DALE PETERS, Special Administrator of the Estate of ROBERT D. PETERS, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged the State breached a duty to protect a minor child by returning him to his mother's home where he was abused and murdered. The court dismissed the claim, finding no duty of care was owed by the caseworker and that the mother's breach of parental duty was the proximate cause, citing MidAmerica Trust v. Moffatt.
Cases cited: MidAmerica Trust v. Moffatt (1987), 511 N.E.2d 964, 158 Ill. App. 3d 372 (5th Dist.)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEGLIGENCE-child murdered by mother’s boyfriend-no breach of duty by DCFS-claim denied. A claim brought on behalf of a child who was murdered by his mother’s boyfriend, alleging that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to investigate, report, and act upon reports of the child’s abuse was denied, since the mother was responsible for the child’s care and protection, no duty of care was owed the child by DCFS or its caseworker, and the mother’s breach of parental duty was the proximate cause of the child’s injuries.
ORDER
JANN, J.
This cause comes on to be heard on the motion of Respondent to dismiss, due notice having been given and the Court being fully advised in the premises finds:
Claimants allege Respondents breached a duty owed Claimant’s decedent, a minor child, by returning him to [*327] his mother’s home where he was abused and eventually murdered by his mother’s boyfriend. Claimants further allege willful and wanton conduct by Respondents in failing to investigate the abuse of decedent, failing to remove decedent from his mother’s home, failing to inform proper authorities of the abuse, denying knowledge of the abuse, acting in a manner to impede an investigation of the abuse and failing to fully cooperate in the investigation.
Respondent cites MidAmerica Trust v. Moffatt (1987), 511 N.E.2d 964, 158 Ill. App. 3d 372 (5th Dist.) in support of its motion. A review of Moffatt indicates that the facts of this case are virtually identical. The Moffatt court dismissed the case finding no breach of duty by the caseworker and that no duty of care was owed the child by the caseworker. It held that the mother was responsible for the care and protection of her child. 511 N.E.2d 964 at 970, 971.
Moffatt further held that the claimed injuries were not proximately caused by any negligence of the caseworker, but by the mother’s breach of parental duty.
We find Moffatt’s reasoning fully applicable to the case at bar and hereby grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss.
ORDER
JANN, J.
This cause comes on to be heard on Claimant’s petition for rehearing. The Court having reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises finds:
(1) Claimant misrepresents the Court’s finding, asserting that duty arises only to children in its custody and makes conclusions not supported by the evidence in its arguments for rehearing.
[*328] (2) Claimant presents no case law to support its position.
(3) Claimant asserts that MidAmerica Trust v. Moffatt (1987), 158 Ill. App. 3d 372, 511 N.E.2d 964 (5th Dist.) presents a distinguishable precedent as the child was allegedly returned to his mother’s home after a judicial determination as to the mother’s fitness. The asserted determination is not clear and is specifically referenced as such in Moffatt.
(4) Claimant’s decedent’s death was caused by a third party. No duty has been established which could impute liability to DCFS or its caseworker. The imposition of duty Claimant asserts would hold DCFS to an impossible standard. The caseworker who saw decedent once would become liable for his eventual murder by a third party.
Claimant’s petition is hereby denied.