, set-real assault by her biological father, involuntary pregnancy by her biological father, forced abortion by her stepmother and biological father, an unnecessary one, additional abuse and threats by her stepmother and biological father, PTSD, and all other trauma caused by the aforementioned events and the rte-living of such events after being placed back into the home after she had previously experienced these aforementioned events and reported them. The aforesaid actions of Defendants were not taken in good faith, were in violation of clearly established law, and were fraudulent, malicious, or otherwise oppressive. '23 l?d. l?'Ei. ll?. 112. 113. 114. (C?Ul'iiT II - STATE EDNSTITUTIUHAL TDRT) Plaintiff herein,r ineerpnrates by reference all ether allegatiens in the Centplaint. Plaintiff is n_nt making a elaim under the United States Censtirutian or any' federal statute. Rather, she seder under the West Virginia Censtitutien. 'I11reugh their aetiuns, Defendants ereated a situatien where Plaintiff was plaeed in danger. Defendants' aetinrts ereated at substantially enhaneed the risk that Plainti?? would be harmed. Article 3, Seetien 1i] ef the West Virginia guarantees Plaintiff the substantive right te be free ?em preteeted fram hanu, te- adequate and apprepriate sewiees, prngIams, ears and treatment from Defendants. Artiele 3, Seetien l'i' ef the West Virginia Censtitutian guarantees Plaintiff equal prateetinn uf the law. Article 3, Seetian 3 af the 1'riirginia guarantees that is instituted fer the eemrnen bene?t, preteetian and seeuritjrr ef the peeple . . . Defendants violated these State Censtiuitinnal prandsiens, amen other things, therein].r causing Plaintiff harm fer whieh a reserves-5r exists, as explained, fer example, in Hnrehisan v. City nf Huntington, 193 139 (1995]. The aferesaid aetiens ef Defendants were nut taken in gead faith, were in vielatiun afelesrh.r established law, and were fraudulent, er etherwise eppressitre. 24 WHEREFGRE, Plaintiff demandsjudgment Defendants in fell}r and feitlj.f eempensate her for damages, including medieal bills, and damages, eeurt eests, site-rue}! fees and sueh further reiief as the Ceurt mayr deem apprepriate. Plaintiff else reserves the right is demandjudgment against the individual Defendants fer punit'rue damages for reprehensible, wiil?ri, wanten, and eenduet that was in blatant and intentienei disregard I ef the rights ewed te the Plainti??. PLAIN TIFF DEWE A TRIAL B?t? JURY. Jaime nee, Pinietg?'; "By Ctr-unsel? 39%? 1e. Barb-er {Wide Siate Bar Ne. see) Lew es JMS M. Hansen see Virginia St, e, Suite see Charlesten, We 253m (304] Edi-4:616 25