Preview
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Case No. 2023-CP-23-
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE
Anthony Beasley, individually and on behalf of
the minor child, LB born 2014,
Plaintiffs,
vs. SUMMONS
South Carolina Department of Social Services,
South Carolina Department of Children
Advocacy, Children’s Advocacy Center of
Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties,
Inc.
Defendants.
TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein,
copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this
complaint upon the subscriber, at 211 E. Main Street, Union, $C 29379 within thirty
(30) days after service hereof exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to
answer the complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief
demanded in the complaint.
Butler Law Firm, LLC
s/Melinda Butler
Melinda I. Butler, Attorney
SC Bar No. 78040
211 E. Main Street Union,
Union, South Carolina South Carolina 29379
October 4, 2023 melinda@butlerservingjustice.com
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Case No. 2023-CP-23-__
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE
Anthony Beasley, individually and on behalf of
the minor child, LB born 2014,
Plaintiffs,
vs. COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
South Carolina Department of Social Services,
South Carolina Department of Children
Advocacy, Children’s Advocacy Center of
Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties,
Inc.
Defendants.
The Plaintiffs, complaining of the Defendants herein, would respectfully show and allege
unto this Honorable Court as follows:
1. This action is brought for damages and other appropriate relief pursuant to the statutory
and common law of the State of South Carolina, and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act
codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq. (Supp. 2014).
The Plaintiffs are residents of the County of Union, South Carolina.
This action is being brought using the minor child initials to protect her privacy.
Plaintiff Anthony Beasley is the biological Father and legal custodian of the minor child.!
Plaintiff LB born 2014? is the minor child.
' Greenville County Family Court Case Number: 2021-DR-23-3789.
* See Confidential Redacted Identifier Form filed herewith.
1
The Plaintiff is informed and believes that the South Carolina Department of Social
Services (“SCDSS”) is a state agency created by the General Assembly of the State of
South Carolina and is an agency of the State of South Carolina. It performs its services in
Greenville, South Carolina.
South Carolina Department of Children Advocacy (“SCDCA”), formerly known as the
Foster Care Review Board, is an independent state agency charged with ensuring that
children across South Carolina receive adequate protection and care from services or
programs related to the welfare of children offered by departments such as SCDSS.
Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. is an
entity in business to evaluate and perform forensic investigations/interviews with minor
children and are tasked with having knowledgeable staff to conduct such.
That the employees of SCDSS, including within its county divisions and employees, were
acting within the course and scope of their employment when they committed tortious acts
that were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries. SCDSS, through its
county divisions and employees, such as the Greenville County Department of Social
Services, is charged with conducting its child protective services activities in accordance
with sound professional standards for intervention into family lives. SCDSS county
divisions and employees must be guided by law and be competent in law enforcement
procedures, fact finding, evidence gathering, and effective social intervention, assessment
and intervention into family lives.
10 On or about March 20, 2019, Defendant SCDSS filed an action alleging that the Plaintiff
Father performed the following act(s) upon his four-year old daughter:
a. “The Case was indicated for sexual abuse against Anthony Beasley as to the minor
child, LB. The minor child disclosed that her father, Anthony Beasley, touched her
genital area with his finger while she did not have on any clothes.”> (Emphasis
added.
“That legal and physical custody of the minor child remain with Clara Foster.”*
“That the [c]ourt make a finding regarding the alleged abuse/neglect of the minor
children (sic) by ... Anthony Beasley, and that the child cannot be protected from
further harm without intervention including entry into the SCDSS Central
Registry, if appropriate. 05
11. SCDSS kept the Father from having any contact with his daughter for more than twenty
months.
12. SCDSS dismissed its finding against Father by Order filed October 4, 2021: “I find that the
Plaintiff had reasonable cause to intervene in this matter and provide services to this family.
The [c]ourt makes no findings regarding the merits of the allegations set forth in [SCDSS]
complaint....[the] in-house finding [against Anthony Beasley] shall be modified in
accordance with this order.
13. After reviewing the video of the forensic interview performed by the Children’s Advocacy
Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc., Plaintiff retained the services
of Dr. Allison Foster employed at Forensic Family Associates. Dr. Foster reviewed, inter
alia, the forensic interviews performed at Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg,
* Complaint for Intervention filed March 20, 2023 at p. 2., para. 4.
“Id. at p. 2, para. A.
° Id. at p. 3, para. E.
Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. by Ms. Heather Flassing In Dr. Foster’s written report
to the Family Court, she wrote the following beginning with the first interview:
“[Child] consistently denied that her father had done something to her or her body.
In the second interview, [Child whom was four years old] became frustrated with
the interviewer’s questions and declared repeatedly ‘you’re really giving me a
headache!’ while also denying that anything happened to her. Further she declared
numerous times that she wanted to leave the interview room (‘I really want to get
out of here now!’) The interviewer persisted in questioning and disregarded the
child’s requests. The risk of this circumstance is that children perceive they need to
say something different to satisfy the interviewer and make the meeting end.”
14. Essentially Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties,
Inc. held this four-year old child hostage until she would make a statement that her father
touched her inappropriately.
15. By subsequent order of the family court for Greenville County filed May 2, 2023°, Father
was granted sole legal and physical custody of the minor child.
16. A guardian ad litem investigated and found the conditions of the Mom’s home to be
“alarming”. This was not long after both SCDSS and SCDCA- Guardian ad litem- had
investigated in the DSS family court case.
° 202 1-DR-23-3789
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence
17. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein all of the relevant and consistent allegations
in the foregoing paragraphs as fully as if repeated herein.
18. The Defendants, each of them, owed a duty of care to the said minor children.
19. Defendants failed to follow its’ own policies and procedures. Defendant employees/agents
were willful, wanton, careless indifferent, reckless and grossly negligent in their regards to
the childrens’ best interests and welfare.
20. The acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, as described above, were negligent, grossly
negligent, willful, wanton and reckless and were done knowingly and with total disregard
for the child’s protection.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness,
willfulness and wantonness of the Defendants herein, the children and the Plaintiffs have
suffered damages as more fully set forth in this Complaint.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Gross Negligence Under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act
22. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporate herein all of the relevant and consistent allegations
in the foregoing paragraphs as fully as if repeated herein.
23. The Defendant, SCDSS and SCDCA, as an agency in general and through its employees,
agents and servants, owed Plaintiffs a duty, both under the common law as well as a
separate, special duty, by statute and regulation. Under the South Carolina Tort Claims
Act, Section 15-78-10 et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976, as amended,
and the Common Law of South Carolina, SCDSS is liable for its tortious acts and the
tortious acts of its employees and agents performed in the scope of their employment.
24. The Defendant, SCDSS and SCDCA, including any and all agents and employees, had a
duty to perform its child protective services of children in a professional and competent
manner, During all times material to the claims herein, these Defendants’ acts and
omissions amounted to gross negligence, recklessness and a willful and wanton disregard
for the safety and well-being of the minor children. The reckless, willful and wanton acts
of these Defendant includes, but is not limited to: Failing to properly investigate the
allegations; failing to manage its staff to docket this case properly; failing in placing this
contested matter on a 15-minute docket; failing to timely move the case forward, resulting
in father losing over two years of his daughter’s life.
25: All of the above failures were the direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the
Plaintiffs herein, said acts being in violation of the South Carolina Code of Laws and
SCDSS policies and procedures.
26. The Plaintiffs allege that each and every failure of the Defendants to protect the minor child
constitutes a separate occurrence and delict.
27. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness,
willfulness and wantonness of the Defendants herein, the minor child upon information
and belief, suffered mental harm and injury, physical pain, emotional and mental distress,
and loss of enjoyment of life, all resulting from having to suffer through days, weeks and
months, and years of not having the protection of her father nor his presence in her life.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation
28. The above allegations are incorporated as if rewritten verbatim.
29. That the Defendants, its employees, officers, or agents defamed the Plaintiff by publishing
to others false statements that the Plaintiff sexually abused his daughter.
30. That the Defendants defamatory statements were made with implied malice.
31. That the Defendants knew or should have known by due diligence through a proper
investigation that the statements made about Plaintiff were false.
32. The false statements, which were made by employees, officers and/or agents of the
Defendants were damaging to Plaintiffs’ personal, community, and_ professional
reputations because the statements accused the Plaintiff of
harming/neglecting/abusing/sexually molesting a minor child.
33. The conduct of the Defendants was undertaken with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs”
rights, and in addition to presumed and actual damages.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Outrage
34. The above allegations are incorporated as if rewritten verbatim.
35. That the removal of the Plaintiff's child, from his life entirely, without a proper
investigation, or even supervised visitations, recklessly inflicted emotional distress onto
the Plaintiff.
36. The Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous and exceeded all bounds of decency
in that the Defendants recklessly exercised its authority over the Plaintiff and the minor
child.
37. The Defendants acted with knowledge that under the circumstances then existing, it knew
that the Plaintiff
was susceptible to emotional distress.
38. That by reason and in consequence of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, recklessness,
willfulness, wantonness and grossly negligent conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and
their minor child sustained serious, severe and permanent injuries; severe emotional
distress, and will continue to suffer great humiliation and mental anguish.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the South
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP), and pray for judgment against Defendants, for actual
and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, and for the costs of this
action, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Butler Law Firm, LLC
_s/Melinda Butler
Melinda I. Butler
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SC Bar No. 78040
211 E. Main Street
Union, South Carolina 29379
melinda@butlerservingjustice.com
October 4, 2023
Union, South Carolina
Preview
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Case No. 2023-CP-23- COUNTY OF GREENVILLE Anthony Beasley, individually and on behalf of the minor child, LB born 2014, Plaintiffs, vs. SUMMONS South Carolina Department of Social Services, South Carolina Department of Children Advocacy, Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. Defendants. TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this complaint upon the subscriber, at 211 E. Main Street, Union, $C 29379 within thirty (30) days after service hereof exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to answer the complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Butler Law Firm, LLC s/Melinda Butler Melinda I. Butler, Attorney SC Bar No. 78040 211 E. Main Street Union, Union, South Carolina South Carolina 29379 October 4, 2023 melinda@butlerservingjustice.com STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Case No. 2023-CP-23-__ COUNTY OF GREENVILLE Anthony Beasley, individually and on behalf of the minor child, LB born 2014, Plaintiffs, vs. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED South Carolina Department of Social Services, South Carolina Department of Children Advocacy, Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. Defendants. The Plaintiffs, complaining of the Defendants herein, would respectfully show and allege unto this Honorable Court as follows: 1. This action is brought for damages and other appropriate relief pursuant to the statutory and common law of the State of South Carolina, and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq. (Supp. 2014). The Plaintiffs are residents of the County of Union, South Carolina. This action is being brought using the minor child initials to protect her privacy. Plaintiff Anthony Beasley is the biological Father and legal custodian of the minor child.! Plaintiff LB born 2014? is the minor child. ' Greenville County Family Court Case Number: 2021-DR-23-3789. * See Confidential Redacted Identifier Form filed herewith. 1 The Plaintiff is informed and believes that the South Carolina Department of Social Services (“SCDSS”) is a state agency created by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina and is an agency of the State of South Carolina. It performs its services in Greenville, South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Children Advocacy (“SCDCA”), formerly known as the Foster Care Review Board, is an independent state agency charged with ensuring that children across South Carolina receive adequate protection and care from services or programs related to the welfare of children offered by departments such as SCDSS. Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. is an entity in business to evaluate and perform forensic investigations/interviews with minor children and are tasked with having knowledgeable staff to conduct such. That the employees of SCDSS, including within its county divisions and employees, were acting within the course and scope of their employment when they committed tortious acts that were the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries. SCDSS, through its county divisions and employees, such as the Greenville County Department of Social Services, is charged with conducting its child protective services activities in accordance with sound professional standards for intervention into family lives. SCDSS county divisions and employees must be guided by law and be competent in law enforcement procedures, fact finding, evidence gathering, and effective social intervention, assessment and intervention into family lives. 10 On or about March 20, 2019, Defendant SCDSS filed an action alleging that the Plaintiff Father performed the following act(s) upon his four-year old daughter: a. “The Case was indicated for sexual abuse against Anthony Beasley as to the minor child, LB. The minor child disclosed that her father, Anthony Beasley, touched her genital area with his finger while she did not have on any clothes.”> (Emphasis added. “That legal and physical custody of the minor child remain with Clara Foster.”* “That the [c]ourt make a finding regarding the alleged abuse/neglect of the minor children (sic) by ... Anthony Beasley, and that the child cannot be protected from further harm without intervention including entry into the SCDSS Central Registry, if appropriate. 05 11. SCDSS kept the Father from having any contact with his daughter for more than twenty months. 12. SCDSS dismissed its finding against Father by Order filed October 4, 2021: “I find that the Plaintiff had reasonable cause to intervene in this matter and provide services to this family. The [c]ourt makes no findings regarding the merits of the allegations set forth in [SCDSS] complaint....[the] in-house finding [against Anthony Beasley] shall be modified in accordance with this order. 13. After reviewing the video of the forensic interview performed by the Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc., Plaintiff retained the services of Dr. Allison Foster employed at Forensic Family Associates. Dr. Foster reviewed, inter alia, the forensic interviews performed at Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, * Complaint for Intervention filed March 20, 2023 at p. 2., para. 4. “Id. at p. 2, para. A. ° Id. at p. 3, para. E. Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. by Ms. Heather Flassing In Dr. Foster’s written report to the Family Court, she wrote the following beginning with the first interview: “[Child] consistently denied that her father had done something to her or her body. In the second interview, [Child whom was four years old] became frustrated with the interviewer’s questions and declared repeatedly ‘you’re really giving me a headache!’ while also denying that anything happened to her. Further she declared numerous times that she wanted to leave the interview room (‘I really want to get out of here now!’) The interviewer persisted in questioning and disregarded the child’s requests. The risk of this circumstance is that children perceive they need to say something different to satisfy the interviewer and make the meeting end.” 14. Essentially Children’s Advocacy Center of Spartanburg, Cherokee and Union Counties, Inc. held this four-year old child hostage until she would make a statement that her father touched her inappropriately. 15. By subsequent order of the family court for Greenville County filed May 2, 2023°, Father was granted sole legal and physical custody of the minor child. 16. A guardian ad litem investigated and found the conditions of the Mom’s home to be “alarming”. This was not long after both SCDSS and SCDCA- Guardian ad litem- had investigated in the DSS family court case. ° 202 1-DR-23-3789 FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence 17. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein all of the relevant and consistent allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as fully as if repeated herein. 18. The Defendants, each of them, owed a duty of care to the said minor children. 19. Defendants failed to follow its’ own policies and procedures. Defendant employees/agents were willful, wanton, careless indifferent, reckless and grossly negligent in their regards to the childrens’ best interests and welfare. 20. The acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, as described above, were negligent, grossly negligent, willful, wanton and reckless and were done knowingly and with total disregard for the child’s protection. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness and wantonness of the Defendants herein, the children and the Plaintiffs have suffered damages as more fully set forth in this Complaint. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Gross Negligence Under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act 22. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporate herein all of the relevant and consistent allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as fully as if repeated herein. 23. The Defendant, SCDSS and SCDCA, as an agency in general and through its employees, agents and servants, owed Plaintiffs a duty, both under the common law as well as a separate, special duty, by statute and regulation. Under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, Section 15-78-10 et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976, as amended, and the Common Law of South Carolina, SCDSS is liable for its tortious acts and the tortious acts of its employees and agents performed in the scope of their employment. 24. The Defendant, SCDSS and SCDCA, including any and all agents and employees, had a duty to perform its child protective services of children in a professional and competent manner, During all times material to the claims herein, these Defendants’ acts and omissions amounted to gross negligence, recklessness and a willful and wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of the minor children. The reckless, willful and wanton acts of these Defendant includes, but is not limited to: Failing to properly investigate the allegations; failing to manage its staff to docket this case properly; failing in placing this contested matter on a 15-minute docket; failing to timely move the case forward, resulting in father losing over two years of his daughter’s life. 25: All of the above failures were the direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs herein, said acts being in violation of the South Carolina Code of Laws and SCDSS policies and procedures. 26. The Plaintiffs allege that each and every failure of the Defendants to protect the minor child constitutes a separate occurrence and delict. 27. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness and wantonness of the Defendants herein, the minor child upon information and belief, suffered mental harm and injury, physical pain, emotional and mental distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, all resulting from having to suffer through days, weeks and months, and years of not having the protection of her father nor his presence in her life. FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defamation 28. The above allegations are incorporated as if rewritten verbatim. 29. That the Defendants, its employees, officers, or agents defamed the Plaintiff by publishing to others false statements that the Plaintiff sexually abused his daughter. 30. That the Defendants defamatory statements were made with implied malice. 31. That the Defendants knew or should have known by due diligence through a proper investigation that the statements made about Plaintiff were false. 32. The false statements, which were made by employees, officers and/or agents of the Defendants were damaging to Plaintiffs’ personal, community, and_ professional reputations because the statements accused the Plaintiff of harming/neglecting/abusing/sexually molesting a minor child. 33. The conduct of the Defendants was undertaken with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs” rights, and in addition to presumed and actual damages. FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Outrage 34. The above allegations are incorporated as if rewritten verbatim. 35. That the removal of the Plaintiff's child, from his life entirely, without a proper investigation, or even supervised visitations, recklessly inflicted emotional distress onto the Plaintiff. 36. The Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous and exceeded all bounds of decency in that the Defendants recklessly exercised its authority over the Plaintiff and the minor child. 37. The Defendants acted with knowledge that under the circumstances then existing, it knew that the Plaintiff was susceptible to emotional distress. 38. That by reason and in consequence of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, recklessness, willfulness, wantonness and grossly negligent conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and their minor child sustained serious, severe and permanent injuries; severe emotional distress, and will continue to suffer great humiliation and mental anguish. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP), and pray for judgment against Defendants, for actual and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, and for the costs of this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Butler Law Firm, LLC _s/Melinda Butler Melinda I. Butler Attorney for Plaintiffs SC Bar No. 78040 211 E. Main Street Union, South Carolina 29379 melinda@butlerservingjustice.com October 4, 2023 Union, South Carolina