Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 24457-8-II
Title of Case: Mark & Yamila Miles, Appellants
v.
Children's Hospital etal, Respondents
File Date: 08/18/2000
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County
Docket No: 96-2-11688-8
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 02/26/1999
Judge signing: Hon. Thomas J. Felnagle
JUDGES
------
Authored by J. Dean Morgan
Concurring: Karen G. Seinfeld
David H. Armstrong
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
John L. Messina
Messina Law Firm
5316 Orchard St W
Tacoma, WA 98467-3633
Stephen L. Bulzomi
Messina Law Firm
5316 Orchard St W
Tacoma, WA 98467-3633
Jeffrey H. Sadler
Messina Law Firm
5316 Orchard St W
Tacoma, WA 98467-3633
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Kimberly D. Baker
Williams Kastner Gibbs
601 Union St Ste 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2380
Howard M. Goodfriend
Edwards Sieh Smith & Goodfriend P.S.
701 5th Ave Ste 7170
Seattle, WA 98104
Carrie L. Bashaw
Asst Atty Gnl Tort Clms
PO Box 40126
Olympia, WA 98504-2599
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
MARK MILES and YAMILA MILES, No. 24457-8-II
husband and wife, and MARK
MILES as Guardian ad Litem for
JUSTIN MILES, CHRISTOPHER MILES
and MICHAEL MILES, minors,
Appellants,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, CHILD PUBLISHED OPINION
PROTECTIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT;
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL; DR.
KENNETH FELDMAN and 'JANE DOE'
FELDMAN, husband and wife;
WANDA AKERS and 'JOHN DOE'
AKERS, wife and husband; and
JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5,
Filed:
Respondents.
MORGAN, J. - Mark and Yamila Miles, individually and as guardians for their
children, filed a complaint alleging they were wrongfully separated from
their children by the State, caseworker Wanda Akers, Children's Hospital,
and Dr. Kenneth Feldman. The trial court dismissed the complaint after
granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment. We affirm.
In 1993 and 1994, Mr. and Ms. Miles were living near San Antonio, Texas,
where he was stationed as a member of the Army. They were caring for their
three children, Justin, born August 10, 1998, Christopher, born August 10,
1990, and Michael, born November 27, 1992. Dr. Tomasovic and Dr. Pinero
were treating all three for apnea, bradycardia, chronic lung disease
characterized as pulmonary fibrosis, recurrent pneumonia, severe
gastroesophageal reflux, recurrent vomiting and diarrhea, chronic
demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, anemia, and allergies.
Treatment included extensive cardiac monitoring and home nursing care.
In August 1994, the Army transferred Mr. Miles to Fort Lewis, Washington.
His family moved with him.
In early September 1994, the Miles took their three children to Madigan
Army Medical Center. Dr. Moffitt, an Army pediatric pulmonologist,
examined the children and spoke with Drs. Tomasovic and Pinero. He thought
the children might not be genuinely ill.
On September 19, 1994, the Miles took one child, Michael, to Dr.
Ricker, a civilian pediatric pulmonologist in Tacoma. He suspected
Munchausen's Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) and reported possible child abuse to
Child Protective Services (CPS).
On November 7, 1994, Kathleen Knorr, a pediatric social worker at
Madigan, did a 'psychosocial' evaluation at Dr. Moffitt's request. She
suspected MSBP and reported possible child abuse to CPS.
On November 21, 1994, CPS assigned social worker Wanda Akers to
investigate Ricker's and Knorr's reports. Madigan asked her to 'stand by'
while further evaluation was done at Children's Hospital in Seattle.
Beginning December 5, 1994, the children were admitted to Children's
Hospital for eight days of intensive observation. During those eight days,
the children were seen or discussed by a health-care team that included (1)
Jackie Brandt, MSW, a social worker; (2) Marla Sanger, RN; (3) Ann Ongerth,
MSW, a social worker; (4) Elaine Valentine, MSW, a social worker; (5) Carol
Mason, M.Ed and manager of the Children's Protection Program; (6) Jill
Cole, DSW, a social worker; (7) DessyeDee Clark, Ph.C., ARNP, CNS, a child
psychiatric nurse practitioner; (8) Kenneth Feldman, M.D., a pediatrician;
(9) Adrian Gewing, RN; (10) Kathleen Knorr, MSW, a pediatric social worker
from Madigan; (11) Bill Walker, M.D., a physician from Madigan; (12) Jeanne
Johnson, RN; (13) Steve Chapman, M.D., a pediatrician; (14) Tao Kwan-Gett,
M.D., a pediatrician; (15) Dr. Swain, a pediatric surgeon; (16) Susan
Casey, a nutritionist; (17) Karin Weiler, M.D., a pediatric resident; (18)
Sanford Melzer, M.D., the 'attending physician'; (19) Nora Davis, M.D., the
apnea program's director who performed sleep studies; (20) Lee Bossung-
Sweeney, RNC, MN, an apnea nurse clinician; (21) Sonja Budhecha, M.D., a
pulmonologist; (22) Bonnie Ramsey, M.D., a pediatric pulmonologist; (23)
Kyle Colvin, M.D., a radiologist; (24) Eric Effman, M.D.; and (25) Akers.
On December 7, 1994, Dr. Feldman issued an extensive written report on
each child. He stated 'that overall the children's medical histories are
dramatically disproportionate to their objective findings,' and 'this is a
situation of {MSBP}.'1 He also reported possible child abuse to CPS.
On December 9, 1994, the health care team met at Children's. Those
present included Drs. Feldman, Chapman, Gett, and Walker; nurses Clark,
Sanger, Johnson, and Gewing; social workers Brandt, Valentine, Cole,
Ongerth, and Knorr; plus Mason and Akers. The team concluded that the
children had received 'excessive and inappropriate invasive medical
procedures{,}' resulting in 'negative impacts on the childrens' growth,
development{,} and mental health status.'2 Accordingly, it recommended
foster care and placed the children on a 72-hour medical hold. It also
informed Mr. and Ms. Miles that the hold had been placed; that CPS would be
filing a dependency petition; and that the children would be going to
foster care.
Still on December 9, Akers spoke over the phone with the children's
maternal grandmother, Iris Barno. Barno offered to come to Washington and
care for the children. Akers responded, according to Barno, 'that I could
not take care of the children because I gave birth to a monster and was as
bad as my daughter was.'3 Akers also asserted, according to Barno, that
the children's grandfather had done blood tests on the children without
authority, and that Ms. Miles had lied about her father's death and her own
education. Finally, Akers asked, according to Barno, if Ms. Miles 'took
something or did something to herself to make her skin white because Puerto
Rican's {sic} do not have white skin.'4
By December 13, 1994, several professionals had submitted written
reports. Nurse Clark's report stated that each child was 'at risk for
psychosocial and academic delays and possible distorted identity formation
due to being reared in an intense sick-role environment that is not
warranted for the level of actual physical findings.'5 She believed this
was consistent with MSBP, and she recommended that the children be removed
from the home. Dr. Melzer and Dr. Weiler's report diagnosed MSBP for all
three children, and mild sleep apnea for Michael only. They indicated that
'{a}fter extensive evaluation by all team members, it was decided that this
was indeed a case of {MSBP} and that {each child} would be better served by
being placed in foster care{.}'6
Also on December 13, 1994, Dr. Moffitt sent a report to CPS. His
impressions, he stated, were 'that the Miles children were essentially
normal and did not require extensive monitoring or oxygen and medication
treatments, and that this most likely represented {MSBP}.'7 He thought
'that the children should be placed in foster care and observed away from
their parents, pending further social services evaluation of this
situation.'8
On December 13, 1994, Akers filed a dependency petition on each child.
Each petition alleged that the child was abused or neglected, and had no
parent or guardian capable of providing adequate care.
At about the same time, Akers temporarily placed the children with a
foster family. She knew of the events described above, but she had not
done any investigation of her own.
On December 16, 1994, the Pierce County Juvenile Court convened a
shelter care hearing at which Dr. Feldman testified.9 He opined that the
children were subject to MSBP, and he recommended that the children be
placed outside the family home. The hearing was continued for a week so
that Mr. Miles could be evaluated.
On December 23, 1994, the court ordered that the children could live
with Mr. Miles, but that Ms. Miles could not also live in the home. The
order was implemented on December 29, 1994, when the children returned from
vacation with the foster family.
On January 5, 1995, the court entered an order allowing Ms. Miles to
visit the children under supervision. The court did not allow Ms. Miles to
prepare the children's food or arrange medical care.
In June 1995, Ms. Miles was evaluated by Dr. Darrow A. Chan, a
clinical psychologist. After noting 'that the boys' health {had} improved
dramatically once they were removed from {Ms. Miles'} care{,}' he stated:
On any informal checklist, {Ms. Miles} would likely meet the criteria for
{MSBP}. However, there is no concrete evidence that {Ms. Miles} actively
engaged in any behaviors inducing these illnesses in her sons. There is
also no evidence of tampering with equipment or active falsification of
data. Without some concrete evidence, I cannot diagnose this situation as
being a case of {MSBP}. However, the lack of this 'diagnosis,' should by
no means minimize the seriousness of this situation. Without an
intervention, these boys were at great risk for unnecessary chronic medical
problems with the possibility of the development of more serious symptoms.{10
}
On July 17, 1995, the superior court entered an 'Agreed Order of
Dependency'{11}. It was expressly agreed to and signed by Mr. Miles and his
attorney, and Ms. Miles and her attorney. It stated:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The dependency petition is amended in its entirety, and now states the
following allegations:
1. The children were found to be under inappropriate medical care in that
they were being treated for medical conditions which did not exist, and
over treated for medical conditions which did exist.
2. Ms. Miles, in conjunction with various health care providers,
furthered the unfounded medical treatment through reporting a variety of
symptoms to various health care professionals, and exhibited a reluctance
to decrease medical treatment.
3. The Miles children were diagnosed, in December 1994, as suffering from
{MSBP}. However, upon extensive review of the medical record by
professionals retained by DSHS, and by Ms. Miles, such diagnosis cannot be
supported on a more probable than not basis.
4. Mr. Miles, at this time, may not fully understand the behavior of both
his wife, and of the medical profession, which led to the unfounded and
inappropriate medical care of his children.
5. There is concern that the children are at risk because Ms. Miles may
be dependent on the medical care system.
B. The child{ren} should be placed in the parent's home, with both
parents.
C. Reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for
removal of the child from the child's home and to make it possible for the
child to return home and the child should remain home, with both parents,
under DSHS supervision because:
. . . .
Other: Court supervision is necessary to insure that unfounded and
inappropriate medical care is not furthered by Ms. Miles.
. . . .
E. The below signed parties agree to the establishment of dependency
pursuant to RCW 13.34.030(4)(b)(abused or neglected){.}{12}
With the Miles' concurrence, the court then concluded that the children
'should be found dependent pursuant to RCW 13.34.030(4)(b),' and that the
children should be placed with both parents on condition that:
1. DSHS shall work with the Miles' {sic} to select one team of physicians
to monitor the children's health. One physician with complete knowledge of
this family's history needs to coordinate all medical concerns. The
children will need to be evaluated on an established schedule set up by the
lead physician.
2. A homebuilders specialist shall visit the home in Michigan at least
once per month to insure that a new cycle of increasing unfounded medical
concerns does not begin. Any new concerns must be evaluated outside the
home to insure that no one is influencing the test results.
3. The children shall be enrolled in a public or private school, when
they reach the appropriate age, to insure some monitoring of their health
and absences.
4. Mr. Miles needs to understand the nature of the risks to his children,
even though Ms. Miles has not been diagnosed with {MSBP}.{13}
Fifteen months later, in October 1996, the Miles14 sued the State and
Akers for negligent investigation, violation of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and outrage. In the same
complaint, they also sued Children's and Dr. Feldman for negligent
diagnosis, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and outrage.15
On April 20, 1998, the State moved for summary judgment. In response, Ms.
Miles declared:
{M}y husband and I signed the agreed order of dependency only to
return the children back to their family home from foster care. By signing
the agreed order of dependency, we were not admitting that we provided
inappropriate medical care or overtreated by reporting unfounded medical
symptoms.
My only concern at that time was the safety and welfare of my children
and placing them back into the family home was the reason I signed the
agreed order of dependency. I felt that I had no other choice but to enter
into this agreed order.{16}
Two experts retained by the Miles declared that the MSBP diagnosis was
wrong and that Dr. Feldman had made it hastily and recklessly. In 1999,
after a series of hearings, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
and dismissed all claims against all defendants.
I.
A preliminary question is whether the agreed order of dependency
precludes the Miles from now claiming that their children were not abused
or neglected in the fall of 1994. The Miles answer no, alleging they 'had
no other choice but to enter into this agreed order.'17 The defendants
answer yes, based on collateral estoppel.
The defendants are correct. Collateral estoppel precludes a party from
relitigating an issue of fact that the party has already litigated to final
judgment, so long as injustice does not
result.18 A key issue of fact in the dependency action was whether the
Miles had abused or neglected their children prior to December 5, 1994.
The dependency court resolved that issue by entering a judgment that was
final and appealable.19 In that judgment, it ruled that the children were
dependent within the meaning of RCW 13.34.030(4), which is equivalent to
saying the children were abused or neglected.20 Assuming without holding
that the Miles could attack the trial court's judgment directly (i.e., by
motion made in the dependency action), they may not attack it collaterally
(i.e., by relitigation in a separate action such as this). For purposes of
this case, the Miles are bound to the proposition that their children were
abused or neglected in 1994.{21}
II.
In their brief on appeal, the Miles describe their claims against the
State as follows:
Wanda Akers, a state social worker, negligently investigated the
alleged abuse of the Miles children. In addition, . . . Wanda Akers made
discriminatory, offensive, oppressive, and outrageous remarks about Yamila
Miles which constitute negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED),
outrage, and a violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.{22}
We consider negligent investigation first and the alleged remarks second.
A.
The Miles' negligent investigation claim is really a claim that Akers
negligently removed the children from the Miles' home, thereby disrupting
the family and causing emotional distress. There is no claim that Akers
placed the children in a foster home that was harmful or inadequate.
Attempting to support this claim of negligent removal, the Miles urge
that a reasonable person would have investigated by 'interviewing the
parents, children, and all other parties involved{,}'23 and that but for
Akers' failure to conduct such interviews, the State would not have removed
the children from the home. The State responds that Akers 'conducted a
level of investigation appropriate to the circumstances{,}'24 and that her
duty of reasonable care did not require her to 'challenge Washington
physicians' medical opinions under these circumstances.'25
The State is correct. If Akers had contacted the Texas doctors, they
might have said the children were genuinely sick while in Texas but Akers
would still have been faced with the views of twenty-six Washington health
care providers, from Madigan, Children's, and private practice, to the
effect that the children were currently abused. Akers also was told by
both Madigan and Children's that those institutions had contacted the Texas
doctors. Under these circumstances, a trier of fact could not infer that a
reasonable person in Akers' shoes would not have removed the children from
the home but for Akers' allegedly negligent omissions, and reasonable minds
could not differ on the lack of proximate cause.
Attempting to further support their claim of negligent removal, the
Miles urge that RCW 26.44.030(8)26 required Akers to obtain a second opinion
from a physician of the parents' choice; that Akers failed to do that; and
that but for her failure, the State would not have removed the children
from the home. The State responds that '{a}fter six physicians and two
hospitals gave their medical opinions that abuse and neglect had occurred
and at least five of the doctors indicated that the children would be
endangered if returned to the parents' custody,' it was neither reasonable
nor mandatory 'for the State to suggest that they select yet another
physician{.}'27
The State is correct. All the health care providers who saw the
children in Washington they were numerous, and none was selected by the
State suspected or believed that the children were currently being abused
through significant overtreatment. It cannot be inferred that one more
doctor would have thought the children were not being abused, and even if
it could be, it cannot be inferred that his or her view would have caused a
reasonable person in Akers' shoes not to remove the children from the home.
Assuming without holding that RCW 26.44.030(8) required an additional
opinion, a rational trier of fact could not find that but for the absence
of such an opinion, a reasonable person in Akers' shoes would not have
removed the children from the home.
Finally, the State claims that even if a rational trier could find
negligence, causation, and damages, it and Akers are immune from liability.
The Miles respond that immunity is a factual question because Akers'
alleged remarks support an inference that she lacked good faith.
RCW 26.44.056(3) provides that '{a} child protective services employee
. . . shall not be held liable in any civil action for the decision for
taking the child into custody, if done in good faith under this section.'
Akers' alleged remarks are sufficient to support an inference of
boorishness; without more, however, they are insufficient to support an
inference that Akers was acting without good faith, given that she was
adhering to the opinions of many doctors, nurses, and other health care
workers at both Madigan and Children's. We conclude that a rational trier
could not find causation, and that a rational trier would be obligated to
find good faith.
B.
We turn to Akers' remarks, which the Miles characterize as
'discriminatory, offensive, oppressive, and outrageous.'28 We consider
NIED, outrage, and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, in that order.
A plaintiff may not sue for NIED unless he or she was present when, or
shortly after, the negligent conduct occurred.29 The Miles cannot meet this
requirement with respect to Akers' alleged remarks to Barno, and in our
view Akers' single alleged statement to Mr. Miles will not support, by
itself, an action for NIED.30
A plaintiff may not sue for outrage unless he or she was present when
the conduct occurred.31 The conduct must also be 'so outrageous in
character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community;'32 'mere insults and indignities, such as causing
embarrassment or humiliation, will not support imposition of liability.'33
Akers' remarks, except one, were not made in the Miles' presence; and that
one, by itself, was not 'so extreme in degree' as to support a claim of
outrage.
A plaintiff may not sue under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 unless the
defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.34 A
plaintiff bears the burden of identifying and showing such a right.35 The
Miles make little attempt to identify such a right here;36 in a single
sentence of their opening brief, they claim 'that the defendants deprived
the Miles family members of their fundamental right to each other's
companionship{,}'37 and in a single sentence of their reply brief they claim
'that Ms. Akers contributed to the deprivation of the Miles' fundamental
right to their children's companionship.'38 They do not show how Akers'
remarks (as opposed to Akers' removal of the children from the home) had
that effect; and if they are arguing that Akers' removal of the children
from the home had such effect, there is no well-established constitutional
right to the companionship of children whom one has abused or neglected,
and thus made dependent, according to a final and appealable dependency
judgment that one agreed to while represented by counsel. We conclude that
the Miles lack valid claims against the State and Akers, and that the trial
court did not err by dismissing those defendants.
III.
We turn to the Miles' claims against Dr. Feldman and Children's.
According to the Miles, a rational trier of fact could find from this
record that Dr. 'Feldman negligently and recklessly diagnosed {MSBP} and
made a treatment recommendation,' and that Dr. 'Feldman's conduct
constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress.'39
Dr. Feldman and Children's respond that even if he was negligent, they are
immune because he acted in good faith. They also respond that the Miles
cannot prove cause-in-fact because the Miles agreed to, and have not set
aside, a final and appealable judgment that they abused their children.
RCW 26.44.030(1)(a) provides that '{w}hen any practitioner . . . has
reasonable cause to believe that a child . . . has suffered abuse or
neglect, he or she shall report such incident' to CPS. RCW 26.44.056(1)
provides that '{a}n administrator of a hospital or similar institution or
any physician . . . may detain a child without consent of a person legally
responsible for the child whether or not medical treatment is required, if
the circumstances or conditions of the child are such that the detaining
individual has reasonable cause to believe that permitting the child to
continue in his or her place of residence or in the care and custody of the
parent, guardian, custodian or other person legally responsible for the
child's care would present an imminent danger to that child's safety,' so
long as the administrator or physician notifies CPS. RCW 26.44.060(2)(a)
provides that '{a}n administrator of a hospital . . . or any physician . .
. taking a child into custody pursuant to RCW 26.44.056 shall not be
subject to criminal or civil liability for such taking into custody,' and
RCW 26.44.060(1)(a) provides, subject to an exception not pertinent here,
that 'any person participating in good faith in the making of a {child
abuse} report . . . shall in so doing be immune from any liability arising
out of such reporting{.}'
Assuming without holding that Dr. Feldman negligently diagnosed MSBP,
he and Children's are immune from liability as a matter of law. He acted
in conjunction with, and consistently with, health care professionals from
Madigan (Dr. Moffitt and Knorr). He acted consistently with a physician in
private practice (Dr. Ricker). He acted in conjunction with, and
consistently with, all the members of Children's multidisciplinary team,
including numerous doctors, nurses, and social workers. No reasonable
person could find that Dr. Feldman or any of the others acted without good
faith; whether mistaken or not, they believed they were acting in the best
interests of the children.
Even if Dr. Feldman and Children's were not immune, the plaintiffs
would be unable to establish causation. To prove a negligence cause of
action, a plaintiff must establish causation.40 To do that, a plaintiff
must produce evidence sufficient to support an inference that the claimed
harm would not have occurred but for the claimed negligence.41 When the
Miles agreed in the dependency court that their children were dependent
within the meaning of RCW 13.34.030(4), they agreed that the children were
abused or neglected, and it was that abuse or neglect, not the diagnosis of
MSBP, that caused the children's removal from the home. Given the evidence
here, a rational trier of fact could not infer that the claimed harm
(removal of the children from the home and resulting emotional distress)
would not have occurred but for the claimed negligence (diagnosis and
reporting of MSBP).
The Miles' claim for NIED fails for these same reasons, and also for
the reasons discussed in Section II. The Miles' claim for outrage fails
because no reasonable person could find that Dr. Feldman or Children's
engaged in outrageous conduct.42 The trial court did not err by dismissing
the Miles' claims against Dr. Feldman and Children's.
Affirmed.43
Morgan, J.
We concur:
Seinfeld, J.
Armstrong, C.J.
1 Clerk's Papers at 905, 910, 916.
2 Clerk's Papers at 429; see also Clerk's Papers at 958.
3 Clerk's Papers at 588.
4 Clerk's Papers at 589.
5 Clerk's Papers at 926; see also Clerk's Papers at 940, 952.
6 Clerk's Papers at 892-93; see also Clerk's Papers at 896, 901.
7 Clerk's Papers at 534.
8 Clerk's Papers at 534.
9 The shelter care hearing had originally been set for December 14. It was
continued to December 16 for reasons not pertinent here.
10 Clerk's Papers at 498.
11 Clerk's Papers at 509-12.
12 RCW 13.34.030(4)(b) provides that a dependent child is one '{w}ho is
abused or neglected as defined in chapter 26.44 RCW by a person legally
responsible for the care of the child{.}'
13 Clerk's Papers at 2495-96.
14 The plaintiffs are Mark and Yamila Miles, husband and wife, and Mark
Miles as Guardian ad Litem for Justin Miles, Christopher Miles, and Michael
Miles, minors. Clerk's Papers at 3. We refer to all of them as 'the
Miles.'
15 The dismissal of a claim for defamation has not been appealed and is not
in issue here.
16 Clerk's Papers at 585.
17 Clerk's Papers at 585.
18 Lenzi v. Redland Ins. Co., 140 Wn.2d 267, 279-80, 996 P.2d 603 (2000);
United States v. Deaconess Medical Center Empire Health Service, 140 Wn.2d
104, 110, 994 P.2d 830 (2000); Thompson v. State, 138 Wn.2d 783, 790, 982
P.2d 601 (1999); Reninger v. State, 134 Wn.2d 437, 449, 951 P.2d 782
(1998); Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552, 561-62, 852 P.2d 295
(1993). The Miles cite Lesley v. State, 83 Wn. App. 263, 921 P.2d 1066
(1996), which is distinguishable on its facts. The Lesley court properly
did not apply collateral estoppel to a shelter care order that was not
final or appealable. Lesley, 83 Wn. App. 276. We properly apply
collateral estoppel to a dependency judgment that was final and appealable.
RAP 2.2(a)(5). The Miles also cite In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600,
609, 836 P.2d 200 (1992), but the discussion in that case has nothing to do
with collateral estoppel.
19 RAP 2.2(a)(5)(appeal lies from the '{t}he disposition decision following
a finding of dependency'); CR 54(a)(1)('judgment . . . includes any decree
and order from which an appeal lies').
20 RCW 13.34.030(4) provides that a dependent child is one '{w}ho is abused
or neglected as defined in chapter 26.44 RCW by a person legally
responsible for the care of the child{.}'
21 Even if collateral estoppel were not to apply here, judicial estoppel
would. Collateral estoppel promotes finality by precluding the
relitigation of an issue already resolved, while judicial estoppel
'prevents a party from taking a factual position that is inconsistent with
his or her factual position in previous litigation.' Holst v. Fireside
Realty, Inc., 89 Wn. App. 245, 259, 948 P.2d 858 (1997); see also Raymond
v. Ingram, 47 Wn. App. 781, 785, 737 P.2d 314 (1987), review denied, 108
Wn.2d 1031 (1987). Judicial estoppel precludes the Miles from agreeing in
open court in the dependency case that their children were abused or
neglected, then arguing in open court in this case that their children were
not abused or neglected.
22 Br. of Appellant at 15.
23 Br. of Appellant at 18.
24 Br. of Respondent at 14.
25 Br. of Respondent at 15.
26 RCW 26.44.030(8) provides:
(8) Any case referred to the department by a physician licensed under
chapter 18.57 or 18.71 RCW on the basis of an expert medical opinion that
child abuse, neglect, or sexual assault has occurred and that the child's
safety will be seriously endangered if returned home, the department shall
file a dependency petition unless a second licensed physician of the
parents' choice believes that such expert medical opinion is incorrect. If
the parents fail to designate a second physician, the department may make
the selection. If a physician finds that a child has suffered abuse or
neglect but that such abuse or neglect does not constitute imminent danger
to the child's health or safety, and the department agrees with the
physician's assessment, the child may be left in the parents' home while
the department proceeds with reasonable efforts to remedy parenting
deficiencies. {Italics added.}
27 Br. of Respondent at 16.
28 Br. of Appellant at 15.
29 Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wn.2d 195, 204, 961 P.2d 333 (1998); Hegel v.
McMahon, 136 Wn.2d 122, 132, 960 P.2d 424 (1998). If the Miles are
contending that Whaley v. State, 90 Wn. App. 658, 956 P.2d 1100 (1998)
eliminated this requirement, see Appellant's Brief at 28, we think they are
incorrect.
30 See Bishop v. State, 77 Wn. App. 228, 233, 889 P.2d 959 (1995) (emotional
distress is 'a fact of life'); Spurrell v. Bloch, 40 Wn. App. 854, 863, 701
P.2d 529, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1014 (1985) (emotional distress
actionable only if it rises 'above that level which is a fact of life;'
evidence showing 'one sleepless night, tears, loss of appetite, and
anxiety' not sufficient); Whaley, 90 Wn. App. at 675 (quoting Spurrell, 40
Wn. App. 854).
31 Reid, 136 Wn.2d at 203.
32 Reid, 136 Wn.2d at 202 (quoting Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wn.2d 52, 59, 530
P.2d 291 (1975)).
33 Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 630, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989).
34 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d
523 (1987); Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 66, 830 P.2d 318,
cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1028 (1992).
35 Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66.
36 The Miles focus instead on whether Akers acted with gross negligence,
recklessness or deliberate indifference. We need not reach that matter
when there was no violation of a well-established constitutional right.
37 Br. of Appellant at 36.
38 Appellant's Reply Brief at 9.
39 Br. of Appellant at 38-39.
40 Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 777, 698 P.2d 77 (1985); Harbeson v.
Parke-Davis, Inc., 98 Wn.2d 460, 468, 656 P.2d 483 (1983); Hunsley v.
Giard, 87 Wn.2d 424, 434, 553 P.2d 1096 (1976).
41 Hartley, 103 Wn.2d at 778; Beltran v. State, 98 Wn. App. 245, 250, 989
P.2d 604 (1999), review granted, 140 Wn.2d 1021 (2000).
42 See Reid, 136 Wn.2d at 202 (conduct must be 'so outrageous in character,
and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,
and be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community') (quoting Grimsby, 85 Wn.2d at 59) (italics deleted).
43 On May 10, 2000, the Miles filed a motion in this court to allow the
taking of additional evidence. We hereby deny that motion.