Absolute immunity from civil liability; The Child Protection Law (MCL 722.625); Beauford v Lewis; Spikes v Banks; Martin v Children’s Aid Soc’y; Amendment of the complaint; Open discovery

The trial court did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant-Alternatives for Children and Families (a foster child placement agency) and in denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. It also did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition before the close of discovery. Defendant purportedly placed “plaintiff’s decedent, nine-year-old OH, . . . a special needs child with non-verbal autism,” in R’s foster home. Plaintiff claimed that this placement occurred despite knowledge of R’s “history of failing to supervise children in her care.” Also, it was asserted that R “did not receive any training in how to supervise a child with autism. [R] purportedly took OH to a party [], where she allegedly left him to roam without supervision, despite their presence near a lake. Six days later, OH’s body was recovered from the lake. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to train, educate, and license foster homes and parents.” Defendant claimed it was entitled to absolute immunity. In Beauford, Spikes, and Martin, the court “determined that ‘advisors and agents’ of the family court were entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of their work. This holding was warranted because the family court proceeding allowed for a sufficient remedy for any wrongful action by the social worker. And this holding was supported by policy; it was designed to grant social workers the freedom to honestly address a situation without the threat of civil litigation.” Plaintiff contended “that the trial court erred because it concluded that social workers were entitled to absolute immunity in light of their ‘status’ without regard to whether their actions or omissions were governed by absolute immunity.” The court noted that “the trial court expanded or altered its view that ‘status’ was the primary consideration and correctly denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in light of the facts and circumstances of the decisions addressing absolute immunity.” Plaintiff next contended “that the trial court erred in ‘extending’ social worker absolute immunity to defendant because there was no evidence of ‘close oversight’ by the family court of defendant’s training of foster parents and its placement of a special needs child.” The court found that “even plaintiff recognized that a petition was filed to remove OH and his siblings from their parents’ care. With regard to OH, the parents did not obtain services for his autism. OH was sent to school with poorly-fitting, dirty clothes. He did not have appropriate footwear for the inclement weather conditions. School staff tried to aid OH because he was being bullied by his peers for his poor hygiene and body odor.” On 2/23/15, “the family court ordered CPS to take the children into protective custody, and the children were placed with DHHS for care and supervision. DHHS contracted with defendant to provide services including placement and supervision. And defendant prepared a report dated [6/1/15], delineating OH’s placement and indicating that he was happy. Plaintiff presented no documentation or affidavits from the participants or attorneys in the family court proceeding to reflect that the court did not review the materials submitted.” Affirmed.