Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
C.A. No. :
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1.
JANE DOE is the parent, guardian, and next friend of JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff has filed this Complaint substituting the actual names of the
individuals JANE DOE and JOHN DOE respectively, to protect the identity of
JOHN DOE, a minor now, and at all times relevant to this action.
3.
appearance,
undersigned
counsel
will
provide
the
necessary
that time, after seeking an appropriate protective order. Counsel for Plaintiff has
therefore sought permission from the Superior Court to file this complaint under
the above captioned pseudonyms until such time as the identities of JOHN and
JANE DOE can be adequately protected from unnecessary disclosure to the public.
4.
individual with a last known address of 56 Greenway Square Apartments Apt L14,
Dover, Delaware, 19904.
6.
in the course and scope of her employment with Defendant Crossroads, as its
agent, servant and/or employee, as were all other staff members of CROSSROADS
as enumerated infra.
7.
with the State of Delaware by and through the Department of Services for
Children, Youth and Family Services (DYSCF) to provide court-ordered drug
counseling and rehabilitation to Plaintiff.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND LAW
8.
and alcohol program by order of the Kent County Family Court on or about April
9, 2015.
9.
for marijuana use, and was sent there for the specific purpose of discontinuing use
of marijuana and associated counseling related to drugs and or alcohol.
10.
Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment center with two locations providing Day
program, Part Day, Intensive Outpatient, Outpatient, and Evaluation services.
Additionally, Crossroads advertises that its programs are available for those with
co-occurring disorders and that they offer psychiatric services.
11.
them to operate a facility dealing with adolescent and juveniles who are involved
in the Family Court system.
12.
Crossroads was responsible for inter alia drug testing Plaintiff and
others in its program and tasked with the accurate logging and reporting of these
results to the State agencies with enforcement power over Plaintiff, as well as
directly to the Family Court itself.
12.
program, have regular contact with parents and parole officers, and are granted an
extraordinary level of trust not only by the agencies that contract with them to
perform these vital services, but by the youths that come to them in need of help,
and by their parents, often with a need to see their children overcome their drug
and alcohol issues, and thrive.
13.
Crossroads Milford location was fifteen years old, and by the time the events
which form the basis of this complaint were discovered, he had turned sixteen
years old; therefore at all times relevant John Doe was a minor.
14.
responsibilities with respect to Plaintiff included, but were not limited to:
facilitating his detoxification from marijuana, providing him support services and
mental heath services as well as transportation to and from the outpatient facility,
and other trips off of the premises of Crossroads Milford, Delaware location,
attending Court with Plaintiff, reporting to Plaintiffs mother about his progress,
and any setbacks, communicating with the other staff members at the facility about
the progress of Plaintiff, and maintaining an accurate record of his urine screens
that would eventually be reported to the Family Court.
16.
counselor when he attended his intake session with his mother, at the Crossroads
facility in Milford, Delaware on or about April 16, 2015 and was informed that
Defendant Adams would pick Plaintiff up in the morning, using a Crossroads van,
and return him home at the end of the program day which was 2:30pm.
17.
have known that there were serious causes for concern with the way Defendant
Adams was interacting with Plaintiff John Doe, and each had either actual or
constructive knowledge of the abuses alleged herein, and yet each of these
employees failed in every respect and at every opportunity, as detailed infra to
investigate, discover, and report the ongoing abuses being carried out at Crossroads
which caused damage to the very same Minor Plaintiff they were tasked and
entrusted with the care of.
19.
bad enough, each and every member of the Crossroads staff identified supra,
engaged in an affirmative and or constructive fraud, and cover-up of the abuses
that included but were not limited to: falsifying records of urine tests, responding
to questions from Plaintiffs mother about the whereabouts of John Doe with
fraudulent misrepresentations as to where John Doe was and why he was there,
purchasing marijuana and alcohol with and for John Doe for the purpose of using
these substances together in an apparent effort to buy his silence, or to groom him
for further sexual abuse, and later threatening Plaintiff John Doe with further
consequences such as expulsion from the court ordered program and further
violations of probation should the abusive conduct be revealed.
20.
Crossroads Milford Delaware location Plaintiffs mother received a call from Ms.
Becky, Defendant Adams preferred moniker, informing that Plaintiff John Doe
had, failed a drug test, but that since the use of marijuana was on or about the
time of Plaintiffs birthday, that she would, sweep it under the rug.
21.
effectiveness of a drug rehab facility that would conduct itself in such a way, and
made it known that if Defendant Adams or anyone else associated with Crossroads
were to falsely report Plaintiffs status to the Court, that she would speak up.
22.
At the next scheduled hearing in the Family Court of Kent County, the
fact that Plaintiff had failed a urine screen was accurately reported to the Court by
members of Crossroads staff, despite the earlier suggestion that they would,
sweep it under the rug.
23.
mother asked to be heard by the Court and informed the Court at that time of the
conversation that she had on May 6th with Defendant Adams, and questioned the
efficacy of a program that would seem to be so cavalier about its obligation to her
son, let alone the Court.
24.
that she had been made aware that Crossroads allowed the adolescents in their care
to smoke in the van. While this was also troubling to Plaintiffs mother, so much
so that she brought this to the attention of the Court, Plaintiffs mother was under
the false impression that the smoking referred to was cigarette smoking, and only
later did she learn that this allegation of smoking was actually referring to smoking
marijuana in the van owned and operated by Crossroads.
25.
found to be unresponsive to her concerns and that did not indicate a concern on the
part of the Court that these allegations were being leveled against Crossroads, she
accepted the fact that she had to trust those who were charged with the care and
treatment of her son, and their various layers of oversight, and decided to maintain
a watchful eye as Plaintiff continued to attend Crossroads, never for a moment
suspecting that the situation by this time had already become a toxic and ultimately
criminal case of repeated sexual abuse.
26.
Shortly after the Court hearing, where red flags were certainly raised,
if only momentarily and to no effect, Defendant Adams began to spend more and
more time with Plaintiff under the guise of expanded treatment and the outright
false representation to Plaintiffs mother of a trusting and healthy relationship
wherein Plaintiff was thriving under the wing of Defendant Adams.
27.
which was the middle to end of June, 2015, of picking up Plaintiff at his home and
returning him at the scheduled end of the program day, and then returning to
Plaintiffs home again between the hours of 5:00-6:00pm and would then keep him
out until later in the evening.
28.
Defendant Adams that Plaintiff was joining the Intensive Outpatient Program
(IOP) patients as they did activities related to drug counseling and support
services. This group of patients required a greater level of services, also run by
and through Crossroads, but their program day was much longer.
29.
evenings she would do so in the same van she would use at all other times, which
was owned and operated by Crossroads in order to facilitate outpatient
transportation to their facility.
30.
her because she had been attempting for some time to get Plaintiff into more
counseling services from which she thought he could benefit. When pressed for a
reason for the extended time, Defendant Adams told Plaintiffs mother via text
message, [John Doe] is getting clean[.] [T]aking kids from IOP to resources.
31.
appealed the decision to send him to Crossroads solely, and to discontinue other
counseling services he was already in, because she felt the additional services were
also necessary and had been effective to that point; but her appeal was denied by
the Division of Prevention and Behavioral Health Services (aka: PBH), a
division of The Department of Services for Children Youth and Families (DSCYF)
tasked with State oversight of these facilities, and thereafter Plaintiff John Doe was
ordered to attend Crossroads to be his sole provider of rehabilitation, counseling,
and support services.
32.
After being told (falsely) that Plaintiff John Doe was spending extra
time with Defendant Adams because he was suddenly now able to participate in,
and or help with, a different and more intensive program (the IOP program) by
Defendant Adams, Plaintiffs mother questioned Jessica Neil about this the next
time she saw her, which was at a subsequent hearing at the Family Court also in
June 2015. Plaintiffs mother was told by Ms. Neil that the fact that John Doe was
out at night with Defendant Adams, sometimes as late as 11pm, should not be a
cause for concern because, according to Ms. Neil, taking a client of Crossroads and
placing them in a more intensive program at their sole discretion was fairly normal,
well, sometimes they can do that she told Plaintiffs mother.
33.
nevertheless came from a person she was essentially duty-bound to trust given the
involvement of the Court, and the threat of further criminal sanction of violations
of probation against her minor son, she decided to maintain a watchful eye, but
otherwise to continue trusting the repeated affirmative misrepresentations of
Crossroads staff as they explained away what to any trained professional eye was
clearly a massive failure of oversight, at the very least, with regard to Plaintiffs
interaction with Defendant Adams.
34.
Plaintiffs mother began to log the dates and times that her son was
spending extra time, after program hours, with Defendant Adams and the reasons
10
given for this. Plaintiffs mother noted that on one occasion, July 6, 2015 that he
was out until 11pm with Defendant Adams, who told his mother that John Doe was
attending a movie and helping to clean the Crossroads facility with the IOP clients.
Plaintiffs mother mentioned this to Plaintiffs juvenile probation officer who
agreed that this was weird, and agreed to check minor Plaintiffs Court ordered
GPS tracking device, which did indicate that he was at Crossroads and then at a
movie theater that night, however, and unfortunately in this case the GPS tracker
can only tell where a person is, not what they are doing there.
35.
doubt because of all the times she had been lied to regarding her son and
Crossroads, Plaintiffs mother again, decided that she would have to maintain a
watchful presence.
36.
Plaintiffs mother was troubled also by the fact that to her it seemed
very apparent that John Does marijuana use continued and even was likely
escalating, despite the fact that he maintained a clean record as per Crossroads,
which continued to report to Plaintiffs mother, and the Court, that John Does
toxicity was coming down and that his use had been stopped.
37.
On July 8th John Doe returned home from his day at Crossroads with
Defendant Adams, and had an open and clearly visible hickey on his neck. She
immediately asked Ms. Becky, about this and Defendant Adams responded that
11
John Doe had sexual contact with another client of Crossroads in the van (another
minor) when in fact, as was later revealed the hickey was from Defendant Adams
herself.
38.
later check of John Does GPS device revealed that he was at Defendant Adams
home where they stayed for two hours and fifty minutes according to information
learned after the abuse was ultimately revealed.
39.
Plaintiffs mother, now fearing and suspecting the worst, began to log
the days that John Doe spent extra time, at odd hours with Defendant Adams,
including occasions when Crossroads itself was closed, one time arriving in her
personal vehicle on a Sunday, unannounced to pick up John Doe from his home.
40.
Plaintiffs mother noted that John Doe was out after hours, for
unsatisfactory, or suspicious, reasons on July14, 16, 20, and 30, and August 4, 12,
and then ultimately August 13th 2015.
41.
mother had finally been revealed to not be a paranoid fantasy, but instead the far
more troubling reality that her son had been the victim of repeated sexual assault
when she received notice of an anonymous tip called into DSCYF regarding his
relationship with Defendant Adams.
12
42.
Twenty-four hours later, with the help of a concerned male figure whom he trusted
and with the assistance of social workers provided by Dover police, John Doe
confirmed the suspicions and revealed the pervasive extent of the abuse of Plaintiff
and the wholesale failure of Crossroads became strikingly evident.
43.
truthful reporting of the abuse, but after the allegation was brought to the attention
of Plaintiffs mother, Plaintiffs mother received a phone call from Alberta
Crowley executive director of Crossroads and Defendant Adams mother.
Crowley asked Plaintiffs mother, whether or not she believed the abuse had
occurred, and it was clear to Plaintiffs mother that Ms. Crowley was not
divulging known acts of abuse, however was trying to suss out what Plaintiffs
mother knew about the abuse and or the allegations. Of course by this time, and as
alleged herein well before August of 2015 Ms. Crowley had actual and or
constructive knowledge of the substance of these allegations, yet failed in every
respect to investigate, or disclose these facts.
44.
had been made aware of, Plaintiffs mother answered that she had, no clue, and
shortly thereafter Crowley abruptly ended the conversation. The next day, after the
abuse was revealed, Plaintiffs mother heard nothing further from Crowley.
13
45.
As the truth emerged Defendant Adams was arrested and charged with
with Crossroads, the sexual abuse of Plaintiff began, and continued until an
anonymous tip revealed the allegations to investigators.
47.
The sexual abuse included but was not limited to, intercourse and oral
sex, while at the Crossroads facility, in the Crossroads van at various locations
including in area parking lots, and also at the home of Defendant Adams.
48.
Plaintiff to the Delaware Beaches and boardwalk, as well as other small trips that
were completely unrelated to the purpose which granted Defendant Adams to her
victim, his drug counseling and rehabilitation.
49.
Plaintiff, even doing so on the way to Crossroads in the morning so that he could
drink Cherry Vodka, before starting the days program.
Defendant Adams would also, as was her consistent custom and practice, use the
Crossroads van.
14
51.
actually purchase with Plaintiff marijuana for their mutual consumption at various
locations and times, and always again using the Crossroads van.
52.
Of course this would have posed a problem when it came time for
minor Plaintiff to submit to a urine screen at the Crossroads facility, but defendant
Adams, was able to get around even that by employing a degree of fraud,
negligence and gross negligence.
53.
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
15
55.
their failure to formulate adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies, and
enforcement of same, which would ensure quality care and safety for the clients of
Crossroads, and in so doing breached their duty to Plaintiff.
57.
their granting of access to minors to Defendant ADAMS and for failing to discover
the abuse of Plaintiff when they knew or should of know that it was occurring.
Plaintiff, based on information and belief, alleges that all Defendants knew, or
should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an undue risk to
minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with their
mandatory reporting requirements of 16 Del.C. 903 and 42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
58.
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, including
but not limited to, anxiety, embarrassment and emotional distress.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
GROSSLY NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
(Against Defendant CROSSROADS)
16
59.
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
60.
and through their respective agents, apparent agents, servants and employees, knew
or should have reasonably known of Defendant ADAMS dangerous and
exploitive propensities and/or that Defendant ADAMS was an unfit agent.
61.
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, including
but not limited to, anxiety, embarrassment and emotional distress.
17
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
64.
during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or
procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and/or monitor their drug
counselors, employees and or agents, including Defendant ADAMS, to prevent
pre-sexual grooming and/or sexual battery, molestation and abuse of minor
Plaintiff, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor
conduct toward minors, students and or clients, and or patients and others in
Defendant CROSSROADS care.
18
66.
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, including
but not limited to, anxiety, embarrassment and emotional distress.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT AND GROSSLY NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN,
TRAIN, or EDUCATE
(Against Defendant CROSSROADS)
67.
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
68.
take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and other minors, patients,
and clients from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by
employees agents and or apparent agents of Defendant CROSSROADS, by failing
to supervise and/or stop employees of Defendants, including Defendant ADAMS,
from committing wrongful sexual acts with minor Plaintiff.
69.
take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and other minor students,
clients, and or patients from the risk of childhood sexual battery, molestation and
abuse by Defendant ADAMS, by failing to supervise and/or stop employees agents
and apparent agents of Defendants, including Defendant ADAMS, from
committing wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff.
19
70.
Defendants and each of their employees, agents, and or apparent agents, knew or
should have known, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance
with the reporting requirements provided under Delaware law, Defendants created
the risk and danger contemplated by the mandatory reporting requirements, and as
a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff to sexual molestation and
abuse.
71.
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, including
but not limited to, anxiety, embarrassment and emotional distress.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
(Against all Defendants)
72.
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
73.
apparent agent of the Defendants, and allowing her to undertake drug counseling,
and associated psychological services, and instruction of Plaintiff, the Defendants
entered into a fiduciary relationship and special confidential relationship with
Plaintiff.
20
74.
special duties to Plaintiff by the wrongful negligent and grossly negligent conduct
described or incorporated in this Complaint, and in doing so gained an advantage
over Plaintiff in matters relating to Plaintiffs safety, security and health. In
particular and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in breaching such
duties as alleged, Defendants among other things, were able to sustain the status of
the Defendants as an institution that exists to serve the public welfare and to
rehabilitate juvenile and adolescent patients, and or clients, inducing inter alia, the
maintenance of their special relationship with the State as a qualified provider of
drug counseling and psychological services under a State contract, all at the
expense of Plaintiffs further injury and in violation of Defendants' and each of
their mandatory duties.
76.
with Plaintiff, Defendants and their employees, agents, and or apparent agents
breached their duties owed to Plaintiff including but not limited to:
21
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, in concert with each other and with the intent to
conceal and defraud, conspired and came to a meeting of the minds whereby they
would misrepresent, conceal or fail to disclose information relating to the sexual
misconduct of Defendant ADAMS, the inability of Defendants to supervise or stop
Defendant ADAMS from sexually abusing, and molesting Plaintiff, and their own
22
failure to properly investigate, supervise and monitor her conduct with minor
students, including but not limited to falsifying records and making affirmative
misrepresentation to the Family Court for Kent County, among others.
78.
conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, including
but not limited to, anxiety, embarrassment and emotional distress.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against Defendant ADAMS)
79.
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
80.
extreme and far outside what a reasonable person would expect or tolerate.
81.
and malicious and done for the purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty
that Plaintiff would suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical
distress.
82.
23
intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff,
and was carried out with a conscious disregard of their right to be free from such
tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice, entitling
Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an
example of Defendant ADAMS and Defendants, in a sum to be shown according
to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT AND GROSSLY NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against All Defendants)
79.
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
80.
negligent, outrageous and extreme and far outside what a reasonable person would
expect or tolerate.
81.
Defendants was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and
done in negligent and grossly negligent disregard for the rights and safety of
Plaintiff.
24
every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in
this cause of action.
80.
cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiffs person that
would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a
harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiffs person that would
offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
81.
has suffered and continues to suffer pain and suffering, including but not limited to
anxiety, embarrassment and emotional distress.
25
reckless and wanton conduct, in such amount as justice and the nature of the case
require, together with interest and costs.
DATED: 9/18/15
26