Filed in York District Court

*** EFILED ***

Case Number: D17CI170000083
Transaction ID: 0005235650
Filing Date: 05/10/2017 11:22:46 AM CDT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF YORK COUNTY, NEBRASKA

JOHN AND JANE DOE, Parents ) Case No. CI 17-____

and Next Friends of BRYCE DOE, )
a Minor Child, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT
)
EPWORTH VILLAGE, INC., a )
Nebraska corporation, )
)
Defendant. )

John and Jane Doe, Parents and Next Friends of Bryce Doe, a Minor Child, Plaintiffs in the

above-captioned matter, by and through their counsel of record, for their cause of action against

Defendant, state:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

John and Jane Doe, Parents and Next Friends of Bryce Doe, a Minor Child, are citizens and

residents of York County, Nebraska. They are identified as Does due to the child’s minority status

and due to his status as a sexual assault victim. Defendant is a Nebraska corporation with its

principal place of business in York County, Nebraska.

2.

The events at issue occurred in York, York County, Nebraska. Jurisdiction and venue are

proper in this Court.

F ACTUAL B ACKGROUND

3.
 Bryce Doe is a minor child. His date of birth is January 14, 2000. BRYCE was adopted by

John and Jane Doe when he was three years old. His birth parents severely neglected BRYCE before

their parental rights were terminated. As a result of his experience with his birth parents, BRYCE

carries a diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder, among other psychiatric and behavioral

diagnoses. He has struggled behaviorally, academically, emotionally and legally throughout the time

since his adoption.

4.

As a teenager, BRYCE has been impulsive, angry, and confused in his relationships with

family members, peers and adults. He also had a documented history, before September 2014, of

being inappropriately sexualized for his age. John and Jane have always been vigilant and proactive

in seeking resources appropriate for BRYCE’s needs. They have taken BRYCE to counseling,

communicated with his teachers, and complied with recommendations from counselors, doctors,

educators, juvenile probation and the courts.

5.

In September 2014, pursuant to terms of juvenile probation, BRYCE was placed at

EPWORTH.

6.

EPWORTH holds itself out as being “dedicated to providing hope and healing to youth and

families across Nebraska,” whose purpose is “to serve God by providing opportunities for success in

a secure, loving environment that nurtures personal growth, individual and family strengths, and

responsibility for self and others.” In EPWORTH’s words:

We offer a variety of services to children and families with emotional and/or

behavioral disorders. Our services include juvenile offender residential program for
girls and boys age 12-18; a Rule 18 Interim School for students grades 7 - 12 that
 have been removed from their traditional school due to emotional and behavioral
issues; In-Home and Safety Services to families located within our service areas
providing family support, visitation, tracking and drug testing; Intensive Family
Preservation and Foster Care with 24 hour support. Epworth Village is unique
because it has a spiritual life component and mental health therapy combined with
life-skills training integrated into each and every program.

7.

Relative to its staff, EPWORTH advises the public that it is “proud to employ individuals

from diverse backgrounds who have come together to use their gifts to serve God and Nebraska’s

precious children and families!” EPWORTH further states that “[s]piritual life is modeled by all staff

to encourage all residents to choose develop the spiritual portion of their lives.” Among its other

representations, EPWORTH claims:

* “We consider the child and the family, indivisible although separated, as the
client system.”
* “We ensure the opportunity for each person to develop personal spiritual
beliefs within the context of our Christian agency.”
* “We maintain a safe environment for clients, employees and guests.”
* “We serve only clients for whom our programs are appropriate.”
* “We represent our services and goals honestly and openly.”
* “We plan carefully and realistically, with and for each client and family.”
* “We develop, implement and evaluate treatment goals with each client and
family.”
* “We provide and obtain for our clients the best therapeutic care feasible.”
* “We strive to enhance the talents, techniques and compassion of those in our
employ.”
* “We continually review the relevance, appropriateness and effectiveness of
our services.”

8.

After reviewing BRYCE’s records from prior placements, schools, medical providers and

counselors and interviewing John and Jane, EPWORTH accepted BRYCE as a resident and client.

At no time between September 2014 and BRYCE’s discharge in July 2015 did EPWORTH advise

John and Jane, or juvenile probation, or the juvenile court that it was for any reason ill-equipped to
handle BRYCE as a resident and client. EPWORTH accepted payment for the residence and services

it ostensibly provided to BRYCE.

9.

On July 15, 2015, BRYCE’s juvenile probation officer directed John and Jane to remove

BRYCE from EPWORTH immediately. The reason why was not explained at the time.

Approximately one week later, EPWORTH advised John and Jane that a female staff member named

Jamie Bishop had engaged in a sexual relationship with BRYCE and was now believed to be pregnant

with BRYCE’s child.

10.

John and Jane subsequently learned that other EPWORTH employees had observed Bishop

and BRYCE to interact in a manner that raised concerns that at best, Bishop was committing serious

boundary violations and at worst, Bishop had sexually preyed upon BRYCE by inducing him into a

sexual relationship when she knew him to be mentally ill. Though those employees reported their

concerns to EPWORTH, EPWORTH ignored those reports and chose to not intervene to or even

investigate Bishop. Bishop was thus free to sexually assault BRYCE, a minor child, repeatedly until

she became pregnant.

11.

BRYCE, now age 16, is now and will always be the father of a child conceived via sexual

assault of a minor. Bishop’s sexual predation has already caused, and will continue to cause

emotional confusion and suffering for a young man who was already mentally ill to begin with.

12.

EPWORTH for its part failed to provide BRYCE with the care it advertises: a safe

environment; a spiritual life component and mental health therapy combined with life-skills training;
the best therapeutic care feasible; and “a secure, loving environment that nurtures personal growth,

individual and family strengths, and responsibility for self and others.” EPWORTH failed to give

John and Jane with the information they needed to deal with what had happened. Moreover,

EPWORTH reacted by treating BRYCE as if he were an equal participant in his own assault.

EPWORTH provided no transitional assistance for BRYCE and denied its own role in utterly failing

to supervise Bishop. EPWORTH provided no explanation for its failure to investigate other

employees’ reports and put a stop to Bishop’s sexual predation.

F IRST C AUSE OF A CTION

V ICARIOUS L IABILITY

13.

At all relevant times, Bishop was an employee and agent of EPWORTH, and was acting in

the course and scope of her employment with EPWORTH.

14.

Before EPWORTH discharged BRYCE in July 2015, the only reason Bishop had access to

BRYCE to begin with was because EPWORTH employed her, and accepted placement of BRYCE

as a child known to have mental illnesses and behavioral disorders. Bishop had no relationship with

or knowledge of BRYCE before BRYCE was placed at EPWORTH. Bishop targeted BRYCE as a

resident of EPWORTH, groomed him, and sexually assaulted him repeatedly over a period of

months, directly and proximately causing him harm.

15.

EPWORTH, as Bishop’s employer, is vicariously liable for Bishop’s sexually predatory conduct

and resultant harm to BRYCE.

 S ECOND C AUSE OF A CTION

N EGLIGENT S UPERVISION

16.

EPWORTH owed a duty of care to BRYCE and his parents, to provide staff who behaved

appropriately and were not sexual predators. EPWORTH further owed a duty to investigate reports

that any child in its care was being subjected to boundary violations, to say nothing of sexual

predation, while in EPWORTH’s care. EPWORTH breached those duties by exposing BRYCE to

Jamie Bishop and by ignoring reports that Bishop was behaving inappropriately toward BRYCE.

17.

As a direct and proximate cause of EPWORTH’s breaches of those duties, BRYCE was

damaged. Those damages will continue indefinitely.

T HIRD C AUSE OF A CTION

N EGLIGENCE

18.

By its own advertising, EPWORTH had a duty to provide BRYCE, a mentally ill teenager,

with a safe and therapeutic environment, treatment for his emotional and behavioral disorders, and

the best opportunity to develop coping skills and education about his condition so that he could

leave EPWORTH stronger and better than he was when he arrived. If EPWORTH could not

provide the same due to some characteristic of BRYCE, then EPWORTH had a duty to decline

BRYCE’s placement.

19.

EPWORTH also had a duty to BRYCE to communicate honestly and fully with John and
Jane, as BRYCE’s parents, about developments and concerns. BRYCE’s parents needed to know if

there was any reason to seek judicial review of BRYCE’s placement at EPWORTH based on

BRYCE’s safety and best interests.

20.

EPWORTH breached those duties. EPWORTH failed to provide BRYCE a safe and

therapeutic environment. EPWORTH caused worsening of BRYCE’s mental and emotional

disorders by allowing him to be preyed upon sexually by a member of its staff, whom it had reason

to know was preying upon him. Instead of giving BRYCE the best opportunity to develop coping

skills and education about his condition, EPWORTH gave BRYCE a child he is completely

unequipped to parent and, through that child, a lifelong connection to his own rapist (irrespective

of custodial status of either BRYCE or Bishop). EPWORTH did not tell BRYCE’s parents of the

reports that Bishop was grooming BRYCE for, and then carrying on, an illegal sexual relationship.

21.

As a direct and proximate result of EPWORTH’s failures, BRYCE was damaged. BRYCE left

EPWORTH immeasurably worse than when he arrived, with new problems that will never resolve.

DAMAGES

22.

As a direct and proximate result of EPWORTH’s vicarious liability and independent

negligence, BRYCE was damaged, as were his parents, in these particulars:

a. BRYCE is now a 16-year-old mentally ill teenager with a child. BRYCE will
be that child’s natural father forever, irrespective of custodial status and even
irrespective of whether his parental rights are maintained or terminated.
What BRYCE’s financial obligations to the child will be is unclear at this
point, but is likely to become clearer over the course of this litigation. Even
if he has no legal financial obligations, the fact that BRYCE fathered a child
 as a result of a statutory rape by a trusted authority figure will never, ever go
away.

b. BRYCE was already mentally ill and, as such, vulnerable at the time of his
admission to EPWORTH. His Reactive Attachment Disorder and associated
diagnoses are now exacerbated, and present new barriers to treatment, as a
result of being groomed into an illegal sexual relationship by a trusted
authority figure. This damage, too, is permanent.

c. BRYCE’s parents have incurred new expense as a dirct and proximate result
of EPWORTH’s stunning failures. This includes mental health expense,
mileage expense, and other expenses associated with trying to get BRYCE’s
treatment back on track in spite of the new challenges created by Bishop and
EPWORTH.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

Defendants, in these particulars:

a. Their special damages, in an amount to be proven at trial;

b. Their general damages, in an amount to be proven at trial;

c. Their recoverable costs of litigation; and

d. Such other and further relief as is mete.

JOHN AND JANE DOE, Parents and Next

Friends of BRYCE DOE, a Minor Child,
Plaintiffs,

By: /s/ Maren Lynn Chaloupka

Maren Lynn Chaloupka – NSBA #20864
Chaloupka Holyoke Snyder Chaloupka &
Longoria, P.C., L.L.O.
P.O. Box 2424
1714 2nd Avenue
Scottsbluff, NE 69363-2424
308/635-5000
mlc@chhsclaw.net

-AND-
Kent Rauert – NSBA #21068
Svehla Law Offices, P.C.
408 N. Platte Avenue #A
York, NE 68010
402/498-1641
krauert@svehlalaw.net