Cleveland For Congress
Cleveland For Congress

Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Idaho Supreme Court Denies Appeal of Mother Claiming Violation of Civil Rights in CPS Case

By • September 6, 2023

An Idaho mother’s appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court regarding her claim of civil rights violations by doctors, a social worker, a police detective, a county prosecutor, and Child Protective Services has been denied today.

Kristine McCreery was separated from her (then) 15-year-old son in 2019 after a hospital stay in Boise led to a CPS investigation in which the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare determined the state should remove the boy to foster care. He was held in state custody for 15 months.

Idaho Dispatch reported on the details of the boy’s illness, his treatment at St. Alphonsus hospital and St. Luke’s hospital, the filing of a report of suspected abuse and neglect by Drs. Jennifer King and Amy Barton, the CPS investigation, and the CPS action being initiated in family court. You can find the story here: Mother Who Claims Doctors and CPS Violated Her Civil Rights to Be Heard Tomorrow In Idaho Supreme Court – Idaho Dispatch

The District Court’s summary explanation of the case was,

“McCreery filed a complaint against the two physicians who reported the alleged abuse, the detective who investigated the reports, the deputy prosecutor who filed the CPS action, and an Idaho Department of Health and Welfare social worker who submitted an investigatory report and testified in the CPA case, alleging they violated her constitutional rights and Idaho’s false reporting statutes when they took actions to separate her from [her son.] The district court dismissed all of McCreery’s claims with prejudice after finding that the Respondents were immune from liability and that the allegations in McCreery’s complaint failed to state any valid claim upon which relief could be granted.”

McCreery appealed the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. The summary statement released by the Court today explaining the decision to deny her appeal and affirm the District Court judgment explains,

“…the allegations in McCreery’s third amended complaint failed to state a valid claim upon which relief could be granted. McCreery filed a motion to amend her complaint to add new causes of action against the Respondents, which the district court denied. On appeal to this Court, McCreery challenged the district court’s dismissal of her claims relying exclusively on the proposed fourth amended complaint. However, in doing so, McCreery failed to argue the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend. The Idaho Supreme Court held that McCreery’s sole reliance on facts and allegations in the fourth amended complaint operated as a complete waiver of review of the trial court’s dismissal of her third amended complaint.”

Summary Statement

Chief Justice Bevan explains the Court upheld the District Court’s decision because of errors by McCreery in presenting the arguments properly through multiple amended complaints.

“Although McCreery would have to argue the viability of any new allegations in the fourth amended complaint to argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend, she failed to follow this procedure. Instead, McCreery focuses on the facts and causes of action alleged in the fourth amended complaint as if the motion to amend had been granted and the complaint actually filed, claiming it is the operative document for this Court’s review on appeal. McCreery’s reliance on allegations presented in her fourth amended complaint, while disputing the district court’s dismissal of claims raised in her third amended complaint, complicates this Court’s ability to resolve what arguments have been preserved for review and is a fatal defect.

For example, at several points on appeal McCreery alleges that Dr. King acted under color of state law because she is a CARES investigator:

• Dr. King is “a physician in Ada County who treated B.M., acting under color of state law as a “Children at Risk Evaluation Services” (CARES) investigator)”;
• “Dr. King[’s] and Dr. Barton’s involvement as CARES evaluation [sic] with immediate consequences, i.e. being separated from her son and the seizure of medical information by law enforcement officers without a warrant.”

However, the allegation that Dr. King was “acting under color of state law” in her capacity as a CARES worker is notably absent from the third amended complaint. McCreery’s third amended complaint acknowledged that Dr. King saw B.M. at Saint Alphonsus, not St. Luke’s, and that Dr. King is not a CARES worker.”

Bevan continues to explain in the Court’s analysis of the appeal,

“McCreery may not merge the allegations and argument of two distinct and separate motions on appeal. If McCreery intended to utilize the allegations raised in the fourth amended complaint, she was obligated to analyze whether the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to amend. She has not done so. “Failing to demonstrate that an abuse of discretion occurred under any part of the test . . . is fatal to [an] argument that the [trial] court abused its discretion.” Gilbert v. Radnovich, 171 Idaho 566, 524 P.3d 397, 413 (2023) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 167 Idaho 568, 584, 473 P.3d 837, 853 (2020)). Other than identifying that Rule 15 motions to amend are reviewed for an abuse of discretion in her standard of review, McCreery does not attempt to argue that the district court abused its discretion.”

The issues of alleged civil rights violations and the District Court’s decision that the Respondents are immune from liability went unaddressed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The entire opinion can be viewed here:

Published Opinion (1)

Idaho Dispatch asked McCreery for her response to today’s Court opinion. She declined to comment on the matter at this time.

Amazon Outlet

Tags: Abuse, Amy Barton, Child Protective Services, CPS, Erin Pon, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Idaho Supreme Court, IDHW, ISC, Jennifer King, Kristine McCreery, Medical Neglect, Neglect, Shari Dodge, St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, St. Lukes, Teresa Torres

13 thoughts on “Idaho Supreme Court Denies Appeal of Mother Claiming Violation of Civil Rights in CPS Case

  1. Unfortunately, the legal system is made up of lawyers. They will find a way to discredit you. They will be able to work the system to discredit you and what you do within the system will be discredited. This is how they continue to violate our rights. The facts are CPS takes children out of homes, and in most of the cases, the majority of the cases the child is not better off the statistics prove over 70% of children are worse off from the studies I’ve read, they also lose so many children. CPS also has managed to let many children in their care become victims of sexual abuse on many levels. The evidence shows that even in a home that is not ideal. The child will be better off with their parents, then in the care of CPS , but this is a money making industry tens of thousands of dollars are made by different entities each time a child is taken by CPS and put into the system. It also has been used as a political weapon in my opinion just look at the case with baby Cyrus here in Idaho , I don’t know what the solution is, but I can sure see and talk about what the problem is too much power to much control in the weaponization of our judicial system for financial gain.

    1. The solution is: Idaho needs to pass laws forbidding children from being taked into government custody except for a few days until there could be an open court hearing, before a jury (if requested by the family). If family members, or relatives, could be found that would safely take care of the child until the open court hearing, then that is where the child would go until the court date. The child custody hearings would have top priority of all court cases for speediness. This would mean CPS would lose power or maybe go out of existence. Will Idaho do anything about this? Probably not, with Governor Little and big chicken legislators in power. Our courts and attorneys are corrupt in my opinion.

  2. Idaho agencies failed this mother, got caught doing so, and now Idaho courts help provide cover for agencies by finding a procedural error in the case. Appeal to the Supreme Court, Christine. Idaho must be held accountable for their egregious and out-of-control agency overreach. CPS must be held accountable for forcibly removing your child from you, an innocent mother. St Luke’s cannot continue to help CPS prey upon innocent victims admitted to their institution. This is not healthcare, nor is it in the best interest of the patient and families.

  3. I do not know about this situation, however after reading this story, it left me with the question: Would I ever take my child (mine are all grown and gone) to any hospital? Sounds like they can arbitrarily accuse anyone for abuse and then place your child in foster care.

  4. So a mother has her son arbitrarily taken away for over a year and the Courts decline the case because of legalese. A travesty at a minimum.

    If I’m not mistaken, these are the same doctors from the Baby Cyrus fiasco…

  5. Since her appeal was denied based on not following proper procedure in her filings, it seems as though responsibility falls on her own attorneys for the denial. They should know how to properly file appeals and documents.

  6. The usual court games. They stack the court against the people. The game is not in our favor and the odds are set against us. The court and it’s operatives are allowed all the procedural errors they want, even to the point of ignoring or breaking the law (as with the Bundy civil case) but if the opposing side misses crossing a T or dotting an I, then the whole thing is thrown out. I think the whole court system should be thrown out but that would interfere with the money flow from unlawful incarceration that the governors cartel depends on.

  7. Any plaintiff abused by “the system” and it’s agents “immune from prosecution” must read the book, “Unknown Predator” by Dru Kristenov. The ending chapters show the process in detail. They are not immune… The book is available on Amazon.

  8. Seems to me that judges in Idaho are not only RINOs but authoritarians. Republicans are the worst party because they lile to your face as they strip you of your God given rights that are no longer protected by the relic of a Constitution the courts despise the people ignore at their peril. Justice is not found in admiralty courts of law; do not submit to their jurisdiction.

  9. Ask yourself why you are surprised. Judges and Lawyers go to school together, socialize together and play games together, and quite often use the United States and/or Idaho Constitutions as their personal toilet paper.

    Due process and fair access to justice. Think again. Most of the time it is denied due process and the just-us system, and the “us” is not the people paying the bills. Pray that common sense and justice invades the judiciaries at all levels.

    But, with many RINO plants wearing black robes appointed with no election or vetting, the people are left in the dark until they come into the dank halls of the courts. I pray soon that this mother and her family are reunited and fight together.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *