Beyond The Horizon
Sandra Birchmore's Story: A Decade Of Abuse And A Quest for Accountability (Part 2) (7/1/24)
Sandra Birchmore was a young woman from Stoughton, Massachusetts, who was reportedly groomed and sexually abused by three former police officers from her teenage years until her death in 2021. The alleged abuse began when she was 15 and continued for nearly a decade. Birchmore's family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against these officers, the Stoughton Police Department, and the town, accusing them of a scheme of grooming and repeated sexual assaults. The lawsuit claims that one of the officers, Matthew Farwell, was the last person to see her alive and is believed to be the father of her unborn child.
In this episode, we begin our deep dive into her tragic story.
(commercial at 10:36)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Massachusetts Superior Courts Judge Brian A. Davis' Amended Decision and Order Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Norfolk County, 2282CV01197) - DocumentCloud
- Duration:
- 15m
- Broadcast on:
- 01 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's up everyone and welcome back to the program, in this episode we're getting right back to the Sandra Burchmore court documents, and we're picking up where we left off, and that's with the discussion. One, applicable legal standard. The standard for resolving a motion to dismiss file pursuant to Massarsiv P12B6 is well settled. In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a party's pleading must include factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Based on the assumption that all the allegations in the pleading are true, even if doubtful in fact, Eniako versus Ford Motor Company, 451, Mass 623, 636, 2008. In Aquino, eternal quotation marks and citations emitted. The information the court may consider in evaluating a Rule 12B6 motion generally is limited to the allegations in the complaint, although matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to the complaint also may be taken into account. Sheriff versus Brandeis University 432, Mass 474, 477, 2000, internal quotation marks and citation omitted. The court also must take as true such inferences that may be drawn from the allegations of the claim or counterclaim in the claim in favor, Nader versus Citron 372, Mass 96, 98, 1977. Having in mind the foregoing standard, the court addresses below the legal viability of each of the claims challenged by defendants to count one alleging wrongful death against defendants W. Farwell, divine and heel, count one of plaintiff's amended complaint alleges in relevant part that defendants W. Farwell divine and heel, along with defendant M. Farwell, wrongfully caused Ms. Burchmore's death by engaging in a continuous pattern of grooming and abusive behavior over many years that ultimately overcame Ms. Burchmore's will to live and resulted in her alleged suicide, amended complaint at 21. The Mass Wrongful Death Act, an individual is liable for wrongful death, where his or her negligence or willful, wanton or reckless actions cause the death of another person. C. G. L. C. 229, Section 2. In addition to wrongfulness, it must be shown that the defendant's conduct was a but for cause or plaintiff's injury and that the defendant's conduct was a substantial legal factor in bringing about the alleged harm to the plaintiff. Davis, First United States 670, F.3D, 4853, First Circuit 2012. In moving to dismiss plaintiff's wrongful death claim, W. Farwell, contends that plaintiff has failed to put forward factual allegations that plausibly suggest he owed Ms. Burchmore any duty or that established the requisite causation. Defendant Divine similarly contends that the amended complaint fails to allege sufficiently specific facts to support plaintiff's wrongful death claim. These arguments are unavailing. Plaintive has explicitly alleged in her amended complaint that W. Farwell and Divine use their official positions as police officers involved with the explorer's program to engage in inappropriate behaviors with minors during the program and with Ms. Burchmore while on duty, amended complaint 14. The I.A. report, which is incorporated by reference into the amended complaint, further states that W. Farwell and Divine were observed engaging in an inappropriate physical contact with Ms. Burchmore when she participated in the explorer's program as a minor. I.A. report at 26. The court reads these allegations taken together to plausibly suggest that both W. Farwell and Divine, through their involvement in the explorer's program, had a sufficiently special relationship with Ms. Burchmore to give rise to a duty of care to protect her from foreseeable harm, including defendant's own misconduct. C. Brown vs. Knight, 362, Mass, 350, 352, 1972. Individuals paid to take control or custody of a child have a duty to protect child from foreseeable harm. C. also, Quinn vs. MIT, 479, Mass, 436, 448, and 449, 2018. We have recognized that special relationships may arise in certain circumstances in posing affirmative duties of reasonable care. C.F., Alter, for a city of Newton, 35, Mass appeals court, 142, 145, 1993. Because of the relationship between a school and its students, the city had a duty of care to the plaintiff to provide her with reasonably safe school premises. As previously noted, plaintiff's amended complaint also alleges, consistent with the I.A. report that W. Farwell and Divine's continuous pattern of grooming and abusive behavior ultimately overcame as Burchmore's will to live and resulted in her alleged suicide, amended complaint at 21. Fairly read, these additional allegations plausibly suggest that W. Farwell and Divine's conduct was the cause of the decidence uncontrollable suicidal impulse, which is a recognized basis for permitting recovery under negligence principles for a person suicide. C. Nelson vs. Mass Port Authority, 55, Mass appeals court, 433, 435, 2002, Nelson. For these reasons, W. Farwell and Divine's motions to dismiss plaintiff's claim for wrongful death must be denied. The outcome is different, however, with respect to defending heel. Unlike W. Farwell and Divine, heel was an animal control officer who, by plaintiff's own admission at oral argument, had no involvement with the Stout and P.D.'s explorer's program, and whose only alleged misdeed was having consensual sex with Miss Burchmore on one occasion when she was an adult. A sexual or romantic relationship between two people is not by itself sufficient to create a special relationship that imposes a duty of care on the part of one partner to protect the other partner from foreseeable harm. C.E.G. DeCambra vs. Carson, 953, A2D 1163, 1166, 2008. No fiduciary duty or special relationship existed between girlfriend and her live-in boyfriend who was killed by girlfriend's ex-boyfriend at girlfriend's home so as to give rise to a duty on the part of the girlfriend to prevent harm. Thus, defendant heel differs from the other individual defendants in that he had no legal duty to protect Miss Burchmore from foreseeable harm, including any harm she might inflict upon herself. Accordingly, heel's motion to dismiss, plaintiff's wrongful death claim against him must be allowed. C.E.G. Coughlin vs. Titus and Bean Graphics Incorporated, 54 Mass, Appeals Court, 633, 641, 2002. Coughlin, plaintiff, wrongful death, and negligence claims properly dismissed on a summary judgment where, as a matter of law, the defendant owe the victim no legal duty. 3. Count 2. Alleging negligent failure to protect Miss Burchmore on the part of defendant W Farwell divine and heel. Count 2, a plaintiff, cemented complaint. Alleges an relevant part that defendants W Farwell divine and heel, along with defendant M Farwell, negligently felled in their duty to protect Miss Burchmore by undertaking inappropriate actions against Miss Burchmore over the course of several years. Amended complaint 25. The reasoning set forth above with respect to plaintiff's wrongful death claim against defendants W Farwell divine and heel applies with equal force to this negligence claim. Specifically, the allegations of plaintiffs amended complaint plausibly suggests that defendants W Farwell and divine acting in their roles as police officers and participants in the Stoutant PDs Explorer program had a duty to protect Miss Burchmore from foreseeable harm and that their repeated breach of that duty over a period of years ultimately caused Miss Burchmore's alleged suicide. Thus dismissal of plaintiff's negligence claim against W Farwell and divine is not warranted. C Brown 362, Mass at 352, Nelson 55 Mass appeals court at 435. Conversely, because defendant heel had no legal duty to protect Miss Burchmore from harm, plaintiff's negligence claim against heel must be dismissed. C Coughlin 54, Mass appeals court at 641. 4. Count 3, alleging negligent failure to protect Miss Burchmore on the part of defendant divine. Count 3, a plaintiff's amended a complaint alleges and relevant part that defendant divine is head of the explorer's program breached his duty to Miss Burchmore by failing to protect her from the conduct of the Farwell's amended complaint at 31. Divine contends that count 3 must be dismissed because the amended complaint fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support this claim. The court disagrees. As previously mentioned, plaintiff's amended complaint incorporates the I.A. report by reference. The I.A. report contains first-hand information from at least one person who directly observed defendants, M Farwell, W Farwell, and divine engage in inappropriate physical contact, hugging, kissing, and unspecified inappropriate contact in a closet with minor girls in the explorer's program. I.A. report at 26. The I.A. report also contains information indicating that divine was aware of Miss Burchmore's pregnancy by M Farwell, idea 28. These facts in and of themselves are sufficient to support the plaintiff's claim that divine negligently failed in his duty to protect Miss Burchmore from sexual exploitation by defendants M Farwell and W Farwell. The court, as a result, will deny the motion by divine to dismiss count number 3. Number 5. Count 5 alleging negligent hiring by the town. Count 5 of plaintiff's amended complaint alleges in relevant part that the town was negligent in hiring defendant M Farwell and W Farwell to be members of the Stoutant PD amended complaint at 39. This claim is barred under section 10B of the Mass Towards Claim Act, GLC 258, section 1. MTCA, which precludes the imposition of civil liability on governmental entities and employees based on the exercise or performance of a discretionary function or duty. G L 258, section 10B. Massachusetts law is clear that in the task of selecting public employees of skill and integrity, appointing authorities are invested with broad discretion. Thus, the town's decision to hire M Farwell and W Farwell was the exercise of discretionary function of which the town cannot be held liable in tort. The court will allow the town's motion to dismiss count 4 as a result. 6. Count 5 alleging negligent supervision by the town. Count 5 of plaintiff's amended complaint alleges in relevant part that A through the explorer's program, the town provided M Farwell, W Farwell, and the Vine access to the highly vulnerable population of minors, including Ms. Burchmore. B, the town had a duty to protect these children from foreseeable harms, which would be inflicted or could be inflicted by its employees. And C, the town breached the duty by felling to protect Ms. Burchmore from the harm suffered over the duration of the explorer's program in thereafter, amended complaint at 44 and 46. The town contends that this claim is barred by section 10, J, of the MTCA, which precludes the imposition of civil liability on governmental entities and employees based on an act or failure to act to prevent or diminish the harmful consequences of a condition or situation, including the violent or tortious conduct of a third person, which is not originally caused by the public employer, or any other person acting on behalf of the public employer. G.L. 258, section 10, J. According to the town, its alleged negligent supervision of defendant M. Farwell, W. Farwell, and the Vine in their roles as police officers was not the original cause of Ms. Burchmore's alleged suicide, and no inference of causation can be drawn from plaintiff's amended complaint. The court disagrees. Section 10, J of the MTCA does not apply in the circumstances of this case because the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Ms. Burchmore's death was originally caused not by the tortious conduct of a third person, but by the town's own employees. It's alleged affirmative acts of M. Farwell, W. Farwell, and the Vine in grooming and sexually abusing Ms. Burchmore over a period of years that plaintiff claims ultimately overcame Ms. Burchmore's will to live and resulted in her alleged suicide, amended complaint 21. Such affirmative action by governmental personnel does not fall within the exception contained in section 10, J. See, several versus Franklin County, 47 Mass, appeals court 400, 405, 1999, reversing entry of summary judgment for defendant under MTCA on the basis that plaintiffs sought to hold the county liable not only for what its correctional officers failed to do, but what they did do. The court is also persuaded that the allegations of plaintiffs amended complaint, combined with the information contained in the I.A. report that the complaint incorporates by reference, provides facts sufficient to permit a jury to reasonably infer that the town actually was negligent in its supervision of M. Farwell, W. Farwell, and the Vine. In addition to evidence that these three defendants all openly engaged in inappropriate physical contact with young female participants in the explorer's program, I.A. report at 26. "Plaintiff also has come forward with evidence that other stout and PD personnel were aware prior to Ms. Burchmore's death that Ms. Burchmore was involved in an on-again off-again sexual relationship with M. Farwell. Viewing these facts and others in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court concludes that plaintiff has, at the very least, raised her negligent supervision claim above the speculative level. Accordingly, the court will deny the town's motion to dismiss count number five. All right, we're going to wrap up right here, and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up with count number six, alleging assault and battery of Ms. Burchmore by defendant W. Farwell, the Vine, and Heal. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.