Brown Eyes v. State

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Department of Social Services and its employees in claims arising from the temporary foster-care and pre-adoptive placement of two Indian children. The court held that sovereign immunity barred the tort claims against the Department and certain officials, good-faith immunity protected the social workers, and the plaintiffs' contract damages were limited to the reimbursement terms of the placement agreements.

Holdings

1. The Department was entitled to summary judgment because South Dakota had not waived its sovereign immunity by consenting to suit, purchasing liability insurance, or participating in risk-sharing.
2. Ellenbecker and Bendt were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to show that their supervisory functions were ministerial rather than discretionary or to identify specific facts creating a genuine issue of material fact.
3. Good-faith immunity under SDCL 26-8A-14 applies to social workers making temporary placements for foster care and eventual adoption, and the social workers were entitled to summary judgment because the record showed no improper purpose, dishonesty, or bad faith.
4. The Brown Eyeses were limited to the contractual per-child, per-day payment and could not recover their claimed adoption-preparation expenses because the agreements did not provide for additional reimbursement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Department of Social Services was protected by sovereign immunity from the Brown Eyeses' tort claims.
2. Whether Department Secretary James Ellenbecker and District Manager Dennis Bendt were immune from tort claims based on the discretionary nature of their functions.
3. Whether social workers Linda Anderson, Beverly Lafferty, and JoAnna Mitchell were protected by sovereign immunity or statutory good-faith immunity for their foster-care and prospective-adoption placement activities.
4. Whether the Brown Eyeses presented a viable breach-of-contract claim for consequential expenses beyond the per-child, per-day payment provided by the placement agreements.
5. Whether summary judgment was proper on the tort and contract claims.

Disposition

affirmed