DEJUAN STRATTON ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF SABRINA FELTS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, CABINET FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : JANUARY 19, 2006
TO BE PUBLISHED
,,Suyrrmr (~ourf of
2003-SC-000580-DG
DEJUAN STRATTON,
ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE ESTATE OF SABRINA
FELTS
V.
;~A
r
Ea-9-c~c~,
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NO . 2002-CA-001136-MR
FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT NO . 00-CI-01280
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
CABINET FOR FAMILIES AND
CHILDREN
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCOTT
AFFIRMING
This case comes to us on discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' opinion,
which held the actions taken by agents of the Cabinet for Families and Children
("Cabinet") were discretionary in nature, and thus, rendered the Cabinet immune from
claims of negligence under the Board of Claims Act. We originally granted review of
this case to hopefully provide further guidance on the issue of governmental immunity,
but after further review of the record, we have determined the actions in this case were
simply discretionary and therefore, there was no waiver of immunity, and the decision of
the Court of Appeals is affirmed .
I . Facts
Sabrina Destiny Felts Stratton died May 21, 1994, from injuries inflicted by her
mother's live-in boyfriend, Sherman Dejuan Davis . Davis has been found guilty of
Murder and Criminal Abuse in the First Degree by the Jefferson Circuit Court .
The Cabinet for Families and Children was first notified of possible physical
abuse of the deceased minor by her maternal grandmother, Deborah Thompson, on
February 11, 1994 . Ms . Thompson called Child Protective Services ("CPS"), a division
of the Cabinet, stating Sabrina had injuries that suggested physical abuse .
That same day, Sabrina and her grandmother were interviewed by Amy
Lombard, a case worker for CPS, and Detective Randy Meurer. CPS also investigated
by speaking with Melissa Felts, Sabrina's mother, and Davis . Ms. Felts tried to explain
away Sabrina's injuries by saying she frequently fell . When Davis was interviewed by
Lombard, he denied any allegations of abuse. The doctor who examined Sabrina,
however, observed her injuries were too severe to have resulted from innocent falls.
Based on her investigation, Lombard was able to substantiate the allegations of
abuse, but could not ascertain the identity of the perpetrator . On February 16, 1994,
Lombard filed a petition with the Jefferson Family Court, alleging physical abuse of the
child, naming Davis and Melissa Felts, Sabrina's mother, as the alleged perpetrators .
The case was set for an emergency hearing on February 16, 1994 .
The hearing was attended by Felts, Davis, Sabrina's natural father, Dejuan
Stratton (Appellant herein), both sets of grandparents, the prosecutor, and Sabrina's
guardian ad litem. At the hearing, Melissa Felts and Mr. Stratton agreed that he should
be granted temporary custody of Sabrina while Ms. Felts attended court ordered
parenting classes.
Having completed her investigation and secured a temporary change of custody,
Lombard then transferred the case to what was known as an "ongoing" case worker.
The "ongoing" case worker in Sabrina's case was Jeff Murphy. Mr. Murphy testified
that his role was not to perform further investigation, but to ensure Ms. Felts attended
the mandatory parenting classes, and to "set up services for the family."
When the parties returned to court on March 23, 1994, Sabrina's mother alleged
it was Ms. Thompson who was hitting the child, which was mimicked in the statement of
Sabrina's paternal grandmother to Mr. Murphy. Thompson was thereafter limited to
supervised visitation once a month .
Mr. Murphy contacted Ms. Felts by phone several times to follow up on the case
and met with Stratton and Sabrina in his office on April 4, 1994, followed by a home
visit to Ms. Felts' house the following day.
On April 27, 1994, Judge Mary Corey, based upon the agreement of the parents,
returned Sabrina to the custody of her mother . The court accordingly entered an order
indicating a "disposition by agreement" which, while it included an admission of physical .
abuse, stated "perpetrator unknown, although mother and father believe it was [the
maternal grandmother] ." Judge Corey's belief at the time was not inconsistent with Mr.
Murphy's .
On May 15, 1994, a call was made to the abuse hotline by Sabrina's paternal
grandmother, Jeanette Johnson.' She stated she had picked Sabrina up for a visit and
observed noticeable facial injuries. Ms . Johnson also stated Sabrina explained away
the bruises by claiming she had fallen . Jane Kemp, the CPS employee who took the
Another call was made on May 18, 2004 relating to this same event .
-3-
report, concluded there was "no information that would indicate anything but accidental
injury ."
Murphy had already scheduled a home visit for May 17th; he followed up on the
phone call during his visit. Sabrina's mother explained Sabrina was playing with a
neighbor's child and had fallen, causing the injuries . Sabrina confirmed her mother's
account of the injury . Four days later, Sabrina died as a result of injuries later proven to
have been inflicted by Davis .
Dejuan Stratton, administrator for the estate of Sabrina Felts, initiated an action
against the Cabinet in the Board of Claims . Stratton alleged the Cabinet's negligence
contributed to the death of Sabrina Felts . He argued that if the CPS workers had
followed mandatory regulations requiring them to interview certain witnesses, they
would have discovered and substantiated Davis as the abuser .
On May 11, 1999, the Cabinet moved to dismiss the case based on
governmental immunity and failure to state a claim . The Board of Claims granted the
Cabinet's motion, holding the interviews were not ministerial or discretionary, but rather
fell within the categories set forth in KRS 44 .073(13)(d) and (e) : "[a]ctions in the
performance of obligations running to the public as a whole" and "[g]overnmental
performance of a self-imposed protective function to the public or citizens ." The Board
also found the Cabinet could not be liable under traditional negligence theories .
On Stratton's appeal, the Franklin Circuit Court held the Board of Claims had
erred as to the applicable law, citing this Court's decision in Collins v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet , 10 S .W.3d 122
(Ky. 1999), and rejecting the Board's interpretations of KRS 44.073(13) . Under the
Franklin Circuit Court's reading of Collins, the Cabinet's acts were ministerial, and
governmental immunity was therefore waived .
The Cabinet appealed to the Court of Appeals, who reversed the Franklin Circuit
Court, finding the addition of the terms "if possible" to Section Seven (7) of 905 KAR
1 :330 made the Cabinet's acts discretionary. The Court of Appeals did not address
KRS 44.073 .
II. Governmental Immunity
Governmental immunity is a doctrine of law created by section 231 of the
Constitution of Kentucky. As an agency operating under the direction and control of the
central state government, the Cabinet for Families and Children is entitled to the
protections of governmental immunity unless that immunity has been explicitly waived .
See Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 S.W.2d 340 (Ky . 1997) .
The Board of Claims Act offers a limited waiver of governmental immunity with
regard to negligence claims filed with the Board . The waiver extends only to negligence
claims involving the performance of ministerial acts. KRS 44.073(2). A "ministerial" act
is one in which the agency has no discretion ; non-ministerial, or discretionary, acts
cannot be a basis for recovery under the Board of Claims Act.
To decide whether the case workers of the CPS division of the Cabinet for
Families and Children were performing ministerial or discretionary acts in this case, it is
necessary to determine whether the acts involved policy-making decisions and
significant judgment, or were merely routine duties . Collins v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet , 10 S .W.3d 122,
126 (Ky. 2000) .
In Collins , the mother of a deceased child filed suit against the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, asserting negligence concerning
issuance of mine permits, inspection, and failure to require removal of a culvert in which
her child drowned . The child was riding his bike near a creek, which ran underneath an
access road to a strip mine and was covered by a 48-inch corrugated metal drainage
culvert. The boy slid off the road and into the creek on the upstream side of the flooded
drainage culvert and drowned . The upstream side of the creek had flooded
because the drainage culvert was too small to handle the expected rain run-off.
This Court noted the Kentucky statutes governing coal mining are
straightforward .
The Cabinet's surface coal mining inspectors are required to
conduct inspections of coal mining operations and determine
the existence of violations . . . . At the time of the accident, the
acts required to be performed by the Cabinet with regard to the
drainage culvert were specifically defined by regulation . . . . The
regulations specifically required that water control structures for
the roads be designed with a discharge capacity capable of
passing the peak runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation
event.
Id.
The majority in Collins held inspecting drainage culverts to assure they conform
to the regulations does not require any "significant judgment, statutory interpretation, or
policy-making decisions" and the regulations could be enforced in a "routine, ministerial
manner." In fact, it would only require mathematical engineering calculations to
determine if a culvert met the noted "peak run off" standard . Thus, the Cabinet's
negligent performance was actionable under the Board of Claims Act.
We believe the facts in this case are distinguishable from those rendering the
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet liable in Collins .
The applicable regulations in this case are found in section Seven (7) of 905
KAR 1 :3302, which states in pertinent part:
Information necessary for determining the validity of the
report, and if valid, the existence of imminent danger and risk to
the child shall be obtained during the investigation . Investigations
shall entail face-to-face contact with the alleged victim. Victims, if
of appropriate age, and if possible, parents or caretakers,
appropriate household and family members, and alleged
perpetrators shall be interviewed . . . .
(4)
Collateral contacts shall be interviewed if the validity or
severity of the report cannot be determined from the interviews .
Collateral sources may include: (a) Officers of the Court ; (b)
School personnel; (c) Neighbors; (d) Medical personnel ; (e) Law
Enforcement officers; and (f) Personnel of other agencies .
Looking first at the February 11 th call by Sabrina's paternal grandmother, Ms.
Thompson, it is clear the CPS case worker did interview the caller, the alleged victim,
the victim's mother and the caregiver, Mr. Davis . From these interviews and further
investigation, including a physical examination, the abuse was substantiated, though
the perpetrator could not be identified.
The CPS employee who answered the May 1994 hotline phone call reported
there was "no information that would indicate anything but accidental injury" given by
the caller . Mr. Murphy had already scheduled a home visit to the Felts' home before
this phone call was placed, and followed through with his visit two days after the call
was received . He observed Sabrina and spoke to her and her mother, who both
indicated her injuries resulted from an accident occurring while Sabrina was playing with
a neighbor's child.
2 The Child Protective Services Regulations today (2005) are found in 922 KAR 1 :330 .
-7-
The ministerial duties mandated by the regulations in this case were satisfied by
the CPS case workers . As indicated above, all relevant parties were interviewed
regarding the first allegation of abuse and the Cabinet was able to substantiate the
allegations and file an action in the Jefferson County Family Court naming Melissa Felts
and Mr. Davis as the possible perpetrators . Performing collateral interviews of
individuals not mandated by the regulations regarding this abuse allegation would have
been in the discretion of the case workers, and thus, their decisions as to these matters
are not actionable .
During the course of the court case and continuing investigation by CPS,
information was obtained tending to place blame on the maternal grandmother . No
information was ever conveyed identifying Mr. Davis as the abuser. The mother
complied with the court orders and all parties to the case agreed to return Sabrina to
her mother's custody .
The second call to the abuse hotline was not an official "abuse report" as an
accidental excuse was given for the injuries, and the phone call alone did not trigger a
duty by the Cabinet to investigate all caregivers . There were no alleged perpetrators in
this report. Nonetheless, Mr. Murphy did follow up on this phone call during his
scheduled home visit and determined, in his discretion, that Sabrina's injuries were
accidentally inflicted by the neighbor child.
Unlike in Collins , where the applicable statutes mandate the water structures for
the roads be designed in a certain way, and negligence by the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet can be easily identified by the mere fact that the
structures were not designed in the manner proscribed by statute, in this instance, the
CPS case workers are investigating allegations of abuse . Such investigations do have
certain mandated statutory requirements as to who shall be interviewed, etc., but they
also involve discretionary decisions by the case workers, just as in police investigations .
After performing their ministerial duties, the case workers must determine what action, if
any, should be taken to resolve each claim - which in this case was to remove the child
from a potentially dangerous environment - which they did, even though they could not
identify the perpetrator . All such discretionary functions are protected by the doctrine of
governmental immunity and do not fall under the waiver outlined by the Board of Claims
Act.
For the above stated reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals .
Lambert, C .J. ; Graves, and Wintersheimer, JJ., concur . Cooper, Johnstone and
Roach, JJ ., concur in result only .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Carl D . Frederick
C . Shawn Fox
Christopher A. Bates
Paul J. Hershberg
Seiller & Handmaker, LLP
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 2200
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Johann F . Herklotz
Brian c . Baugh
Cabinet for Health and Family Services
Office of Legal Services
275 East Main Street 5W-B
Frankfort, Kentucky 40621
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.