Find Legal Information

Docket No. 93144-Agenda 31-September 2002.

SHANDOULIA WALLACE, Indiv. and as Adm'r of the Estate of 
Waketta Roy Wallace, Deceased, Appellant, v. JOHN P. SMYTH
et al., Appellees.

Opinion filed December 19, 2002.

JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:

The issue in this case is whether, in the wake of our decisionsto retain a limited form of parental immunity in Cates v. Cates,156 Ill. 2d 76 (1993), and to extend this immunity to foster parentsin Nichol v. Stass, 192 Ill. 2d 233 (2000), the defendants, aresidential child care facility and seven of its employees, enjoyeda similar immunity from the plaintiff's negligence claims after herson died in their care. We conclude that because the corporation-child relationship does not mirror the parent-child relationship, thedefendants do not have parental immunity. We reverse theappellate court and the circuit court, and we remand for furtherproceedings.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 1989, the Illinois Department of Children andFamily Services (DCFS) placed one of its wards, 12-year-oldWaketta Roy Wallace (Roy), at Maryville Academy (Maryville)for a 90-day diagnostic assessment regarding his future placement.Maryville is a not-for-profit corporation that operates a licensedresidential child care facility for state wards. In 1989, Maryvillecared for approximately 500 children.

A month later, on July 11, 1989, Roy reported to the office ofMaryville program manager Paul Voltz after school. Voltzconfronted Roy about sleeping in study hall. Roy made threateninggestures, and Voltz removed him to an adjacent hallway. Oncethere, Voltz summoned assistant program manager LauraAngelucci and family educator Jill Jacobe to assist him inrestraining Roy. Family educator Jim Geidner also participated fora short time until his shift ended, when he was replaced by familyeducator Xavier Collier. Eventually, after a struggle, Roy wasplaced on his stomach with his arms crossed in front of hisabdomen and his wrists held to the floor. The restraint continuedfor more than four hours and ended in Roy's death from positionalasphyxia.

Roy's mother, Shandoulia Wallace, filed a four-countcomplaint in the circuit court of Cook County against Maryville,its executive director Reverend John Smyth, Voltz, Angelucci,Collier, Geidner, Jacobe, and nurse Dee LeBel. Wallace allegedthat the defendants' negligence, and, alternatively, willful andwanton misconduct, proximately caused Roy's death. Thedefendants filed a motion to dismiss Wallace's negligence claims;they asserted the parental immunity doctrine shielded them fromliability. The trial court agreed and dismissed these claims, stating:"I am convinced from the cases that the defendants have tenderedto me, and from the arguments made, and everything that I knowabout the case that Maryville was acting de facto as loco parentisfor this child. *** I do not believe that Maryville can be suedunder theories of ordinary negligence." The case proceeded to trialon Wallace's willful and wanton misconduct claims. After a juryreturned a verdict for the defendants, Wallace appealed thedismissal of her negligence claims.

The appellate court reversed. Wallace v. Smyth, 301 Ill. App.3d 75 (1998). The court noted, "At common law, in loco parentisstatus belonged to persons who put themselves in a parent's shoesby assuming all parental obligations toward a child without goingthrough the formalities of legal adoption." Wallace, 301 Ill. App.3d at 80. After reviewing Wallace's negligence allegations, thecourt rejected the defendants' argument that Wallace concededthey stood in loco parentis by pleading that Maryville waslicenced by the state to house, care for, and educate children.Wallace, 301 Ill. App. 3d at 80. The court held that housing, caringfor, and educating a child do not confer in loco parentis status.Wallace, 301 Ill. App. 3d at 80. According to the appellate court,teachers are in loco parentis with regard to students under theSchool Code, but no statutory equivalent exists to insulate anentity like Maryville against allegations that it negligentlydisciplined a child. Wallace, 301 Ill. App. 3d at 80-81. Rather, inconjunction with Illinois' statutory scheme, DCFS bore ultimateresponsibility for traditional parental functions with regard to Roy.Wallace, 301 Ill. App. 3d at 81, citing 89 Ill. Adm. Code