US Dinwiddle Case Against Virginia CPS

Case 7:11-cv-00008-sgw Document 1 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
FRED DINWIDDIE, and MICHELLE LAW NO. f,//-(jt! -/XVof'

DINWIDDIE, individuals, and FRED
DINWIDDIE and MICHELLE DINWIDDIE
as next friends of C.D., J.D., and A.D., minor
children, and MICHAEL DINWIDDIE,
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
v. AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
GILES COUNTY, VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
NRV COMMUNITY SERVICES, HOPE
TREE FAMILY SERVICES, BRALEY AND
THOMPSON,
OMA McREYNOLDS, SHERRI NIPPER,
LINDA BOGGS, MIKE DOBBINS, PHIL
BLANKENBECKLER, AMY BISHOP,
JEAN WILLIAMS, SANDI HODGES,
DARRELL HUNLEY, GREG SCHLAKE,
HATTIE SAVAGE, KATHERINE
FLAUGHRETY, REBECCA HUGHES,
JENNIFER HARRIS, GLENN HARRIS,
RHONDA RYAN, JEFF RYAN, VIRGINIA
QUAID, ANITA GOODWIN, DOUG
FLEMING, LAUREEN FLEMING, GILES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SERGEANT
SCOTT DUNN, DETECTIVE RON
HAMLIN, CAPTAIN MICHAEL FALLS and
OFFICER MARK SKIDMORE,
Defendants.
COME NOW the above named Plaintiffs and for their causes of action against the above
named Defendants, respectfully state to the Court the following:
I. Introduction.
1. This is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States of
America, and Virginia comnion and statutory law, and is brought pursuant thereto
" >
and to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek relief by way of back and front lost
income, back and front medical arid mental health expenses incurred, actual,
compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees. Jurisdiction is proper
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 13.31 and 1343. Venue is proper in the Western District of
Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as all defendants reside in Virginia and live
and/or work in the Western District of Virginia. This is the jurisdictional district
in which" the Plaintiffs previously resided, including during the times the
Plaintiffs' causes of action arose, the jurisdictional district in which the injuries
suffered by Plaintiffs were sustained, and in which all the events giving rise to the
Plaintiffs' claims occurred. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of
Defendants' actions exceed this Court's jurisdictional amount in controversy
mInImum.
II. Procedural Prerequisites.
2. All procedural prerequisites have been met.
III. Parties.
Plaintiffs
3. Plaintiff, Fred Dinwiddie, is an individual and resident of the State of Tennessee,
the husband of Plaintiff Michelle Dinwiddie, and the natural and legal father,
legal custodian of, and next friend to the minor children Plaintiffs, C.D., J.D., and
A.D.. Fred Dinwiddie "is also the father of Plaintiff Michael Dinwiddie, who was
-2-
a minor child at the time of the acts of the Defendants in controversy but has now
reached the age of majority.
4. Plaintiff, Michelle Dinwiddie, is an individual and resident of the State of
Tennessee, the wife of Plaintiff Fred Dinwiddie, and the natural and legal mother,
legal custodian of, and next friend to the minor children Plaintiffs, C.D., J.D., and
A.D .. Michelle Dinwiddie is·also the father of Plaintiff Michael Dinwiddie, who
was a minor child at the time of the acts of the Defendants in controversy but has
now reached the age of majority.
5. Plaintiff, Michael Dinwiddie, is an individual and resident of the State of
Tennessee. Plaintiff Michael Dinwiddie was a minor child at the time of the acts
of the Defendants in controversy but has now reached the age of majority.
6. Plaintiff, C.D. (through next friends Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie), IS an
individual, a minor child, and resident ofthe State of Tennessee.
7. Plaintiff, J.D. (through next friends Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie), is an
individual, a minor child, and resident of the State of Tennessee.
8. Plaintiff, A.D. (through next friends Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie ), is an
individual, a minor child, and a resident of the State of Tennessee.
Defendants.
9. Defendant, Giles County Department of Social Services, is and was at all times
material hereto, a Virginia Agency, licensed and doing business in Giles County,
Virginia, at all times acting and·operating under the color of state law.
-3-
10. Defendant NRV Community Services, is and was at all times material hereto a
private agency, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, doing business in
Giles County, Virginia, and at all times pertinent and relevant hereto acted and
operated under the color of state law by virtue of its contracts with Defendant,
Giles County Department of Social Services.
11. Defendant Hope Tree Family Services is and was at all times material hereto a
private agency, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, doing business in
Giles County, Virginia, and at all times pertinent and relevant hereto acted and
operated under the color of state law by virtue of its contracts with Defendant,
12. Defendant Braley and Thompson is and was at all times material hereto a private
agency, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, doing business in Giles
County, Virginia, and at all times pertinent and relevant hereto acted and operated
under the color of state law by virtue of its contracts with Defendant, Giles
County Department of Social Services.
13. Defendant Oma McReynolds is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, a Foster Care Worker for Defendant Giles County Department of Social
Services, and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under
the color of state law by virtue of her position.
14. Defendant Sherri Nipper is a is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, a Social Services Investigator for Defendant Giles County Department of
-4-
Social Services, and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting
under the color of state law by virtue of her position.
15. Defendant Linda Boggs is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, the Director of Defendant Giles County Department of Social Services,
and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color
of state law by virtue of her position.
16. Defendant Mike Dobbins is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, a Supervisor for Defendant Giles County Department of Social Services,
of state law by virtue of his position.
17. Defendant Phil Blankenbeckler is an individual and a resident of this
jurisdictional district, an Investigator for Defendant Giles County Department of
Social Services, and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting
under the color of state law by virtue of his position.
18. Defendant Amy Bishop is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, a Social Worker for Defendant Giles County Department of Social
Services, and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under
the color of state law by virtue of her position.
19. Defendant Jean Williams is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, a Foster Care Coordinator for Defendant Giles County Department of
Social Services, and at .all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting
under the color of state law by virtue of her position.

-5- .
20. Defendant Sandi Hodges is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a resident of this
jurisdictional district, and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was
acting under the color of state law by virtue of her position and contract with the
Defendant Giles County Department of Social Services.
21. Defendant Darrell H~ley is a physician and a resident of this jurisdictional
district, and at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under
the color of state law by virtue of his position and contract with the Defendant
22. Defendant Greg Schlake is a Social Worker employed by Defendant Braley and
Thompson, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and at all times material,
pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color of state law by virtue of
his position and his employer's contract with the Defendant Giles County
Department of Social Services.
23. Defendant Hattie Savage is the Director and an employee of Defendant Braley
and Thompson, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and at all times material,
pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color of state law by virtue of
her position and her employer's contract with the Defendant Giles County
24. Defendant Katherine Flaughrety is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist employed by
Defendant NRV Community Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and
at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color of
-6-
state law by virtue of her position and her employer's contract with the Defendant
25. Defendant Rebecca Hughes is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist employed by
Defendant NRV Community Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and
at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color of
state law by virtue of her position and her employer's contract with the Defendant
26. Defendant Jennifer Harris is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant
Giles County Department of Social Services, a resident of this jurisdictional
the color of state law by virtue of her position for Defendant Giles County
27. Defendant Glenn Harris is an "individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant Giles
County Department of Social Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district,
of state law by virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County Department of
Social Services.
28. Defendant Rhonda Ryan is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant

-7-
29. Defendant Jeff Ryan is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant Giles
County Department of Social Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district,
of state law by virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County Department of
Social Services.
30. Defendant Virginia Quaid is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant
31. Defendant Anita Goodwin is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant
32. Defendant Doug Fleming is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant
the color of state law by virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County
33. Defendant Laureen Fleming is an individual, a Foster Care Parent for Defendant

-8-
34. Defendant Giles County Sheriffs Office is a law-enforcement agency within the
Commonwealth of Virginia, is located within this jurisdictional district, and at all
times material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color of state
law by virtue of its authority granted thereunder.
35. Defendant Sergeant Scott Dunn is an employee of the Defendant Giles County
Sheriff s Office, is a resident of this jurisdictional district, and at all times
material, pertinent and relevant hereto was acting under the color of state law by
virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County Sheriff's Office.
36. Defendant Detective Ron Hamlin is an employee of the Defendant Giles County
Sheriff s Office, is a resident of this jurisdictional district, and at all times
virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County Sheriffs Office.
37. Defendant Captain Mike Falls is an employee of the Defendant Giles County
Sheriff's Office, is a residerit of this jurisdictional district, and at all times
virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County Sheriff s Office.
38. Defendant Officer Mark Skidmore is an employee of the Defendant Giles County
Sheriff's Office, is a resident of this jurisdictional district, and at all times
-9-
virtue of his position for Defendant Giles County Sheriff s Office.
39. The Defendants and each of them acted individually and jointly under color of
state law to deprive and in conspiring to deprive the Plaintiffs of their civil rights.
Because the Defendants acted knowingly, recklessly and in disregard of well-
established law and agency guidelines and regulations, with no objectively
reasonable basis for their actions, they do not have qualified immunity from
damages under the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the
United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and by this Court.
IV. Factual Background.
40. Plaintiffs are a cohesive and in tact family unit, that were living and working as
law-abiding, productive citizens in Giles County, Virginia, until in or about early
in the calendar year of 2008.
41. At some time in the month of March of calendar year 2008, the Plaintiffs were
contacted by representatives of the Defendant Giles County Department of Social
Services (hereinafter, "GCDSS"), in connection with alleged complaints about the
Plaintiffs' treatment and/or care of one of their children. On several occasions
representatives of GCDSS contacted the Plaintiffs concerning all of their children,
including specifically setting forth terms of written and oral agreements that,
purportedly and according to the false representations of GCDSS, if followed
would eliminate the need for removal of any of the Plaintiffs' children, and that
the Defendants would comply with all published and existing policies,
-10-
procedures, guidelines and regulations concerning the treatment of Plaintiffs
throughout the process, and would not violate any of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional
or legal rights in said process.
42. That notwithstanding, Defendant GCDSS alleged, and sought an Order to bring
about, the removal of all the Plaintiffs' Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie's minor
children, including the Plaintiff Michael Dinwidde, and to separate each of said
minor children into different foster homes.
43. As a result of Defendant GCDSS' actions the mmor children were in fact
removed from the home of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' minor children were
separated and placed in various foster homes, disrupting the family and its unity.
44. Throughout the duration of Plaintiffs' family being removed from them and from
one another, being separated, and placed into foster homes, the Defendants
conspired to and acted knowingly and intentionally at various times and ways to
keep the family separated in a manner that was contrary to the law of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, contrary to the policies and guidelines that are in
place to control actions of the Defendants in similar circumstances, contrary to the
express written, oral and implied agreements proffered and tendered to and
executed by the Plaintiffs, and in a manner that constituted interference with the
Plaintiffs' custodial and familial rights, and deliberate and intentional violations
of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional and other legal rights and privileges.
45. Throughout the duration of Plaintiffs' family being removed from them and from
one another, being separated and placed into foster homes, Defendants and each
-11-
of them became well aware of facts and circumstances that did not justify the
continued separation of the family and maintenance of the minor children in foster
care, and of facts and circumstances that dictated the childrens' best interests
would be served by family reunification, and returning the children to their home,
parents and siblings, and no longer being in foster care.
46. Notwithstanding Defendants' awareness of such facts and circumstances,
Defendants conspired to and deliberately and intentionally pursued a course of
action designed to artificially keep the family separated contrary to law and the
Defendant's own policies and guidelines, intentionally keep the family members
isolated and separated from one another so that they could not communicate about
the various deprivatio~s and hostilities the family members were being subject to
while separated from one another and in foster care, and how their individual and
collective rights were systematically and intentionally being violated.
47. Upon protest from Plaintiffs about Defendants' illegal and unlawful practices of
keeping the family members isolated, separated, in different foster care homes
where the childrens' needs were not being met, and in fact being either ignored or
intentionally compromised, incommunicado from one another, and otherwise
violating the Plaintiffs' fundamental rights, Defendants intentionally violated the
Plaintiffs' Fourth and .Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of
United States of America, intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs' legitimate
familial relationships and their custodial rights, intentionally violated terms of
their own written, oral and implied agreements with the Plaintiffs including their
-12-
own expressed and implied agreements to abide by their own published and
existing rules, guidelines, policies and procedures throughout the foster care and
removal process, and negligently and/or intentionally violated the duty of care
they owed to the Plaintiffs and to the minor children, in demonstration of the
superior power, and coercive power Defendants held over the Plaintiffs by virtue
of being an agency, or agents, respectively, of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
with all the power and apparent authority of the color of State law.
48. Specific actions taken by the Defendants in willful, intentional and deliberate
violation of the Plaintiffs' rights and of the law include, but are not limited to:
a. keeping the Plaintiffs' children locked in their rooms, garages, and other
various inescapable locations while in foster care for hours at a time, without
adequate food, water or means of communication, and when said circumstances
were communicated to other Defendants and representatives of Defendant
GCDSS, affirmatively conspiring to and taking action to cover-up said conditions
and events;
b. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to circumstances where they were forced to
essentially perform "slave labor," and when said circumstances were
communicated to other Defendants and representatives of Defendant GCDSS,
affirmatively conspiring to and taking action to cover-up said conditions and
events;
c. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to deplorable and dangerous environmental
and living conditions, such as filthy homes and unsanitary facilities therein, and
-13-
when said circumstances were communicated to other Defendants and
representatives of Defendant GCDSS, affirmatively conspiring to and taking
action to cover-up said conditions and events;
d. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to constant humiliation, emotional trauma,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, constant disparaging of and belittling
of, and intentionally trying to alienate the children from their Plaintiff parents
through lies, threats, intimidation and coercion;
e. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to inadequate diet and nutrition, and when
said circumstances were communicated to other Defendants and representatives
of Defendant GCDSS, affirmatively conspiring to and taking action to cover-up
said conditions and events;
f. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to disability and other public assistance fraud
in the care of foster parents, and when said circumstances were communicated to
other Defendants and representatives of Defendant GCDSS, they affirmatively
conspired to and took· action to cover-up said conditions and events, and were
therefore complicit in said fraud;
g. SUbjecting the Plaintiffs' children to situations in which they were willfully and
deliberately denied their own personal property and had it stolen or confiscated,
including, but not limited to the childrens' personal belongings and their own
personal notes documenting the reprehensible treatments to which they were
repeatedly subjected, correspondences between the children and their parents in
relation to the same, and court documents in an effort to prevent the children from
-14-
appearing for scheduled court appearances at which it was anticipated they would
testify truthfully in favor of their parents and against the Defendants or to the
horrific circumstances to which the Defendants were SUbjecting the children, and
representatives of Defendant GCDSS, affirmatively conspiring to and taking
h. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to being involuntarily taken out of state
against their will and without consultation with or the permission of their Plaintiff
parents;
i. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to foster parents who intentionally attempted
to further alienate the children from their Plaintiff parents, including, but not
limited to the children being forced against their will to call their foster parents
"mom" and "dad," and if they refused to do so were severely punished therefore,
and repeatedly screaming at the children that they would never see their parents
again, and they'd better start getting used to it, and when said circumstances were
communicated to other Defendants and representatives of Defendant GCDSS,
affirmatively conspiring to and taking action to cover-up said conditions and
events;
j. subjecting the Plaintiffs' children to foster parents who inappropriately exposed
the children to excessive use and abuse of alcohol, including drunk driving and
care of the children while intoxicated, and to pornography and "sex toys," and

-15-
representatives of Defendant GCDSS, affirmatively conspmng to and taking
k. subjecting at least one of the children, Plaintiff Michael Dinwiddie to an
unwarranted strip-search in a further effort to humiliate, debase, and demean him,
under the auspices of an effort to locate more "contraband" of his court
documents and notes of treatment at the hands of Defendants (see subparagraph
"g," herein above);
1. subjecting at least two of the children, J.D. and A.D., to inappropriate physical
"discipline" amounting to abuse, being struck with a fist by a foster parent while
he was driving a vehicle, A.D. having her hair pulled out, and J.D. otherwise
being physically "disciplined" to such an extent that J.D. was physically unable to
move for hours at a time, and when said circumstances were communicated to
other Defendants and representatives of Defendant GCDSS, affirmatively
conspiring to and taking action to cover-up said conditions and events;
m. subjecting the children to repeated counseling they did not need in an effort to
"get their minds right," in a further attempt to alienate the children from their
parents under false pretenses, and attempting to persuade them that there was
something "wrong" with the children as well as their parents, and that they should
not testify on their parents' behalf in court;
n. subjecting the children to constant threats of being further separated (J.D. and
A.D. had initially been allowed to stay in the same foster home), or being sent to
-16-
other foster homes because there was something "wrong" with them, unless they
decided to testify against their parents;
o. subjecting the children to being witnesses of physical abuse of other children
and foster children, and when said circumstances were communicated to other
Defendants and representatives of Defendant GCDSS, affirmatively conspiring to
and taking action to cover-up said conditions and events;
p. under the color of state law and in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs
violently and physically removing Plaintiff Michelle Dinwiddie out of her home
without a warrant, without any probably cause, and without legal or factual basis
for doing so causing physicat injury to Plaintiff Michelle Dinwiddie, and when
said circumstances were brought to light through various legal hearings and
proceedings affirmatively conspiring to and taking action to cover-up said events;
q. under the color of state law and in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs
committing multiple breaches of agreements with the Plaintiffs Fred and Michelle
Dinwiddie; said agreements were tendered to Plaintiffs and their assents thereto
were obtained, including but not limited to by virtue of their signatures on written
documents; all constituting written, oral and implied agreements purporting to
bind the Defendants to compliance with the Plaintiffs' Constitutional and legal
rights and with the Defendants' own policies, regulations, guidelines and
procedures, including but not limited to those published policies of the
Defendants within the Commonwealth of Virginia; and intentionally violating,
and conspiring with Defendants to violate the terms of said agreements;

-17-
r. under the color of state law and in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs the
Defendants continued· their .intentional and deliberate pervasive pattern and
practice of knowingly violating and conspiring to violate the Plaintiffs' rights, and
in furtherance of said pattern and practice and conspiracy surreptitiously
attempting to, and remaining in contact with each and everyone of the minor
children even long after the children had been returned to the care of their parents,
throughout the entire calendar year of 2009 and thereafter, in an effort to try to
dissuade the children from speaking out against the horrors that were inflicted
upon them and continuing to· turn the minor children against their parents,
Plaintiffs Fred and Michelle·Dinwiddie;
s. under the color of state law and in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs the
Defendants continued their intentional and deliberate pervasive pattern and
practice of knowingly violating and conspiring to violate the Plaintiffs' rights, and
in furtherance of said pattern and practice and conspiracy bringing false, baseless,
frivolous and legally insufficient legal action against the Plaintiffs designed
specifically to harass, intimidate, humiliate and continue to legally harm the
Plaintiffs in their rights, property, business and reputations, including their

, .
credibility concerning their reporting of all the preceding deprivations to which all
the Plaintiffs were subjected, as late as June 2009.
49. Defendants' violations of and conspiracy to commit violations of Plaintiffs' rights
and interference with Plaintiffs' legitimate familial and custodial relationships and
rights were intentional and deliberate, and were retaliatory for Plaintiffs'
-18-
complaints about Defendants' various illegal and coercive practices, and were
knowingly and consciously contrary to well-established law, policies, procedures
and other legal boundaries, constituting action so egregious that none of the
Defendants are entitled to any defense of qualified immunity for their actions.
50. Throughout Plaintiffs' unfortunate experiences with each and everyone of the
Defendants, Plaintiffs were damaged in their business and in their personal
earnings.
51. Upon being given notice by Plaintiffs of the Plaintiffs' objections to the
Defendants' various illegal and unlawful actions in derogation and violation of
the rights of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and each of them, conspired to and
intentionally and willfully engaged in a pattern of conduct specifically designed to
destroy Plaintiffs' business, and to defame Plaintiffs, both professionally and
personall y.
IV. Causes of Action.
Count I
Violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Constitution
of the United States of America
52. Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-One (51), inclusive of this Complaint are
realleged fully and incorporated herein by this reference.
53. That in intentionally and willfully disregarding the Defendant GCDSS' own
policies and procedures and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia in keeping
the Plaintiffs' and their family members isolated, separated, and incommunicado,
the Defendants, and each of them conspired to, and intentionally and willfully
-19-
violated the Plaintiffs' fundamental Constitutional rights guaranteed to them
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,
to wit, their fundamental due process of law, and guaranty of equal protection
under the law, as well as their guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures.
54. Means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce including the mails and
interstate telephone, facsimile and. interstate travel facilities were used by the
Defendants in the illegal and intentional deprivation of the Plaintiffs' fundamental
Constitutional rights, and in the retaliatory and predatory interference by the
Defendants with the Plaintiffs' legitimate familial and custodial relationships and
expectancies.
55. In conduct of said illegal practices, Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States of America, and Plaintiffs have been injured in their business or property,
and in their personal lives thereby.
56. The Defendants did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and intentionally devise and
implement schemes and artifices to deprive the Plaintiffs of their fundamental
rights, and did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and intentionally conspire
together and with various individual representatives of the Defendants, foster care
workers, foster care families, and other supposed service providers to execute, or
to allow to be executed, these schemes, practices and actions that deprived the
Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights.

-20-
57. In addition to the Plaintiffs' fundaments rights of freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process and equal protection under the laws being
willfully and intentionally violated by the Defendants' actions and their
conspiracies to so act, the Defendants and each of them further intentionally
denied the Plaintiffs fundamental rights under state and federal law, including, but
not limited to, violations of: 42 U.S.c. § 671(a)(l5)(D) (circumstances excusing
states from making reasonable efforts to avoid removal or foster reunification); 42
U.S.C. § 675(l)(A) (case plans); 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) (case review and proximate
placement); and 45 C.F.R. 1356.21 (case plans). Furthermore, each and everyone
of these federal statutes are further embodied into the Virginia statutes governing
the removal of, foster care placement of, and circumstances compelling
reunification of family members, and are further embodied into the Virginia
Department of Social Services manuals governing the same. While not every
individual violation of these statutes and regulations may alone constitute a civil
rights violation, these statutes and regulations give Defendants ample notice of the
illegality of their actions, which taken as a whole, clearly evince the Defendants'
intent to engage in a pattern of practice designed to intentionally deprive the
Plaintiffs of their fundamental legal rights under federal and state Constitutional,
statutory and regulatory law. Furthermore, in this case, the Defendants ignored
and rejected virtually all aspects of the regulatory schemes, resulting in illegal
detentions, harassments, humiliations, deprivations, various mental, emotional
and physical abuses, and retaliation, all justifying private rights of action under 42
-21-
u.s.C. § 1983, and under 42.U.S.C. § 1988, and preventing the Defendants from
any protection under any claim of qualified immunity.
58. The Defendants and each of them knowingly conducted or participated, or
allowed to be conducted or participated, in the aforesaid pattern of deprivation
and violation of the Plaintiffs' fundamental rights, and the Plaintiffs have been
injured financially as a result of Defendants' violations of their fundamental
rights, and by reason of the foregoing Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in an
amount that is not currently ascertainable, but will be determined at trial of this
matter, and upon information and belief will exceed seven million dollars.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally for
Defendants' willful, deliberate, and intentional violation of the Plaintiffs' fundamental and
Constitutional Rights, resulting in damages to the Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, relief in
the following forms: actual and special damages, attorney fees and costs, and an award of
exemplary or punitive damages, and an order enjoining Defendants from further violations of the
Plaintiffs' rights and of the rights of other families and individuals that may be similarly situated
now or in the future, and perpetuation of Defendants' illegal practices and such other and further
relief as this Court deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
Count II
Defamation
59. Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-Eight (58) inclusive of this Complaint are
realleged fully and incQrporated herein by this reference.
-22-
60. Defendants communicated to Plaintiffs' customers, prospective customers, clients
and prospective clients, as well and other individuals and members of the general
public, allegations that Plaintiffs engage in inappropriate, dishonest, indecent and
otherwise immoral conduct in Plantiffs' personal and family lives, in an effort to
destroy Plaintiffs' business and ruin them financially.
61. Defendants' allegations are false and were known by Defendants to be false at the
time they were made, or should have reasonably been known by the Defendants to
be false at the time they were made; and in any case were made with knowing and
deliberate reckless disregard as to whether the allegations made were true or false.
62. The communications are defamatory per se in that the Defendants made such
communications with the intent to injure the Plaintiffs financially and in their
business or trade.
63. The communications are defamatory per quod in that the Defendants made such
communications with the intent to injure the Plaintiffs individually and in their
personal reputations.
64. Defendants caused the false and defamatory statements to be published to third
parties.
65. The false and defamatory statements and communications made by Defendants
were made without legal privilege by the Defendants to do so, or otherwise
pursuant to lawful license or excuse.
66. The false and defamatory statements and communications made by Defendants
concerning Plaintiffs were a proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.

-23-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to fully and fairly compensate them for all
damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendant's defamatory actions including actual and
punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of bringing this action
and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
Count III
Tortious Interference with Custodial Rights
67. Paragraphs One (1) through Sixty (66), inclusive, of this Complaint are realleged
fully and incorporated herein by this reference.
68. Plaintiffs, as a result of functioning as an intact and cohesive family unit, with
legal and lawful custody to the parents of their children, and them further being
their natural parents, have an absolute and fundamental right to custody of their
children, unfettered and unmolested by, and without interference from the state,
and/or any other third persons.
69. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were engaged in such familial and custodial
relationships within their family unit and amongst themselves. Defendants set
about to interfere with, disrupt, cause damage and trauma to, and otherwise
violate the Plaintiffs custodial and familial rights by willfully, intentionally and
knowingly separating into separate foster homes, isolating, keeping
incommunicado, and otherwise violating the Plaintiffs' rights, by acting under the
color of State law and authority. Defendants further interfered with Plaintiffs'
legitimate custodial and familial relationships by communicating with other state
-24-
actors, Plaintiffs family members, members of the general public, and other third
persons and parties, in an effort to persuade said persons and entities that the
Plaintiffs' were not fit custodians of their minor children, and that the Plaintiffs
were inappropriate, dishonest, indecent and otherwise immoral in their conduct in
Plaintiffs' personal and family lives.
70. Defendants made such communications solely to prevent Plaintiffs from carrying
on their legitimate family and custodial relationships with their minor children
and family members, and to destroy Plaintiffs' ability to maintain, build, and
strengthen said relationships.
71. As a result of Defendants' interference, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs
and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount that will fully and fairly compensate
Plaintiffs for all damages suffered as a result of Defendants' tortious interference with custodial
rights, including actual and punitive damages and attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of
bringing this action and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
Count IV
Fraud
72. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy-One (71), inclusive, of this Complaint are
73. As a matter of public policy and of law, the Defendants represented to Plaintiffs,
as well as to other members of the general public, that in going through any Child
Protective Services proceedings, the Plaintiffs would be treated fairly, honestly, in
-25-
good faith, in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the
rules, policies and guidelines set forth by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the
Defendant GCDSS and state agencies, and that Plaintiffs would be entitled to
keep and enjoy the legitimate familial and custodial relationships that existed
within their family.
74. The representations thus made by Defendants to Plaintiffs were at all times and in
all manner material to Plaintiffs' cooperation with Defendants throughout the
foster care/child removal procedure with Defendants.
75. The representations thus made by Defendants to Plaintiffs were false, as
Defendants, through their various individual representatives, knew that their
intent was to interfere with the Plaintiffs' legitimate familial and custodial rights,
to damage that relationship and the Plaintiffs personally, and that adherence to the
laws, rules, policies and regulations promulgated for the state agency would be
antithetical to the Defendants' intent concerning these Plaintiffs.
76. Defendants, through its various individual representatives, knew that these
representations were false arid intended that Plaintiffs would rely on the false
representations and be deceived by them into believing that Defendants would
treat Plaintiffs fairly, honestly and in good faith, in accordance with the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the rules, policies and guidelines set forth by
the Commonwealth of VirginIa for the Defendants and state agencies.
-26-
77. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the false representations of Defendants concerning
the manner in which they would be treated throughout the foster care process with
Defendants.
78. The false representations of Defendants were a proximate cause of injuries to
Plaintiffs, including lost income and other damages in amounts to be proven at
trial.
79. The false representations of Defendants were intentionally made, while
knowingly false, with the deliberate purpose of damaging the Plaintiffs and their
family relationships.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount that will fully and fairly
compensate them for the fraud perpetrated by Defendants upon Plaintiffs, including actual
damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing
this action and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
Count V
Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
-27-
80. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy-Nine (79), inclusive, of this Complaint are
81. The nature of Defendants' status as State Agencies and their respective
contractees/assignees imposed upon Defendants an obligation of good faith in the
performance of all functions, including its dealings with the Plaintiffs and other
families and individuals that are similarly situated.
82. This obligation of good faith requires honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction
concerned.
83. The Defendants breached their good faith obligation and covenant of good faith
and fair dealing owed to the Plaintiffs.
84. Defendants' breach of their obligation of good faith and covenant of good faith
and fair dealing was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally,
and in favor of Plaintiffs in an amount that will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for the
damage suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' breach of duty of good faith and fair
dealing including actual, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs incurred in
bringing this action and all other relief the Court de'ems just and equitable in the circumstances.
Count VI
Breach of Lawful Duty (Negligence)
-28-
85. Paragraphs One (1) through Eighty-Four (84), inclusive, of this Complaint are
86. The nature of Defendants' status as State Agencies and their respective
contractees/assignees imposed upon Defendants a legal obligation to abide by
their own rules, policies, and guidelines in the performance of all functions,
including its dealings with the Plaintiffs and other families and individuals that
are similarly situated.
87. That this legal duty amounts to a standard of care owed to the general public,
including the Plaintiffs, by the various Defendants.
88. That in acting to interfere with and violate the Plaintiffs' Constitutional, familial
and custodial rights, defame the Plaintiffs and defraud the Plaintiffs, all
proximately resulting in damages to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants violated their
various duties of care owed to the Plaintiffs.
89. That the Defendants' actions toward the Plaintiffs were reasonably foreseeable to
cause damages to the Plaintiffs.
90. That the Defendants' violation of their duty owed toward the Plaintiffs was so
willful, intentional, and deliberate, or done with such reckless and willful
disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs, that Defendants' breach of their duty
owed toward the Plaintiffs justifies the imposition of punitive damages.
and in favor of Plaintiffs in an amount that wili fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for the
damage suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' breach of legal duty (negligence) owed
-29-
toward the Plaintiffs, including actual, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and
costs incurred in bringing this action and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the
circumstances.
Count VII
Breach of Written, Oral and Implied Contract
91. Paragraphs One (1) through Ninety (90), inclusive, of this Complaint are
92. Under the color of state law GCDSS proposed to the Plaintiffs Fred and Michelle
Dinwiddie written, oral and implied agreements purporting to bind the Defendants
to compliance with the Plaintiffs' Constitutional and legal rights and the
Defendants' own policies, regulations, guidelines and procedures throughout the
Child Protective Services' Investigatory, foster care and child removal
procedures. Said agreements by their terms further purported to bind the
Defendants to compliance with the published policies of the Defendants within
the Commonwealth of Virginia, including their own written guidelines,
procedures, regulations and policies concerning the investigatory and foster care
and child removal legal processes. Said agreements by their terms further
purported to bind the Defendants to compliance with state and federal statutes
concerning the investigatory and foster care and child removal legal processes,
including but not limited to: 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(D) (circumstances excusing
states from making reasonable efforts to avoid removal or foster reunification); 42
-30-
U.S.c. § 675(1)(A) (case plans); 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) (case review and proximate
placement); and 45 C.F.R. 1356.21 (case plans).
93. Said written, oral and implied agreements were all tendered, proffered and offered
to the Plaintiffs in various ways and at various periodic times throughout the
investigatory and foster care and child removal processes beginning in March
2008.
94. Defendants were able to procure the Defendants' agreements to, cooperation with,
and forbearance of further legal resistance to, the initial actions of the Defendants
in reliance of the terms of said written, oral and implied agreements tendered,
proffered and offered to them by Defendants. Several of such agreements were
procured by virtue of the Defendants actually executing such written contracts as
signatories thereto and legal acknowledgments thereof.
95. That notwithstanding, Defendants knowingly, intentionally and deliberately
conspired to and violated many of the terms of said agreements, including but not
limited to in all the particulars set forth more specifically herein above, and
generally in that the Plaintiffs were not, as a result of the intentional breaches and
actions of the Defendants, allowed to keep and enjoy the legitimate familial and
custodial relationships that existed within their family.
96. The terms of said agreements represented to Plaintiffs by Defendants were at all
times communicated, tendered, proffered and offered to Plaintiffs in a manner that
was in all respects material to Plaintiffs' cooperation with-in varying degrees,
and Plaintiffs' forbearance from more zealously initially asserting their legal
-31-
rights against, Defendants' actions upon commencement of the investigatory and
foster care and child removal procedures by the Defendants.
97. Upon information and belief the representations of the terms of said agreements
thus made by Defendants to Plaintiffs were false, as Defendants, through their
various individual representatives, knew that their intent was to deprive the
Plaintiffs of their fundamental, Constitutional and other legal rights, interfere with
the Plaintiffs' legitimate familial and custodial rights, and damage that
relationship and the Plaintiffs personally. Upon information and belief
Defendants were aware, either at the time of tendering, proffering and offering the
terms of said agreements to the Plaintiffs or within a reasonable time thereafter,
that adherence to the laws, rules, policies and regulations promulgated for the
GCDSS would be antithetical to the Defendants' intent concerning these
Plaintiffs.
98. The Defendants' various breaches of said written, oral and implied agreements
with Plaintiffs were a proximate cause of injuries to Plaintiffs, including lost
income and other damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
99. The Defendants' breaches of said agreements were intentionally and maliciously
committed, with the deliberate purpose of damaging the Plaintiffs and their family
relationships.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount that will fully and fairly
compensate them for the breaches of written, oral and implied contracts they had with the
-32-
Plaintiffs, including actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs incurred in bringing this action and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable
in the circumstances.
Count VIII
Common Law Conspiracy Under Virginia Law
100. Paragraphs One (1) through Ninety-Nine (99), inclusive, of this Complaint are
101. That in the particulars more specifically set forth herein above, the Defendants,
acting together and legally constituting a combination of two or more people, did
conspire and act to perpetrate upon the Plaintiffs a pervasive and continuous
pattern and practice of violations of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional and legal rights
beginning in March of 2008 and continuing throughout the calendar year of 2009
and beyond.
acting together and legally constituting a combination of two or more people, did
conspire and act to cover-up their pervasive and continuous pattern and practice
of violations of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional and legal rights, including conspiring
and acting to smear, besmirch, defame, humiliate, disgrace and embarrass the
Plaintiffs, and to sully and destroy their good names and reputations, all in an
effort to damage the credibility of the Plaintiffs specifically concerning their
complaints about the many horrific deprivations of legal rights to which the
-33-
Plaintiffs were subjected as a result of the Defendants' pattern and practice of
violating said rights.
103. That in so conspiring to, and in so acting in furtherance and carrying out of said
conspiracy, the Defendants acted in concert for the unlawful purpose of depriving
the Plaintiffs of their legal rights, or that they so acted by unlawful means.
104. That Defendants' actions-in conspiring to and in acting in furtherance and
carrying out of said conspiracy-were intentional, willful and malicious entitling
the Plaintiffs to recover actual, treble and punitive damages.
105. That the Defendants' conspiracy to, and actions taken in furtherance and carrying
out of said conspiracy were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages.
damage suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' Common-law conspiracy under Virginia
law including actual, compensatory; treble and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs
incurred in bringing this action and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the
circumstances.
Count IX
Business Conspiracy
106. Paragraphs One (1) through One-Hundred Five (105), inclusive, of this Complaint
are realleged fully and incorporated herein by this reference.
acting together and leg,ally constituting a combination of two or more people, did
-34-
conspire and act to smear, besmirch, defame, humiliate, disgrace and embarrass
the Plaintiffs, and to sully and destroy their good names and reputations, all in an
effort to maliciously and willfully damage and injure the Plaintiffs in their
reputations, trade, business and profession.
108. That in so doing the Defendants perpetrated upon the Plaintiffs a pervasive and
continuous pattern and practice of acting act to smear, besmirch, defame,
humiliate, disgrace and embarrass the Plaintiffs, and to sully and destroy their
good names and reputations beginning in or about March of 2008 and continuing
throughout the calendar year of 2009 and beyond.
109. That Defendants' actions-in conspiring to and m acting in furtherance and
carrying out of said conspiracy-were intentional, willful and malicious entitling
the Plaintiffs to recover actual, treble and punitive damages.
110. That the Defendants' conspiracy to, and actions taken in furtherance and carrying
out of said conspiracy were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' damages.
damage suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' Business conspiracy under Virginia law
including actual, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs incurred in
bringing this action and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
V. Conclusion.
WHEREFORE, based on all of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court
enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and severally in an amount
-35-
that will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for all injuries suffered as a result of Defendants'
illegal actions as set forth more fully herein, including actual, compensatory, coincidental,
incidental, treble and punitive damages; all in an amount that while not currently ascertainable to
an exact degree will be determined at trial of this matter, and upon information and belief will
exceed seven million dollars; along with interest thereon at the highest rate allowable by law and
the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this action as well as all other relief the Court
deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
VI. Jury Demand.
COME NOW the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cause of action and hereby demand
trial by jury in each of the foregoing causes so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
FRED DINWIDDIE and MICHELLE DINWIDDIE

individuals and as next friends ofC.D., J.D., and
A.D., minor children, and
MICHA W DDIE
Patrick Michael McGraw

Virginia State Bar # 68425
McGRAW LAW, P.C.
2727 Electric Road, Suite 207
Roanoke, VA 24018
Telephone: (540) 904-5704
Facsimile: (540) 904-5709
E-mail: patmcgrawlaw@cox.net
A TTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Original filed.
-36-
Case 7:11-cv-00008-sgw Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 1
~S44 rR"'.1 2I07) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 c,v,l cover sheet and lhe informallOn conlained herein nei ther replace nor supplement the fil ing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law. e xcept as prov,ded
by local rulesofcourt. This form. approved by the Judicial Conference of the Uni~ Sla/¢S in September 1914, is requlfI~d for the use of the Clerk ofCou" fortbe purpose ofminaling
the c,-v,l dockel sheel. (SEE INSTRlICTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (3) PLAINTIFFS . DEFENDANTS

Fred Dinwiddie and Michelle Dinwiddie, individuals on t heir own behalf; Giles County, Virginia Department of Social Services; NRV
and as nexl friends of C.D., J. D ., and A.D .• minor children: and M ichae l Community SelVices; Hope Tree Family Services; Braley and
Dinwiddie, an individua l. Thompson; Oma McReynol ds; Sherri N ipper; linda Boggs; el al . , ,
(b) County of Residence of Firsl L,s~ Plainllff Gibson County, TN County of Residence offirs! Listo:d Defe ndant Giles County, Virginia
(EXCEPT IN U, S PLAII>.'TIFFCASES) (IN u.s. PLAINT!ffCASES ONLy)
NOTE: IN LANO CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
(c) AtlOrncy's (Firm N...... Addr.s.'" and T.I<"PII"!!.e Numb.. ) Attorneys (If Known)
PatricK M ichael MCGraw. McGHAW LAW, P .C. unknown
2727 Electric Road, Suile 207, Roanoke. VA 24018
~~('~'''::~""::"<~'~;"~O;'''~'~':'~Oo;;",",----~ii''-(;~i2",Ni,"lF",'''-'iU",Ci",<1:1";rTiEi;';;:::~::;"~oO, ,:;,";:.~,:, ~,~,:,;:",~;";-

(F'" Oi~e"ity c..t$ Only) and One Box fOf Defendan,)
0' U, S Go",,",m.n' l1li 3 fro.,.1 QU<o'ion PTF DEF PTF DU'
PI.inliff (U .S, Gov.rrunenl NOla Party) Ciri= ofThi. SIO'. a III IncQrpOnIlCd 0' Principal PI_ a 4 III 4
ofBulinel' In Thi. S..,.
a 2 U.S Go,'.mme"l 04 Diversity Cilizen of AnCllhcr S'ale I!!I 2 0 2 Ineol'pOralCdctJPrincipalPIO<t 0) 0)

Defendanl of Bn,incO$ In AnoIh.r SI...
(IndlClle Citizenship of Pames in lI.m Ill)
Cilizcn '" Snbj.cl of. o 1 0 3 forcign Nalion a 6 0 6
o 110 InsuIOn« PERSONAL. INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 610 Agricuilure 422 Appeal 28 USC ISS 400 S'al< Rea pportionmen'
o 120M' ''ne 3'OAirpl.... o 362 PCI'SDfIIllnjlll)'_ 620 Other Food &. Drug 423 Withdrawal 410 AD,ilnl$'
o ))0 Mill.r ACI 3 15 Ai",I"e P,<><IuCI Med. Mllpncric< 62~ DruB Related ~rure 2SUSC 157 ~30 Bank, and Bankin~
o 140 Nego". l>I. In,,,,,,,,,,,,, L.. bihty o 3M P.. oonallnjul}' - o{Property 2 1 USC SSt 450 Commcrco
"":~~=~;;::;;:::,I~ l"'"'" l.w.

no A... ul~ Lib<1 &. Prodoc' Liability 630 460 llcpoIuIioo
a ,,~ o 368 Ad,e"". Persoruol 640 R.R. &. Truck 470 Racke, .., IRfllIClIccd ..d
01)1 Medrc.reM'
a 152 Rcco"<ry ofDeflul,ro
no F.d.",1 EmpIO)'.,,·
Liability
Injul}' Producl
Liability ..,
"" CoI"IUp' OrganiU!ioo.
410 COn1I1D1CT Cndil
_D_
Siuden' LOan$ 340 Mari n. Pf.RSONAL PROPf.RTI' 490 Clblc/Sal TV
(Exci. Veleran.) 345 Marine ProduCI o 370 Othtt Fnlld 110 S.I«Ii"" Service
o In RCCO\i<ryofOvc",aytllC'nl Liability a 371 Truth in lending 1150 S..,"';ricsICommodili"sf
o
ofVelerVI ', Stnet;1<
o 160 Siockholde,, ' Su",
3~ MOIO' Vehide
355 MOl'" V.hide
380 Otbor Pcrwnal
,. '""''''''
17S C... lOmer O!allengc
o 190 0Iher ConUloCI O 385 Propc:I1Y ~" no LoborlMgnu. RolI,i"", 12 USC 34TO
ProdOCI Lilbility 730 l.4bor/Mgnu .RcpartinH S90 Ocher SlatulOr)' Actioos
&. DiJdosure Act 891 Agricultural AclS
740 Railway Labor Act m Economic S.. bili ..lion Atl
790 Oth.r l l bor litigation 193 EDV"OIIm~nI . 1 M.tte"
791 Ernpl. Rei. Inc. 1194 En<r3Y AII""ation Atl
o 245 Ton Produc,l. .. bihty

Hob... Co,pus:
530 G...."'I
'3' Delm Pellllty
S..,\lri!y ACI
,.
89~ f ... rIom or Inform.rian
9OOApp<aI oHe. O<',"n;"""",,

a 190 All 011>.. Re.1 Ptop<rt)' 44' Arne<. wlOisabili'ies· 540 Mandamu. &. Othc-r Under Equal A",,".~
Employm.n' SSO Civil RighI< IOJlI>1ice
446 Amer. wll);sabili,i.. _ !S5 Pri,,,,, Cooodi,k", 950 Con,ti"'tiono';ty of
"""
440 0Iher Civi l RiVU
Sill< S"""!CS
V. ORIGIN (Pl.c< on"){" in One Box Only)

1St [ O"II,nal o 2 Removed frOIn 0 3 Remanded from o 4 Reinstaled or 0 S o6 Muilidisirici o 7
Proceedlnl\ Stale Court Appellato: Court Reopened L. itigation
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

"
IF THIS IS I i
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 7,000,000.00 JURY DEMAND: ONo
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(Se' in,tnlClion.)'
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
01/06120 11
RECEIPT . _ _ _ _ AMOllNT-<3"'Y2
.... '--·"{c'"O
'--_ APPL 'nNG IFP ____________ JUDGE MAG. JUOOE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

US Dinwiddle Case Against Virginia CPS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US Dinwiddle Case Against Virginia CPS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 7:11-cv-00008-sgw Document 1 Filed 01/07/11 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FRED DINWIDDIE, and MICHELLE LAW NO. f,//-(jt! -/XVof'

GILES COUNTY, VIRGINIA

named Defendants, respectfully state to the Court the following:

compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees. Jurisdiction is proper

Plaintiffs' claims occurred. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of

Defendants' actions exceed this Court's jurisdictional amount in controversy

II. Procedural Prerequisites.

2. All procedural prerequisites have been met.

3. Plaintiff, Fred Dinwiddie, is an individual and resident of the State of Tennessee,

reached the age of majority.

4. Plaintiff, Michelle Dinwiddie, is an individual and resident of the State of

now reached the age of majority.

5. Plaintiff, Michael Dinwiddie, is an individual and resident of the State of

6. Plaintiff, C.D. (through next friends Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie), IS an

individual, a minor child, and resident ofthe State of Tennessee.

7. Plaintiff, J.D. (through next friends Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie), is an

individual, a minor child, and resident of the State of Tennessee.

8. Plaintiff, A.D. (through next friends Fred and Michelle Dinwiddie ), is an

individual, a minor child, and a resident of the State of Tennessee.

private agency, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, doing business in

Giles County Department of Social Services.

private agency, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, doing business in

Giles County Department of Social Services.

agency, licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, doing business in Giles

County Department of Social Services.

13. Defendant Oma McReynolds is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional

the color of state law by virtue of her position.

14. Defendant Sherri Nipper is a is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional

district, a Social Services Investigator for Defendant Giles County Department of

under the color of state law by virtue of her position.

15. Defendant Linda Boggs is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional

district, the Director of Defendant Giles County Department of Social Services,

of state law by virtue of her position.

16. Defendant Mike Dobbins is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional

district, a Supervisor for Defendant Giles County Department of Social Services,

of state law by virtue of his position.

17. Defendant Phil Blankenbeckler is an individual and a resident of this

jurisdictional district, an Investigator for Defendant Giles County Department of

under the color of state law by virtue of his position.

18. Defendant Amy Bishop is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional

district, a Social Worker for Defendant Giles County Department of Social

the color of state law by virtue of her position.

19. Defendant Jean Williams is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional

district, a Foster Care Coordinator for Defendant Giles County Department of

under the color of state law by virtue of her position.

Defendant Giles County Department of Social Services.

21. Defendant Darrell H~ley is a physician and a resident of this jurisdictional

Giles County Department of Social Services.

Thompson, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and at all times material,

Department of Social Services.

Department of Social Services.

24. Defendant Katherine Flaughrety is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist employed by

Defendant NRV Community Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and

Giles County Department of Social Services.

25. Defendant Rebecca Hughes is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist employed by

Defendant NRV Community Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district, and

Giles County Department of Social Services.

Giles County Department of Social Services, a resident of this jurisdictional

Department of Social Services.

County Department of Social Services, a resident of this jurisdictional district,

Giles County Department of Social Services, a resident of this jurisdictional

Department of Social Services.