This recent bankruptcy court decision is not an easy one to discuss, and I’ll warn my readers up front, this may not be an easy read. The case posed this question: Can a mother who allowed her child to be abused to the point where it lead to his murder escape the penalties for his wrongful death in bankruptcy? I know what my heart said. I know what yours is probably thinking. And yet the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has said yes.
Denise was the mother of 3-year old Dillon and a 5-year old daughter. In March of 2001, she and Steven McBride began dating and soon thereafter, she, McBride and the kids moved into a two bedroom apartment. Denise worked at the same daycare center that both children attended, and Dillon also participated in speech therapy programs administered by the local school district.
At some point, McBride began physically abusing Dillon. Since Denise worked at a daycare center, she had received training in identifying and reporting child abuse. She knew that her boyfriend was physically abusing her son. Despite asking him to stop, the abuse persisted and she did nothing to stop it.
Mom Conceals the Abuse
Co-workers at the daycare center began to suspect that Dillon was being abused and they questioned Denise. She responded by quitting her job and pulling Dillon from daycare. She also began to regularly cancel speech therapy sessions so Dillon’s bruising would not be questioned.
Denise then took a job at Target, working nights. Unfortunately, this meant she left Dillon at home in the care of his abuser. In September 2001, Denise received a call from McBride who told her that Dillon “fell” and was crying. She left work early and when she arrived home, saw that Dillon had a bruise on his forehead.
While putting ice on it, she noticed that Dillon was having difficulty breathing and was not speaking normally. More than once, she expressed a desire to take Dillon to see the doctor, but McBride assured her it was not necessary. Instead, they tucked Dillon to bed and Denise did nothing further. The next morning after she awoke, Denise went into check on Dillon where she found that he had died.
An autopsy confirmed that Dillon died from blunt-force trauma to the head and abdomen, resulting in mild swelling to the brain as well as bleeding on the surface of his brain. His pancreas and liver were also damaged, in addition to a small-bowel rupture and bleeding in his peritoneal cavity. The autopsy also revealed older injuries, which included broken ribs.
McBride was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Denise was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 8 years in prison, double the presumptive sentence. The sentence was enhanced because of Dillon’s vulnerability and because Denise failed to obtain medical care the night before her son’s death.
In 2003, Dillon’s biological father filed a wrongful-death action against Denise and McBride. The complaint alleged only negligence against Denise, but specifically alleged intentional torts against McBride. No allegations of intent or willfulness were levied against Denise. Denise then filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, and Dillon’s estate sought a declaration of nondischargeability of the debt pursuant to Section 523(a)(6) of the US Bankruptcy Code.
The Bankruptcy Proceedings
Both the bankruptcy court and a divided Bankruptcy Appellate Panel found that the debt was nondischargeable. But the Court of Appeals reversed, noting that for a willful and malicious injury to be nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6), the debtor must have intended the injury, or was, in fact substantially certain that the conduct would result in the injury that occurred.
The lower courts should not have “conflated [Denise’s] continued acquiescence in that prior abuse with her role in Dillon’s ultimate death.” For the claim to be nondischargeable, it would have to be proved that Denise either desired to bring about Dillon’s death as a consequence of her conduct, or that Denise was substantially certain that Dillon would die as a consequence of that conduct. In other words, it would have to be proven that Denise knew that McBride intended to kill Dillon or abuse him to the point that she knew he would later die as a result of the abuse.
But what about the fact that Dillon was not brought to the hospital, despite not speaking normally and with his difficulty breathing? The BAP concluded that the “failure to act in the fact of a [legal] duty can constitute an intentional tort.” But the Court of Appeals questioned whether the debtor’s “breach of the legal duty to act can ever be constitute a ‘willful… injury.’” Even in her failure to obtain medical help, there was no evidence that Denise knew Dillon’s actual medical condition, and there was no evidence to suggest that Denise was substantially certain that Dillon would die without immediate medical attention. There was no evidence indicating that “Dillon’s injuries were so objectively life threatening that anyone, even someone with minimal medial training, would have been substantially certain that Dillon would die from the observable injuries.”
The Court, in relying on the Restatement of Torts as well as Supreme Court authority, found that an intentional injury for 523(a)(6) purposes requires an act, not a failure to act. With that said, and finding that no “rational trier of fact could conclude that [Denise] was ‘substantially certain’ that her action or inaction would result in Dillon’s death”, it reversed the lower courts’ decisions, and found the claim to be dischargeable.
As I said, not an easy case to read and not a particularly easy ruling to digest. On a personal level, it is difficult to reconcile how the law could allow a mother to escape the consequences of her personal role in allowing her little son to be abused to the point where he dies in his own bed. From a legal perspective, I dare say that it makes sense. Her failure to act, without more, cannot rise to the level of a willful or malicious injury to justify her having to live with the civil judgment for the rest of her life. Yet, at the same time, while the law says she need not live with the debt owed to her son’s estate for what happened to Dillon, nothing changes the fact that Denise must find a way live with what happened to Dillon. I imagine that Denise now knows that there are some things that bankruptcy just cannot fix.
Download the decision here (opens in new window): Blocker v. Patch, US Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 07-1003
Related posts:
- Failure to Turnover Tax Refund Leads to Discharge Revocation
- Another Road to Failure: How Do I Qualify for Bankruptcy?
- Storm Preparation: Stop Using Credit
- Who Can Help Stop The National Foreclosure Crisis?
- Talking to the Kids: Dealing with Failure
Tags: 523(a)(6): Willful & Malicious Injuries, Adversary Proceedings, Chapter 7, Discharge of Debts