Ammended Complaint 6/28/22

Case 5:21-cv-00283-gwc Document 65 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 61
o,'u ? *?[t'$/'Jrlouffitt
TINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
fIILEO
a6fl .&ffi e8 PH e et
oIsrnrJroBSEnuoNr
CLEftH
CAT}IY WELCH, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF G.W., R.H., T.W., T.F.,
EY ku
D.H., B.C., and A.L. by next friend Norma Labounty.
ffiFrlIY errffi
Plaintiffs, Docket No. 5:21-cv-283
v.
KENNETH SCHATZ, KAREN SHEA,
CINDY WOLCOTT, BRENDA GOOLEY,
JAY SIMONS, ARON STEWARD, MARCUS BUNNELL,
JOHN DUBUC, WLLIAM CATHCART,
BRYAN SCRUBB, KEVIN HATIN,
NICHOLAS WEINER, DAVID MARTINEZ,
CAROL RUGGLES, TIM PIETTE,
DEVIN ROCHON, AMELIA HARRIMAN,
EDWIN DALE, MELANIE D'AMICO,
ERIN LONGCHAMP, CHRISTOPHER HAMLIN,
and ANTHONY BRICE, all in their individual capacities.
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
INTRODUCTION
Between 2016 and2lz1,juveniles detained at the Woodside Juvenile

Rehabilitation Center in Essex, Vermont and the Middlesex Adolescent Center were
subjected to obscene abuse at the hands of state officials who were charged with their
care and supervision. On a regular basis, vulnerable children, some of whom had been
physically, mentally, andlor sexually abused by caregivers before they were taken into
state custody and sent to Woodside, were physically assaulted and sometimes stripped of
their clothing by Woodside staff members who demanded compliance with their orders.
Many times, these same children were then confined to isolation cells in Woodside's so-
called'North Unif'for days, weeks, and sometimes months at a time.
Complaints regarding this misconduct were investigated and substantiated by

JAR\/IS, MCAFITHI.'R state investigators who, by October 2018, informed state officials that the abuse violated
&WTLLTAMS
state regulations and had to stop. Despite these warnings, state officials in charge of
ATTORNEYIS AT IAIiI
Woodside disregarded the findings and continued to abuse and isolate vulnerable children
ST.ITIE2E-PARK PI.AZA
9E ST, PAI,'L STREET
through August 2019, when a federal court issued an injunction ordering ahaltto such
E O. EO(9(,2 practices.
BT.IFLINGTON.\,T
ou@.@oz
aOZi6Sa-94ti
Even though the court ordered a halt to the abusive tactics developed by Jay
Simons for use against Woodside detainees, the abuse of children by DCF staffmembers
then continued at a different facility in Middlesex, Vermont. An internal investigation
into the assault of one of these children in April 2020 revealed that WoodsideAvliddlesex
Adolescent Center Director Simons was actively "sabotaging" the implementation of a
different crisis management system in an effort to prove that 'lrhat they were doing
[before federal court intervention] was good."
This lawsuit is brought on behalf of seven young people who were abused by
DCF staff members at Woodside and the Middlesex Adolescent Center. Sadly, one of
these vulnerable victims, G.W., died of an accidental drug overdose in October 202l.Her
claim is being pursued by her estate, which was established for the sole purpose of
pursuing justice in her memory.
In addition, DCF sent two of these young people to an out-of-state facility in

Tennessee called Natchez Trace Youth Academy where they suffered physical and
emotional abuse by its staff members. Specific complaints about the mistreatment of one
of these boys in 2017 were disregarded by DCF employees months before DCF sent the
second boy to Natchez Trace where he suffered similar abuse.
PARTIES
l. Plaintiff Cathy Welch is a resident of Corinth, Vermont and was appointed

administrator of the Estate of G.W. by the Orange County Probate Court on
December 5,2021.
2. PlaintiffR.H. is over the age of 18 and, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
was a resident of Vermont.
3. PlaintiffT.W. is over the age of 18 and, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
4. Plaintiff T.F. is over the age of 18 and, at all times relevant to this Complaint, was
a resident of Vermont.
5. Plaintiff D.H. is over the age of 18 and, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
6. PlaintiffB.C. is over the age of 18 and, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
JARVTS, MCARTIITJR 7. Plaintiff A.L. is a minor who resided in Vermont at all times relevant to this
EWLLI,AMS
Complaint and his claims are brought on his behalf by his mother, Norma
ITTTOENEYIS AT IAIIV
Labounty.
SUITE 2E- PARK PI.AZA
95Sf, PAT,LSTREET
P O. BOX9{)2
BT'RLINGTON, \/T
o64oE.@02
aO2-654-9411
8. Defendant Kenneth Schatz was the Commissioner of Vsrmont's Deparfrnent for

Children and Families (DCF) at all times relevant to this Complaint.
9. Defendant Karen Shea was a Deputy Commissioner of Vermont's Department for

Children and Families at all times relevant to this Complaint.
10. Defendant Cindy Wolcott was a Deputy Commissioner of Vermont's Department

for Children and Families at all times relevant to this Complaint.
11. Defendant Brenda Gooley was the Director of Policy and Operations of
Vermont's Department for Children and Families at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
12. Defendant Jay Simons was the Director of the Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation
Center, Essex, Vsrmont at all times relevant to this Complaint.
13. Defendant Kevin Hatin was an Operations Supervisor at the Woodside Juvenile
Rehabilitation Center, Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to this Complaint.
14. Defendant Aron Steward was the Clinical Director at the Woodside Juvenile
15. Defendant Marcus Bunnell was an Operations Supervisor at the Woodside

Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
16. Defendant John Dubuc was an Operations Supervisor at the Woodside Juvenile
17. Defendant William Cathcart was a staff member and assistant directorat the
Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to
this Complaint.
18. Defendant Bryan Scrubb was a staff member and clinician at the Woodside
Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
19. Defendant Nicholas Weiner was a staff member at the Woodside Juvenile
20. Defendant David Martinez was a staff member at the Woodside Juvenile
JAIIV|S, McARTril.rR Rehabilitation Center, Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to this Complaint.
EWIIJIAMS
ATTORNEIEAT tA!'Y
21. Defendant Carol Ruggles was a staff member at the Woodside Juvenile
ST.IITE 2E-PARKPT.AZA
95 Sf, PAT'LSTREET
Rehabilitation Centeq Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to this Complaint.
Il o. Boxgoa
BURUNG'TON.\,T
w@.(,g'tv,
a0H5a-94tt
22.Defendant Tim Piette was a staff member at the Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation
Center, Essex, Vermont at all times relevant to this Complaint.
23. Defendant Devin Rochon was a staff menrber at the Woodside Juvenile
24.Defendant Amelia Harriman was employed by DCF at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
25. Defendant Melanie D'Amico was employed by DCF as residential services

manager at all times relevant to this Complaint.
26. Defendant Edwin Dale was employed by DCF at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
2T.Defendant Erin Longchamp was employed by DCF at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
28. Defendant Christopher Hamlin was employed by DCF at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
29. Defendant Anthony Brice was employed by DCF at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
30. DCF is the Vermont state agency that is responsible for making sure children and
youth are safe from abuse, have their basic needs met, and live in safe, supportive,
and healthy environments. 1
31. Because children detained at Woodside were in the custody of DCF, all of these
defendants had a'ospecial relationship" with G.W., R.H., T.W., B.C., T.F., A.L.,
and D.H.
32. Because of the defendants' "special relationship" with their wards held at
Woodside, each of them had a constitutional duty enforceable through the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to
protect G.W., R.H., T.W., B.C., T.F., A.L., and D.H. from harm, including
physical abuse, excessive force, and solitary confinement in the North Unit.
33. Defendants Schatz, Shea" Wolcott, Gooley, Simons, Steward, Bunnell, Dubuc,
Cathcart, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martrnez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale,
D'Amico, Hamlin, and Brice either directly participated in the physical abuse of
JARVTS, MCARTIil,,R
G.W., R.H., T.W., B.C., T.F., A.L., and D.H. and the use of solitary confinement,
&wLllAMs
and/or failed to fulfill their constitutional obligation to protect G.W., R.H., T.W.,
ATTORI\IEYs AT IAViI
B.C., T.F., A.L., and D.H. from these abusive and reprehensible practices.
STJITE 2E- PARI( PI.AZA
95Sf, PAT,LSTREET
P (,. BOXq)2
l,See DCF.vermont. gov/protection/services.
BUNLINGTON,\/T
ov@,.ow
a0H5{l-€411
34.In addition, because Defendants Scha2, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, Dale, and
Longchamp ignored repeated warnings about the unsafe conditions at the Natchez
Trace Youth Academy and transferred R.H. and D.H. to that facility where they
were subjected to unspeakable physical and mental abuse, those defendants failed
to fulfill their constitutional obligation to protect R.H. and D.H. from the
foreseeable mental and physical harm that befell them after those boys were
dispatched to Natchez Trace.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
35. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1331, as
it presents a federal question, and 28 U.S.C. $13a3(aX3).
36. The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1367.
37. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1391(b), as this is the judicial district in
which the events related to this Complaint occurred.
CONDITIONS AT WOODSIDE
38. DCF's Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center was defined as follows: It "shall
be operated by the Department for Children and Families as a residential
treatment facility that provides in-patient psychiatric, mental health, and
substance abuse services in a secure setting for adolescents who have been
adjudicated or charged with delinquency or criminal acl.." 33 V.S.A. $ 5801(a).
39. Juveniles detained at Woodside were informed that they would be "treated in an
appropriate way'' and that Woodside is 'lyiolence free - free of fighting, slapping,
hitting, or physical contact in any way."
40. Juveniles detained at Woodside were further informed that they had a right to (a)
a "humane and safe environment;" (b) "lf]reedom from abuse, neglect, retaliation
("pay-back"), humiliation, harassment, and exploitationr" and that "Woodside
prohibits all cruel, severe, unusual, and unnecessary physical intervention and
seclusion," and that physical reshaints and seclusion would only be used as a "last
resort."
41. From the outside, Woodside resembled an adult prison and had three living units,
JARVIS, MCARTHTJR
East, West, and North. The main units, East and West, housed between 13 and 15
&I'9IIJ-IAMs
residents each. These units contained oodry rooms" or cells that lack plumbing.
ATTOFIIEYSATIAW
STJITE 2E- PARK PL'I,ZA
Woodside detainees assigned to the East and West Units were locked in their
Il o. BCrx 902 rooms at night and at designated times during the day. During the day, detainees
BURLINGTON,VT
M@rW
aO2:658-9411
in the East and West Units were allowed to congregate in large communal"day
rooms" for group activities.
42. Woodside's'North Unit" contained three oowet rooms" or cells that had a sink and
a toilet. The'\ret rooms" eliminated the need to let a detainee held in one oithese
isolation cells out to use the bathroom. The North Unit also contained a padded
o'safe
room" that was typically used for seclusion and a small windowless "day
room" containing a shower and a table. Woodside staffmembers performed strip
searches of detainees in the North Unit's "day room."
43. Woodside detainees who engaged in disruptive, aggressive, or self-harming

behaviors would be confined to North Unit for days or weeks without access to
education, recreation, or regular programming. Sometimes, detainees isolated in
the North Unit would not be permitted to leave their cell to access the day room or
shower.
44. Woodside detainees confined in the North Unit were not allowed to flush their
toilets and had to ask staff to flush away their waste. Detainees would sometimes
have to sit with unflushed human waste for significant periods of time.
45. Woodside detainees confined to the North Unit had an earlier bedtime than
detainees held in the East or West Units and could not choose their own food.
North Unit's detainees thus had to eat whatever staffmembers delivered to the
isolation cells.
46.\n some situations, Woodside detainees held in the North Unit were not allowed
to have any possessions in their isolation cells, including a mattress, bedding,
books, or a paper or pencil.
47. On occasion, Woodside detainees held in the North Unit had their clothing cut off
or otherwise rsmoved and were left in isolation cells wearing nothing but their
underwear or paper gowns. Sometimes children were left nude or without clothing
from the waist down. For example, G.W. was held naked overnight on more than
one occasion and B.C. was naked from the waist down for two full days.
48. After he was named Woodside's director in2[1, Defendant Simons inhoduced a
use-of-force system he called'oDangerous Behavior Control Tactics," (DBCT)
that had been used in adult prison facilities where he had been a use-of-force
instructor for the Department of Corrections.
49. Under the direction of Defendant Simons, Woodside staff members, including
J,IIR\/Is. MCARTHI,'R
Defendants Cathcart, Hatin, Piette, Bunnell, Dubuc, Brice, Weiner, Martinez, and
& II'ILLIAMS
Rochon, would apply rotational pressure to a juvenile's joints, including wrists,
ATTOFNEYSATIAU'
shoulders, and knees, and hyperextend shoulder and rotator cuff muscle groups.
ST'ITE 2E - PARK PT-'I,ZA
95 Sl: PAT.ILSTREET
Il o. Ectx 902
BURLINGiTON, VT
avoz-Mtz
aoiHSa-€4tl
50. The use of Simons' techniques somstimes caused excruciating pain and could
lead to swelling and the possibility of limited range of motion.
51. The pain compliance techniques employed at Woodside are contrary to national
standards and Vermont law that prohibits the use of "pain inducement to obtain
compliance" and "hytrlerextension ofjoints." VT ADC 12-3-508: 600 (648).
52.In October 2016, an attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender registered a
complaint with Defendant Dale about the placement of Woodside detainees in
oofor
isolation cells weeks on end - the isolation is bad for their mental health."
53. Defendant Dale forwarded the Juvenile Defender's complaint to Defendants

Simons and Steward.
54. On December 2,2A16, the attomey from the Office of the Juvenile Defender
participated in a meeting to discuss the conditions of confinement in the North
Unit with Defendants Simons and Shea.
55. Defendant Simons made an audio recording of that meeting and a transcript of the
meeting has been prepared.
56. The meeting focused on the conditions of G.W.'s confinement in the North Unit
(then known as the ICU), who was 13 years old at the time.
57.T\e attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender described in detail what
was happening with her client, G.W., while G.W. was held in isolation.
58. The cell G.W. was held in was filthy, the toilet did not flush, and people entering
the room had to mask the odor by using Vick's VapoRub.
59. G.W. had gained so much weight that the attorney noticed stretch marks on
G.W.'s skin.
60. The attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender explained that such
dramatic weight gain might have serious medical consequences, particularly since
G.W. was prescribed anti-psychotic drugs.
61. G.W. had limited access to clothing and her hygiene was so poor that she smelled
badly during a recent court appearance.
62. G.W. was not allowed to go outside to exercise, something that would have
JAR\/IS, MCARTHT,,R
seriously impact a child who grew up in the country and was used to spending lots
&WILLTAMS
of time outdoors.
ATTORNEYSATIAW
Sr,lTE 2E- PARK PI.AZA
95 SN PATJLSTREET 63. In addition, G.W. was not being provided with appropriate educational services.
It o. Box*rz
BI'RLINGTON, \,T
ovelwz
aobes€-*,4Tt
64. G.W.'s attorney was particularly concerned ooabout the psychological efflect of not
having any clothes and of being - being naked all the time in front of male staff."
65. G.W.'s attorney, who formally worked at DCF as a child abuse investigator,
continued: "I think if we had a situation, agatn, to analogize to if this was
apparent (sic) doing this to their child to control the child's mental health issues
and this was not a facility doing this stuff, we would look at this as abuse. We
would look at it in a very different way that we look at it here."
66. Defendant Shea agreed to look into the attorney's complaints and get back to her
because ool know that there are other forums where this is being discussed."
67 . h a letter dated December 2,2016, Defendant Shea dismissed these complaints

and suggested that G.W. needed to be held in solitary confinement for her own
good.
68. Since this letter is dated the same day as G.W.'s attorney registered her
complaints about G.W.'s conditions of confinement at Woodside, it is highly
unlikely that Defendant Shea conducted an investigation into the specific
allegations of potential child abuse brought to her attention earlier in the day.
69. When the Office of the Juvenile Defender registered complaints about the
conditions of confinement at Woodside, Woodside officials, including Defendants
Simons, Steward, and Bunnell, retaliated against the juveniles on whose behalf
the complaints had been made, interfered with their right to counsel, and
pressured R.H. and T.F. to sign notes to their attomeys indicating that they should
withdraw motions for a protective orders filed in the Vermont Superior Court,
Family Division.
70. No later than August 2A18, DCF managsment officials, including Defendants
Schatz, Shea, D'Amico, and Gooley, were aware of the conditions of confinement
in Woodside's North Unit and the physical abuse of Woodside residents for a
number of reasons.2
71. Between May 2018 and July 2A19, the Defender General's Office of the Juvenile
Defender filed a series of motions in Vermont's family courts requesting orders
prohibiting Woodside staff from using excessive restraints and pain compliance
techniques against Woodside detainees and housing detainees in the North Unit's
isolation cells.
JARvlS, McARTril,rR 2 In July 2018, R.H. asked the Vermont Superior Court to order Defendant Schatz to stop
6ivuLtlAMs
using painful restraints and isolation. G.W.'s attorney told Defendant Shea about the
ATTOMIET4S AT IAVY
intolerable conditions in the North Unit in December 2016.ln August 2018, Defendant
SI'TTE ?E- PARK PI.AZA
95Sf, PAI'I.STREET
D'Amico witnessed B.C. pant-less in her North Unit cell. ln December 2017, Defendant
P O. B(lx9()2 Gooley received a copy of Defendant Simons' denial of A.L.'s grievance that he had
B['RLINCTON.VT been subjected to solitary confinement in the North Unit.
@oa-opoz
a(nZ-66a-947\
72.1n May 2018, the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed a Motion for a Protective
Order in the Vermont Superior Court, Rutland Family Division, on behalf of
T.W., who was a Woodside detainee.
73.T\e Juvenile Defender's motion asked the court to ordsr oothe Commissioner of
the Department for Children and Families and his agents to stop restraining
[T.W.] unnecessarily and in violation of state regulations, stop using dangerous
restraint techniques designed to induce pain ..."
74.h On July 612018, the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed a Motion for a
Protective Order in the Vermont Superior Court, Franklin Family Division, on
behalf of R.H. who was a Woodside detainee.
75. The Juvenile Defender's motion asked the court to order'othe Commissioner of
the Department for Children and Families and his agents to stop subjecting [R.H.
to] unnecessary physical restraint, stop using dangerous restraint techniques
designed to induce pain, stop subjecting him to seclusion and solitary confinement
in violation of applicable state regulations..."
76.The complaint alleged that on April 17, z}lS,Defendants Simons, Cathcart, and
Martinez entered R.H.'s North Unit cell and proceeded to restrain him and strip
the room of all of his belongings, including his bedding.
77. On April 18, 2018, Defendants Dubuc, Martinez, Rochon, and Weiner entered
R.H.'s North Unit cell and proceeded to restrain him by pinning him face-down
on his bed, and used a cutting tool to cut his shirt off of his body.
78. On May 4,2018, Defendant Steward stood over R.H. as several large male
Woodside staffmembers pinned R.H. to the ground and warned R.H. that they
would take his cloths away if he could not be oosafe" with them.
79.T\e Complaint indicates that there is a video recording of this incident.
80. During the May 4,2018 restraint, Defendant Weiner "dug his finger into the
pressure point on [R.H.'s] jaw and applied pressure to [his] neck to cause him
Pain."
81. Although they were mandated by state law to report Defendant Weiner's abusive
conduct, Defendant Steward and others did not report what they had just
witnessed to the appropriate authorities.
JARVIS. MCARTIIL,R
82. Finally, the complaint alleged that R.H. had been subjected to extended periods of
CII^I|LLIAMS
solitary confinement in the North Unit and that on July 3, 2018, he was not
SUITE 2E- PARI( PI.'[ZA
allowed to speak with his attomey or meet with an expert hired by The Office of
95 SN, PAI'LSTREET the Juvenile Defender "to evaluate the impact of Woodside's excessive use of
P O. EOX902 restraint and seclusion with [R.H.]."
BT,RIINGToN,\/T
MO?-@2
aoffi5€.9477
83. On July 18, 2018, an attomey with the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed a
Second Motion for an Emergency Protective Order on behalf of R.H. in the
Vermont Superior Court, Franklin Family Division.
84. The second motion asked the court to issue an order requiring Defendant Schatz
ooand
his agents to stop subjecting him to unnecessary physical restraint, stop
using dangerous restraint techniques designed to induce pain, stop subjecting him
to seclusion and solitary confinement in violation of applicable state regulations
and stop subjecting him to forcible removal of his clothing during restraint.o'
85. The second motion alleged that since the first motion was filed, R.H. had, with a
few exceptions, not been permitted to leave the North Unit and that he was
oodepressed
as f---, because I'm in a f-:ing box."
86. R.H. also alleged that Defendant Steward was trying to talk to him about his July
6,2018 motion, telling him that "he was not going to get out of Woodside
because he is 'already in the long-term program."'
87. On August 22,2018, the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed a Motion for an
Emergency Protective Order in the Vermont Superior Court, Orleans Family
Division, on behalf of B.C., who was a Woodside detainee.
88. The motion indicated that B.C. oohas been restricted to the North Unit, deprived of
clothing, and permitted extremely limited access to possessions and stimulating
activities for four weeks as of this filing ... She is forced to shower naked in front
of staff, cannot wear clothing, and cannot have books, paper, or writing
implements."
89. The motion was accompanied from a licensed psychologist's affidavit stating that
"[m]aintaining [B.C.] in deprived conditions and not providing her with
appropriate treatment with accommodations is detrimental to [her] ability to
heal."
90. On April4, 2019, the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed a Complaint for
Emergency Injunctive Relief on behalf of Juvenile #1, N.B., who was a Woodside
detainee, against Defendant Schatz.'
91. The Complaint asked the court to issue an order requiring Woodside to
"immediately stop using the purposeful infliction of pain during restraints to
achieve compliance and immediately stop using prone positions."
JARVIS. MCARTHI,JR
92.Ttre Complaint alleged that N.B. had been subjected to "pain compliance"
6ivuLllAlt/ls;
techniques "on his legs, arms, shoulders, and wrists that caused significant pain
ATTORIUEY]SAT l.Allv
ST'ITE ZE-PARKPIJIiZA
and swelling of his joints due to hyperextension.o'
95 SI: IIAI'L STREET
B O. BOX9(r2
3 N.B. is not aparty to this
BURI.INGION.\,T action.
oue-w
a0H5a-9411 10
93. On March 23,2019, Juvenile #1 was locked in his cell in the North Unit and
subsequently subjected to a video-recorded physical restraint involving several
Woodside staff members.
94.T\e video shows the staff members forcing Juvenile #1 onto the floor of a
o'soothing
room," holding him in a prone position with his arms raised "straight up
in the air ... the staff members appear to be twisting [Juvenile #1's] arms,
particularly his right arm.
95. While this is happening, another staff member is "holding Juvenile #1's legs,
crossed at the ankles, bent at the knees, and is forcefully pushing his feet into his
buttocks."
96. During this restraint, which was ordered by Defendant Steward, 'Tuvenile #1 is
struggling and repeatedly telling staff they were hurting him."
97. An affidavit executed by Paul Capcara, R.N. accompanied the Complaint and
indicated that "the ordsr to physically restrain Juvenile #1 was unjustified and an
inappropriate response to suicidal ideation."
98. Relying on investigatory reports submitted to Defendant Schatz in October 2018

by DCF's Residential Licensing & Special Investigations Unit @LSU), the
Complaint alleged that four other Woodside detainees had been subjected to the
same painful techniques that RLSIU concluded had violated a regulation
prohibiting oocruel, severe, unusual or unnecessary practices."
99. The four other detainees whose abuse was investigated by RLSIU are Plaintifls
R.H., T.W., B.C., and T.F.
100. On June 20,2019, the Defender General's Office of the Juvenile Defender
filed Verified Motion for a Protective Order in the Vermont Superior Court,
a
Chittenden Family Division, on behalf of G.W.
101. The Juvenile Defender's verified motion indicated that her client, who was
a Woodside detainee, was subjected to excessive restraint and seclusion and the
forcible removal of her clothing, and was forced to remain naked in the presence
of a male staff member.
lO2. The Juvenile Defender's motion asked the court to order o'the
Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families and his agents from
confining [G.W.] in Woodside's segregation unit, subjecting her to excessive
JARVIS, MCARTHI,JR
restraint and seclusion, subjecting her to forcible removal of her clothing, forcing
&W|LLTAMS
her to remain naked in the presence of male staff..."
ATTORN*1sATlAUI
SI,ITE 2E- PAIIT( PLqZA
95 SN PAIJL STREET
103. The Juvenile Defender's verified motion included an affidavit executed by
P O. BO)(902 Paul Capcara, R.N., that reviewed Woodside's conditions of confinement,
BI,IRUNGTON,VT
M@4EOZ
aO2-654-9411 LL
describing in detail the use of pain compliance techniques and the oxcessive and
inappropriate use of solitary confinement, to the detriment of Woodside detainees
who were subject to these conditions of confinement.
104. Capcara's affidavit ended with this statsment: ool have repeatedly testified
about my concerns regarding the unusual and harmful practices at Woodside for
over a year. DCF's leadership has known about these dangerous conditions as the
result of my testimony and that of other expert witnesses, as well as their own
internal investigations. Despite this knowledge, the dangerous and harmful
practices persist."
105. on June 24,2019, the vermont Superior court held a hearing on G.w.'s
motion and heard the testimony of Dr. Christopher Bellonci.
106. Dr. Bellonci testified that "Woodside had placed [G.W.] at risk ofphysical
and psychological harm by repeatedly restraining her on the floor and shipping
her naked, subjecting her to dangerous and painful restraint techniques, and
involuntarily escorting her down a flight of stairs. Dr. Bellonci explained that the
involuntary removal of clothing and forced nudity are particularly damaging to
someone flike G.W.] who has been a victim of sexual assault."
107. Following this hearing, on June 28,2\l94,the Office of the Juvenile

Defender filed a Verified Motion for an Ex Parte Protective Order in the Vermont
Superior Court, Chiffenden Family Division, asking the court to issue an order
"restraining the Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families and
his agents continuing to confine [G.W.] at V/oodside and order the Commissioner
and his agents to transfer [G.W.] to a hospital immediately."
108. The motion indicated that on June26,2}l9, G.W.'s safety smock, along
with her blanket, were forcibly removed by Woodside staff members and that
Defendants Simons and Cathcafi "grappled with [G.W.] while she was naked and
a
Earlier that day, at 6:58 a.m., Defendants Dubuc and Martinez, alongwith two
unidentified men dress in Tyvex suits, entered G.W.'s cell as she was lying naked on the
floor. See Paragraphs i84-388 below.
Defendant Dubuc is wearing a blue shirt and shorts. Defendant Martinez is seen standing
next to Dubuc. The two men in the Tyvex suits then drag G.W., who is face down, along
the cell floor.
JARVTS, MCARTHUR
6iuILLIAMS
As G.W. screams, the two men in the Tyvex suits pull G.W.'s arms behind her back,
SUITE 2E-PAFK PI.AZA
while Defendant Dubuc stands over heinaked body. The men are then seen retreating
95 SN PATJL STREET
from the cell, leaving a still-screaming G.W. lying naked and alone on the floor as they
P O. BOX902 close the feces-smeared cell door behind them.
ou@-@@,
aufi5{H477 72
forced her back into her room." Shortly thereafter, Simons and Cathcart put their
hands on G.W., who was naked, and oo oescorted' her involuntarily to her room."
109. The following day, G.w. was "supposed to have a telephone interview
with Dr. Bellonci," but someone at woodside canceled the phone interview
without prior notice.
110. It was only after G.W.'s attorneys "reached out" to DCF's attorneys that
G.W. was able to speak with Dr. Bellonci.
111. During this call, G.W. revealed to Dr. Bellonci that a Woodside staff
member'had been making sexual comments while watching her urinate" and that
the staff member asked her "to do osexual things."'
Llz. After this call was completed, Woodside staff members removed her
safety blanket, o'leaving her naked."
113 . On June 27 , 2019 , four male Woodside staff members, including

Defendant Simons, "restrained her while she was naked" after forcibly entering
her cell.
ll4. Emails from Defendants Dubuc, Bunnell, andCathcartto Defendant Dale

confirmed that they were involved in the incidents on June 24,2019 and June 26,
2079 alleged in G.W.'s June 28,2019 motion.
115. ln addition to the actions filed in Vermont state courts, a series of

grievances were filed objecting to the conditions of confinement at Woodside.
116. On December 29,2A17, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile

Defender filed a grievance on behalf of A.L.
ll7. The grievance requested a prompt review of A.L.'s placement in solitary

confinement in the North Unit and immediate release from the North Unit.
118. ln a memo dated December 29,2017, Defendant Simons denied the

grievance. Copies of Simons'memo were sent to Defendants Shea and Gooley.
I19. On January 2,2A18, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile Defender
filed another grievance on behalf of A.L.
120. The grievance complained about the use of so-called "resets" that required
JARVIS. MCARTHI.JR
an offending detainee to be secluded in a locked room, and requested a cessation
&wlLLI,AIV[s
of the use of these ooresets."
ATTORNEY]SATIAW
SJITE 2E- PARKPIAZA
95sf,, PAULSTREET l2L On Decemb er 17 ,2017, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile
Il o. Bo(gr2 Defender filed a grievance on behalf of D.H.
BT'RLIN6IC'N,\,T
oyo"-o$z
a0H5a-92111 13
122. The grievance alleged improper placement of D.H. into solitary

confinement in the North Unit and that Defendants Simons and Cathcarthad
provided contradictory reasons for sending D.H. into the North Unit.
123. In addition, the grievance indicates that the attorney from the Office of the
Juvenile Defender asked Defendant Steward to reconsider her order sending D.H.
into solitary confinement because'oit was not in line with applicable policy" and
that Steward denied the request.
124. The grievance requested a prompt review of Defendants Simons' and

Steward's decision to send D.H. into solitary confinement in the North Unit and
immediate release from the North Unit.
I25. In a memo dated December 18,2017, Defendant Simons denied the

grievance.
126. On August 14,2017, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile Defender
filed a grievance with Defendant Simons on behalf of B.C.
127. B.C.'s grievance complained that B.C. suffered a sprained ankle while
being restrained by two male Woodside staff members on July 29,2017.
128. On August 17,2017, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile Defender
filed a second grievancewith Defendant Gooley on behalf of PlaintiffB.C.
129. The grievance indicated that because Defendant Simons improperly
restrained on August 13,2017, the attorney asked Defendant Gooley to review
both the original grievance related to the July 29,2A17 restrunt and the second
restraint involving Defendant Simons.
130. On May 5,2018, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile defender filed
a grievance on behalf of R.H.
I31 . The grievance complained about R.H.'s confinement in the North Unit and
Defendant Weiner's unlawful conduct during the May 4,2018 restraint as detailed
in the Complaint subsequently filed by the Office of the Juvenile Defender on
July 6, 2018.
132. R.H.'s grievance requested that Woodside immediately release him from
the North Unit, refrain from "forced stripping" or "otherwise using the cutting
tool to remove his clothing that he is wearing," and preserve video recordings of
the April 18,2018 incident.
JARVTS. MCARTHT,JR
6tWLLTAMS
133. Defendant Simons subsequently denied R.H.'s grievance.
ATTORIUEY1SAT
IiTJITE 2E-
TAtl,
PARK PI.AZA
134. On May 9,2018, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile defender filed
95 SN PAI'LSTREET an amended grievance and appeal on behalf of R.H.
P O. BOX902
BI,RLINGTON, VT
oB,to?.-@
a(,F65a-94t1 L4
135. R.H.'s amended grievance requested his immediate release from the North
Unit, the cessation of painful physical restraints, preservation of video recordings
of restraints used on R.H., and ooappropriate training and ongoing supervision to
the involved staff members, particularly where repeated grievances from multiple
sources have identified a pattern of concern with a staff member's conduct toward
residents."
136. R.H.'s amended grievance complained about an unnecessary and

inappropriate restraint on May 4,2018 during which Defendant Weiner applied
pressure to R.H.'s neck and dug his finger into a oopressure point" causing R.H. to
"experience signifi cant pain."
137. After the incident, R.H.'s attorney met privately with him and observed
that there were no personal possessions in R.H.'s cell and that his "toilet was also
clogged and was nearly overflowing with dirty brown wate,r."
138. The amended grievance indicated that R.H's conditions of confinement

were olrnsuitable for an animal" and that "[p]erhaps DCF can agree that thsre is
no justification sufficient to permit keeping a child in conditions that - if inflicted
upon an animal - would constitute 'cruelty' (i.e., depriving a youth of water,
confining him half-naked to a cold dark cell for four continuous days, forcing him
to live with raw sowage rendering his toilet unusable for half a day, or denying
him a shower and forcing him to sit with feces on his person and in his living
space)."
I39. DCF's Residential Licensing & Special lnvestigations Unit (RLSIU) was
responsible for conducting investigations into complaints related to the conditions
of confinement at Woodside.
L40. On October 23,2A18, DCF held a Woodside Stakeholder Meeting.

Defendant Schatz attended the meeting. The following day, the Juvenile Defender
sent Defendant Schatz a follow-up email detailing the deplorable conditions of
confinement.
141. Ln that email, the Juvenile Defender explained to Defendant Schatz that "I
have seen things at [Woodside] that if perpetrated by a parent, would have likely
resulted in substantiation, removal [of the child from the home], and c:riminal
prosecution. As a former DCF investrgator, it takes a lot to shock and dismay me.
I am shocked and dismayed at Woodside on a regular basis. Moreover, the lack of
accountability for staff who hurt residents and perpetrate a culture of silence in
the face ofresident mistreatment is deeply troubling."
JAFIVIS, MGARTFil,TR
&WILLIAMS
142. In October 2018, after RLSIU investigated complaints related to the
S;UITE 2E-PARKPI-AZA
treatment of R.H., T.W., T.F., and B.C. at Woodside, RLSru investigators filed
reports concluding that Woodside staff members violated Vsrmont law.
E O. BO(gr2
ou@-@
aoH5a-94tt 15
143. RLSIU investigated R.H.'s conditions of confinement at Woodside, the

use of painful physical restraints, and Defendant Steward's interference with his
right to counsel.
144. In particular, RLSIU concluded that Woodside's attempt to silence R.H.

violated Regulation 20I;the use of Defendant Simons' pain compliance
techniques violated Regulation 648; depriving detainees meals, wator, rest, or
opportunity for toileting violated Rule 648; the repeated use of physical restraints
without due cause violated Rule 651; the failure to constantly monitor detainees in
solitary confinement violated Rule 660; the failure to regularly flush the toilets in
North Unit's isolation cells violated Regulation 718; and the use of North Unit's
isolation rooms to seclude Woodside's detainees violated Regulation 718.
145. ln November 2018, after RLSru investigated a different complaint filed

by the Juvenile Defender on behalf of T.W., the investigators concluded that
Woodside staff members violated Vermont law.
146. In particular, based on this investigation, RLSIU concluded that

Woodside's use of Defendant Simons' pain compliance techniques violated
Regulation 648 and 650; Woodside's inappropriate use of restraints violated
Regulation 651; and Woodside's failure to monitor T.W. when she was placed in
a North Unit seclusion cell violated Regulation 660.
I47. Based on this investigation, RLSIU investigators informed the "Governing

Authority," i.e., DCF, that it had ooto provide RLSIU a plan to address the
identified areas of Non-Compliance and areas of Compliance, but with
Reservations, with the intent to come into full compliance [with Vermont's
Residential Treatment Program Regulations] by November 16,2018."
148. On August 31,2018, Paul Capcara filed a complaint with RLSIU

indicating that he had reviewed a video recording of staff members as they
physically restrained B.C. while placing her in the North Unit.
149. According to the complaint, the video showed the male staff members
who restrained the young woman, leaving her naked from the waist down in her
isolation cell.
I 50. A psychologist further reported that the detainee was not provided with
bedding or adequate clothing or coverage for her lower body for 48 hours.
151. RLSru investigators reported that they had reviewed three videos of the
JAFiI,IS, MCARTHT'R
incident. The investigators provided the following description of the third video:
6TVUILIJAMS
ATTORNEY]5 AT IA'IIV
SUITE ZE-PARI(PI.AZA
"[Defendant] Hatin debriefs with the camera and says 'Ok, per [Defendant]
95S[ PAI'LSTREET Steward and [Defendant] Simons, any loose clothing that has been ripped, based
P O. BOXgrz on [the detainee's] history we were directed to remove it from her room...' He
ouoz-ow
*NM477
talks to [the detainee] through the door and asks 'Are you going to hand it to me
or not?' fDefendant] Hatin waits 5 seconds (as counted on the video) and
responds, 'Wellwe'lItake that as a'ho".' Then fDefendant] Hatin and two othsr
male staff members enter the room and begin struggling to restrain [the detainee]
as she is screaming 'Don't touch me.' One male staffmember is at a tug of war
with [the detainee] for the ripped sweatpants. During this time, fthe detainee] is
being moved around on the floor with her buttocks and vulva exposed. [A youth
counselor] removes partial elastic from [the detainee's] upper torso with a cutting
tool. As the restraint is ending, [the detainee] is silent in the fetal position."
152. After completing the investigation into Capcara's complaint, RLSIU

investigators concluded that Woodside violated Regulation 201 when B.C. '\vas
left with the lower half of her body uncovered for two days. [B.C.] was not
provided a mattress, blanket or safety smock. [B.C.] was restrained and secluded
without appropriate therapeutic supports." Furthermore, there was oorro
justification for the removal of [B.C.'s] bedding and food. [B.C.] was left without
clothing for the lower half of her body for two days," in violation of Regulation
648.
153. The RLSIU investigators also concluded that Woodside was in violation
of Regulation 650 when staffmembers inappropriately restrained the female
detainee.
154. Based on this investigation, RLSIU investigators informed the "Governing

Authority," i.e., DCF, that DCF had to "provide RLSI a plan to address the
identified areas of Non-Compliance and Compliance, but with Reservations, with
the intent to come into fulI compliance [with Vermont's Residential Treatment
Program Regulationsl byNovember 16, 2018."
155. On July 5,2018, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed
a complaint in the Vermont Superior Court alleging that Defendants Bunnell and
Piette improperly restrained and injured T.F.
156. Subsequently, RLSIU investigated an incident that occurred on Jvne 27 ,

2018 during which Defendants Piette and Bunnell again restrained T.F. and
injured her.
157. In particular, based on this investigation, RLSIU concluded that Defendant

Bunnell's conduct violated Regulation 201 (A Residential Treatment Program
shall insure children/youth the following rights: To be free from harm by
caregivers or others, and from unnecessary or excessive use ofrestraint and
JARVIS, MCARTHUR
seclusion/isolation); Regulation 648 (prohibition of pain inducement techniques
&VUILLIAMS
and hyperextension ofjoints); and, Regulation 651 (restraint shall only be used as
ATTORNEYSATIAllI
$,IIE
last resort).
2E - PARK PLAZA
95 SI: PAIJLSTREET
P O. BOX902
M@-W,
aoH,EtE-947t T7
158. The report indicated that the restraint employed by Defendants Bunnell
and Piette oois dangerous and out of control. Staffare seen kneeling on [T.F.'s]
back, the position of her arms and wrists, twisted and lifted behind her back
appear inconsistent between the staff person on her left vs. her right side. Finally,
draggtng her by her feet, causing injury (multiple rug burns) is not in accordance
with Woodside's restraint training)."
159. Despite RLSIU's multiple findings that Woodside was mistreating

children detained atthat facility, DCF took no concrete steps to require Woodside
ooto
come into full compliance [with Vermont's Residential Treatment Program
Regulations]" and end the inappropriate use of physical restraints, the use of
Defendant Simons' pain compliance techniquos, or the inappropriate use of
solitary confinement.
160. ln fact, in response to RLSIU's detailed investigative reports, Defendants

Schatz and Shea refused to acknowledge that physical or emotional abuse of
Woodside detainees was an on-going problem atthat facility.
161. In a letter dated November 16,2018, Defendants Schatz and Shea made
the following commitments:
o 'oRetaliation is not acceptable and we do not believe that it is a pervasive issue

' at Woodside."
o ooTrauma
informed de-escalation strategies are an important component to the
program that hopefully will result in very few to zsro incidents of restraint and
seclusion. Woodside is examining and re-evaluating its current de-escalation
strategies as part of the review of restraint modality at Woodside."
r ooThe
use of emergency safety interventions is an areathatWoodside is
committed to continuously improve."
. "With respect to concerns regarding Woodside's use of the North Unit, we do
not have any specific corrective actions with respect to these observations
until we decide the future of Woodside and its role in the system of care."
162. Defendants Schatz and Shea then described why they disagreed with "a
number of individual findings and conclusions drawn from IRLSIU's detailed]
reports."
t63. Defendants Schatz and Shea did not specifically identifr what findings
they disagreed with but instead claimed that the unspecified findings resulted
from a number of factors, including "[i]nappropriate acceptance of allegations,"
"lack of details and input from all individuals involved," and oolack of
JARVTS. MCARTHI,,R
EUILLI,AMS
understanding or analysis related to the traumatic impact staff expeience from
these situations." (emphasis added).
SiulTE 2E-PAITK PLAZ/A
95 ST. PAI'L STHEET
Il o. BCX 9(tr1
ou@.-w
a&-6ffi4n 18
164. As a result of Defendants Schatz's and Shea's failure to fulfill their

statutory and constitutional obligations to protect the safety and welfare of
Woodside detainees seriously, the abuse of those children continued unabated.
165. Nothing demonstrates Defendant Schatz's, Shea's, Gooley's, and Simons'

deliberate indifference for the constitutional rights ofjuveniles detained at
Woodside more than a video recording of the shocking and inhumane treatment of
G.W. in July2019.
166. "This video was shot from the corridor outside a cell. It shows a horrific
incident involving a teenage girl about 16 years old. The girl is completely naked.
The girl is sheaked with excrement. She is agitated and has moments of angry
accusation followed by wild laughter. She is obviously in the middle of an acute
mental crisis. In the course of the video, she is moved a few feet from a cell or
anteroom into a white tiled space. The staff who moved her are dressed in'ltaz-
mat" suits and hoods. They are all men except for a woman who can be heard in
the background. They push a concave plastic shield against the girl's body and
push her from the anteroom into the tile space where the door is locked. A female
staff member can then be heard talking to the girl, who is occupied in pushing a
wire into her right forearm. The girl is asked why she is doing that. No one
intemrpts this action on the video. The treatment of this girl is entirely
inappropriate and demonstrates within a few minutes Woodside's limited ability
to care for a child who is experiencing symptoms of mental illness." Disability
Rights v. State of Vermont, 19-cv-106, Doc. 34,p.11.
167. An EMT who responded to a call from Woodside to check G.W. for a
possible concussion called DCF's child abuse hotline and reported that G.W. was
naked, covered in feces, urine, and menstural blood, and was nearing
hypothermia.
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
NATCHEZ TRACE JUVENILE ACADEMY
I 68. In a letter dated May 21,2075, the West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources notified Tom Hennessey, CEO ofNatchezTraceYouth
Academy, that the state had decided to suspend placement of West Virginia
children at that facility.
169. An investigation undertaken by the West Virginia Department of

Education indicated that the facility was loud and chaotic; the facility's direct care
staff was unprofessional; teachers were unprepared during instruction; West
JAR\/E, MCARTHI.'R Virginia's students did not feel safe at the facility; staff would take students away
& VUILL[AMS
from the view of cameras and beat them up; and cottages where students lived
ATTORI{EYSAT IAIIY
were dirty and in poor condition.
SI,TIE ZE- PARI( PL'I'ZA
95 SI: PAI,LSTREET
Il o. Box9()2
ov@-@
atH,aa-g4a7 19
170. Vermont children placed by DCF at Natchez Trace reported similar

problems at lhat facility.
17l. In July 2077,the Office of the Juvenile Defender informed Defendant Erin
Longchamp that D.H. was subjected to an off-camera restraint during which a
staffmember kicked him in the testicles, and that D.H. was repeatedly threatened
with physical harm.
172. In one instance, a staff member warned D.H that'oif you move, I'1l break
your neck."
173. D.H. reported that the place was filthy and was only cleaned up when
DCF staffers made scheduled visits to the facility.
174. In Septemb er 2017, the Offrce of the Juvenile Defender contacted

Defendant Melanie D'Amico, DCF's Residential Services Manager, and
explained in detail the conditions at Natchez Trace and the abuse of D.H. at that
facility.
175. Defendant D'Amico responded by telling the Office of the Juvenile

Defender that she was "worried that these overgeneralization [sic] you are making
are not helpful and undermine the good work the NatchezTrace progrilm is and
has done. Only positive experiences have been reported to me."
176. On or about 2017, the mother of a child placed at Natchez Trace by DCF
reported the abuse of her child at that facility to Defendants Schatz, Wolcott, and
D'Amico.
177. The mother apparently reported that a staff member atthat facility was
oochoking
kids out" and that her child had been subjected to physical abuse and
suflered injuries at the hands of staff members.
178. The mother reported this abuse to DCF, but DCF staffmembers did not
believe the complaints.
179. On June 12,2018, an attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender
met with Defendants Gooley, and D'Amico, along with others, to discuss the out-
of-state placement of children in DCF custody.
180. During the meeting, the practices of a for-profit company called Universal
Health Services (UHS) were discussed.
JAR\/IS, MCARTHI,,R
5l tvtLLtAMs
ATTORIIEYSATIAW
181. UHS owned and operated Natchez Trace Youth Academy.
2E- PARK PI.AZA
ST'TTE
95 Sl: PAT'LSTREET
182. Defendants Gooley and D'Amico were informed that children sent to a
P O. BOX9()2 UHS facility were expressing their concerns to their attorney at the Office of the
BURLINGTON, \/T Juvenile Defender about the "quality of care" they were receiving atthat facility.
o*@.w
AO2:65a-9411
183. According to the attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender, out-
of-state programs were blocking access to her clients sent to these facilities.
184. Defendants Gooley and D'Amico were informed that "[i]f the concern
comes from the youth, there is a tendency to dismiss the credibility of the youth.
There is concern that DCF is not the appropriate entity to address concems as
DCF is biased glven the need for placement."
185. DCF officials, including Defendants Schatz, Wolcott, Dale, Longchamp,

Gooley, Harriman, and D'Amico, apparently did not take these complaints
seriously and instead continued to place children in its custody, including R.H., at
Natchez Trace Juvenile Academy.
THE EFFECTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ON JUVENILES
186. Stuart Grassian, M.D. is a board-certified psychiatrist who has studied the
effects of solitary confinement on juveniles. Dr. Grassian's observations and
conclusions generally regarding this population and the psychiatric effects of
solitary confinement have been cited in a number of federal court decisions,
including Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F .2d 13 I 0 (7th Cir. I 988), Coleman v.
Wilson,912 F.Supp.1282 (E.D. Cal., 1995), affirmed sub. nom. Brownv. Platq,
131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011), Madridv. Gornez,889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal.1995),
and in opinions by Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Brennan in the United
States Supreme Court.
187. ln a report prepared for Plaintiffs' counsel in this case, Dr. Grassian made
the following observations:
188. Solitary confinement ofjuveniles causes far greater harm in juveniles than
in adults, and the risks of solitary confinement to juveniles are alarming.
Research on adolescent development makes clear why juvenile solitary
confinement is uniquely harmful.
189. New technologies in brain research have allowed us to recognize and

observe brain plasticity, that brain function and neural connectedness are still
evolving and developing during adolescence, especially so in regard to the
functioning of the prefrontal cortex - that part of the brain most centrally involved
in inhibiting emotional reactivity, allowing mastsry over the emotional reactivity
of the subcortical amygdala and nucleus accumbens - the brain's more primitive
emotional centers.
JAR\/TS, MCARTTTR
&WIIIIAMS
SI'ITE 2E- PARK PI.AZA

95 SX, PAI.,LSTREET
It o. BC,x902
BT.,RLINGII'N, \/T
os.oz-o'xtz
a02:688-9411 27
190. Brain research, both human and animal studies, has amassed a clear
picture of this processs and there is clear evidence that this process of brain
development can be derailed by stress.
191 . The effects of stress on adolescent brain development has been described
in detail,6 and there is by now a substantial body of research describing the severe
lasting effects of stress on the human brain, and the particular wlnerability of
juveniles to such effects.7
192. There has also been a large body of research using animal models,s
demonstrating long-term consequences of chronic unpredictable stress.
193. The research has demonstrated that the brain's reaction to stress, the surge
of cortisol (the stress hormone) modulated through the brain's hypothalamic-
pituitary-axis, is massively affected in adolescents who have experienced chronic
stress.
194. Research further dsmonstrates that acute stress impairs the juvenile's
ability to maintain goal-directed, as opposed to emotion-driven, behavior.e
Functional brain studies have provided evidence that while adults are able to
engage prefrontal cortical mechanisms to inhibit behavior that is likely to have
adverse consequences, adolescents areunableto do so.l0 These consequences-
including actual morphological changes in brain structure - have been
demonstrated to persist into adulthood.ll
s
See, e.g.: Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M., and Hare, T.A., (2008) The Adolescent Brain, Ann.
N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1124 lll-126; Ernst, M., Mueller, S.C. (2008) The adolescent brain:
Insightfromfunctional neuroimaging research. Dev. Neurobiol 68(6) 729-743.
6
See, e.g.: Tottenham, N., Galvan, A. (2016) Stress and the adolescent brain.
Amygdala-prefrontal cortex circuitry and ventral striaturn as developmental targets.
Neuroscience and Biob ehavioral Revi ew s 7 0 :217 -227 .
7
For a detailed discussion and bibliography, see, e.g. Bremner,J. (2006) Traumatic
Stress: fficts on the brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience; Vol. 8, No. 4,445-461
8
The harm caused animals by experimentation involving social isolation has in fact led to
restrictions of such experimentation by academic review boards. For example, Columbia
University has passed rules severely restricting the housing of experimental animals
alone in cages.
e
See, e.g.: Plessow, F. et.al. (2012) The stressed prefrontal cortex and goal-directed
behaviour; acute psychosocial stress irnpairs theflexible irnplementation of task goals.
Exp Brain Res 216:397-408.
JARVIS. MCARTHIJR
6i l/vtLIlAMs
to
rr, J., Galvan, A. (2016) Acute stress increases rislE behavior and dampens prefrontal
activation among adolescent boys. I. Neuroimage,
ATTORNEY1S AT T.'IW
http??dx. doi. org/ I 0. 1 0 1 6lj.neuroimge.20 1 6. 0 8.067
SJITE 2E-PARKPTSZA
rr See, e.g. Hollis, F.
95 SI: PAI'LSTREET et.al. (2012) The Consequences of adolescent chronic exposure to
P O. EO)(902 unpredictable stress exposure on brain and behavior. Jl. of Neuroscience,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.09.018; Tottenham, N, Galvan, A. (2016).
MOz.@&
A(,2-654-9411 22
195. The very act of placing a juvenile in isolation - the utter helplessness of it
- is enormously stressful. This surge of cortisol - of fear, anxiety, and agitation -
will be especially severe in juveniles.
196. The brain research has yielded very clear and consistent results: As noted
in an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court: "each key characteristic of
solitary confinement - lack of physical activity, meaningful interaction with other
people and the natural world, visual stimulation and touch - is by itself sufficient
to change the brain and to change it dramatically."r2 As brain researchers have
noted, especially in juveniles, factors like stress and depression can literally
shrivel areas of the brain, including the hippocampus, the region of the brain
involved in memory, spatial orientation, and the control of emotions - a burden
that may well become permanent.
t97. Dr. Grassian's report has been provided to Defendants.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN THE NORTH TINIT
198. Woodside managers had to approve the transfer of children detained at

Woodside from the East and West Units to the North Unit.
199. This usually meant that either Defendant Simons or Defendant Steward
had to approve any transfer to the North Unit.
200. In at least one instance, Defendant Cathcart, in his capacity as acting

Director at Woodside approved the transfer of B.C. to the North Unit.
20I. Before becoming Director of Woodside, Defendant Simons had worked at

the Ethan Allen furniture faclory, served in the U.S. military, and worked for the
Vermont Department of Corrections.
202. Thus, Defendant Simons appears to have had no professional training and
experience caring for juvenile detainees who suffered from serious mental illness
or the effects of childhood trauma resulting from emotional, physical, and/or
sexual abuse.
203. It is unclear whether Defendant Simons was aware of research on

adolescent development that makes clear why juvenile solitary confinement is
uniquely harmful.
JARVIS, MCARTHUR
&W|LLTAMS
ATTORI{E\6 AT IAUT
Stress and the adolescent brain; Arnygdala-prefrontal cortex circuitry and ventral
SUITE 2E- PARI( PLIUZA
95 ST, PAT,ILSTREET
striatum as developmental targets. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 70,217-227.
12
P O. BO)(902 Amicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court of Medical and Other Scientific and Health-
BI,RI.INGTON, VT Related Professionals filed 12123/16 in Ziglar v. Abbassi et.al. and companion cases.
o*ow,
aww477 23
244. Likewise, before becoming Woodside's clinical director, Defendant

Steward appears to have had no professional training or experience caring for
juvenile detainees who suflered from serious mental illness of the effects of
childhood trauma.
205. According to her resume, Defendant Steward had earned a doctoral degree
in counseling psychology from SUNry Buffalo.
206. Defendant Steward's dissertation is entitled "Art Therapy lntervention

with 'At-Risk' Adolescent Boys: Effects on self-image and Perceptions of Loss."
207. According to the dissertation, Defendant Steward's research subjects were

former public school students who lived at home while attending an alternative
school in a major metropolis in the Northeast.
248. The research subjects'oarrived at the alternative school at varying times

depending on what school district they were coming from, what mode of
transportation they were taking, and sometimes their mood.,,
209. The data collected during Defendant Steward's experiment in art therapy
was apparently inconclusive and she was unable to prove her original thesis.
210. The dissertation ends with this observation: "This writer is left missing the
participants, hoping for them, and committing to the challenge of trying to make
art therapy apart of more children,s lives.
21t. lt is unclear whether Defendant Steward was aware of research on
adolescent development that makes clear why juvenile solitary confinsment is
uniquelyharmful.
212. Anytime a detainee was transferred to solitary confinement in the North

Unit and stayed for at least seven days, DCF's deputy commissioner was required
to review the placement and approve any further detention in solitary
confinement.
213. In March 2018, Defendant Shea reviewed the placement of B.C. in the
North Unit and approved B.c.'s further detention in solitary confinsment.
214. on another occasion, in March z}lS,Defendant Shea reviewed the

placement of T.W. in the North Unit and approved T.W.'s further detention in
solitary confinement.
JARVIS, MCARTHI,,R
AVYLLIAMS
215. At this point, it is unclear how many other children Defendant shea
committed to the North Unit for more than seven days.
ATTORNhISATTAW
SUTTE 2E- PARK PI.AZA
95 T'I: PAI,LSTREET
P O. BO(9()2
BT,RLIN]GITON, VT
oilo20902
u,,,-63a*9411 24
216. Nor is it clear whether Defendant Shea had any specialized training and
experience before she started commifting children to further detention in solitary
confinsment.
217. It is unclear whether Defendant Shea was aware of research on adolescent

development that makes clear why juvenile solitary confinement is uniquely
harmful.
218. It is unclear whether Defendant Cathcart had any specialized training and
experience before he started committing children to detention in solitary
confinement in Woodside's North Unit.
219. lt is unclear whether Defendant Cathcarlwas aware of research on

adolescent development that makes clear why juvenile solitary confinement is
uniquelyharmful.
220. [n October 2018, an attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender
attended a Woodside Stakeholder meeting with Defendant Steward. Defendant
Steward asked the attorney to provide a detailed description of what needed to be
changed at Woodside.
221. In an email dated October 24,2018,the attorney from the Office of the
Juvenile Defender informed Defendant Schatz that she had witnessed the conduct
of Woodside staff members that "if perpetrated by aparerrt,would have likely
resulted in substantiation, removal, and criminal prosecution. As a former DCF
investigator. it takes a lot to shock and dismay me. I am shocked and dismayed at
Woodside on a regular basis. Moreover, the lack of accountability for staff who
hurt residents and perpetrate a culture of silence in the face of resident
maltreatment is deeply troubling."
222. The attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender told Defendant
Schatz that Woodside should (1) "begin utilizing a nationally-recognized de-
escalation and restraint-haining protocol immediatelt''; Q) revise its use-of-force
policy immediately; and, (3) close the North Unit.
223. Defendant Schatz ignored all of these proposals.
224. While he was ignoring these proposals, it is unclear whether Defendant

Schatz was aware of research on adolescent development that makes clear why
juvenile solitary confinement is uniquely harmful while he was overseeing the
operation of the North Unit at Woodside as DCF commissioner, or took the time
JAR\/IS, MCARTHT'R
to find out more about this subject after problems in the North Unit were first
&vuIIllAMs
brought to his attention.
ATTORNE\EATLAW
SI'TTE ZE- PARK PT.AZA
95 ST. PAI,LSTREET
225. Based on his review of the documents provided to him by Plaintiffs'
11 0- BOX 9t 2 counsel, Dr. Grassian offered the following observations that the solitary
BT'RLJNGTON. \,T
o*@-49@,
a02:€58-9411 25
confinement experienced by juveniles at woodside, and in particular the

conditions experienced by G.w., was in no way less harsh than the solitary
confinement of adults:
Physical Setting
226. Cell - Solitary confinement cells in adult prisons are small, generally about
90-100 square feet in size. The North Unit cells at Woodside are approximately
the same. In adult prisons, solitary confinement cells typically contain either a
metal bed fixed to the floor or a concrete slab on which a mattress is placed and a
stainless-steel sink and toilet combination. This is the case in three of the four
North Unit cells at woodside; the fourth is a o'dry cell" lacking a toilet, sink, or
any source of fresh water. Sometimes in adult solitary cells there is also a
concrete or hard plastic stool and a small steel shelf or table fixed to the wall.
This is apparently lacking in the North Unit cells.
227. Adult prison cells have various types of locking doors, and they also
sometimes vary in the amount of visual stimulation allowed. These include barred
doors, barred doors with a plexiglass wall bolted onto it, sliding steel or hinged
steel doors. Hinged steel doors tend to be the harshest, allowing very little
ventilation and making conversation through the door very difEcult. The videos I
was shown in this case indicate that the North Unit doors were hinged doors.
228. In the adult prison setting, there is usually a window facing the outside
world, allowing some amount of visual stimulation. Harsher settings either have
no window to the outside or the window is glazed or painted over in such a way
as to not allow the occupant to see through the window. The videos I was
provided seem to indicate that the North Unit cells have windows that are glazed
in such a fashion as to render them translucent but not transparent.
229. In the adult solitary confinement setting, food is generally delivered

through a cuff port, and the occupant eats alone, either siuing on his bed or, if
available, on a stool with a little table affixed to the wall. The cells in the North
Unit appear to lack such a stool and table for eating.
230. In adult solitary, oorecreation" or "exercise" is generally an hour a day,

several days a week (most typically, Monday-Friday) in either another cell or
outdoors in either a concrete enclosure or in a long narrow chain link o'dog run."
ln the latter circumstance, sometimes other inmates will be out in adjacent dog
runs. The North Unit provides no outside recreation at all, only access to a
JARVIS, MCAIITHI,IR
relatively small, fairly barren ooday room." And the documents provided indicate
6iWILLIAMS
that in many cases, including G.w.'s, access to the day room is only sporadic;
ATTORNEY1SAT IAII'
ST.IITE ZE-PARKPI.AZA
sometimes over a week can go by with the juvenile having no opportunity at all to
95 ST PAI,'LSTREET leave her cell.
P O. BO)(9{)2
oE4oz,amz
aoHsa-g411 26
231. In isolated confinement, there is generally very limited opportunity for any
form of normal social interaction. Inmates sometimes invent or discover some
limited way of communicating with other inmates on their tier- e.g., shouting,
using the vent system as a kind of intercom system, etc. Telephone contact is
quite limited. Social and family visits are limited and are almost always non-
contact, often with a plexiglass window allowing visual contact and telephones
required to speak with the visitor. lnmates often spend days, weeks, or even
months with no social interaction other than curt interactions with correctional
staff. It is my understanding that at the North Unit, children have no interaction
with anyone at all from 8 p.m. until 9 a.m. the next morning, and that children
could go days, weeks, or even months without contact with other children.
232. An adult in solitary confinement will typically be allowed to have a

limited amount of reading material in her cell, including books shipped directly
from the publisher. The inmate may also have some other means of distracting
herself - a radio, a small tv, or an mp-3 player, etc. It is my understanding that in
the North Unit no such amenities are permitted, not even books, and furthermore
there was no access to TV or radio.
233. This lack of reading materials is part of an especial concern for juveniles
in a detention facility. The responsibility of a juvenile detention facility is not
only to provide custody and security, its mission is also centrally one of providing
service to help the juvenile mature into a responsible and productive adult.
Educational services are an essential part of that responsibility, and apparently
there are virtually no educational services provided to juveniles confined in the
North Unit - just papers passed under the cell door. No teacher meets with the
student.
234. There are other features of confinement at the North unit that are almost
unprecedented. Many commentators have described the excessive use of force
widely used at the North Unit. I certainly am not naive enough to think that
Corrections Officers in adult prisons never intentionally cause inmates pain, but
such abuse is limited by the fact that it is officially prohibited. On the other hand,
at Woodside "pain compliance" techniques are in fact taught and authorized.
There are videos showing G.w. screaming as her arms are being hyperextended
over her head. several observers have commented that Woodside stafflack
mental health training and, instead of finding ways to deescalate the situation with
an emotionally troubled juvenile, they resort to force and intimidation.
23s. In addition, at times G.w. was left naked for long periods of time in her
cell in the North Unit, her clothes having been pulled off her by several male staff
converging on her and holding her down. This is especially concerning as G.W.
JAR\,TS, MCARTHUR
is reported to have been raped some months before she was forcibly stripped by
6i uILLIAMS
several male staff and then left naked in her cell.
ATTORI{EY.,|S AT IAT'V
ST.IIIE 2E-PART< PI.AZA
95 Sl: PAI,'LI'TREET
t o. Bo)(902
BTJRLINGTON, VT
w&-o,9o2
8O2-65a-941, 27
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
D.H.
236. After D.H. was placed into the custody of DCF, D.H. was detained at
Woodside, was subjected to solitary confinsment in the North Unit, and was sent
out-of-state to Natchez Trace Youth Academy where he was physically abused on
a regular basis.
237. After DCF transferred D.H. to Natchez Trace Youth Academy, one
Natchez Trace staffmember threatened that he would oosnap [D.H.'s] neck."
Another staff member tackled him, while another kicked him ooin [his] balls."
238. While detained at Natchez Trace Youth Academy, D.H. brought the
inhumane conditions atthat facility to the attention of Defendant Dale.
239. D.H. told Defendant Dale that Natchez Trace "was a bad place, staff hit a
kid's face off the wall and his nose started to bleed."
240. D.H.'s reports of the inhumane conditions at the Natchez Trace facility
were ignored by Defendant Dale.
241. In July 2A17, the Office of the Juvenile Defender reported the abuse of
D.H. at Natchez Trace to Defendant Longchamp.
242. DCF did not respond to the Juvenile Defender's report of the inhumane
conditions at the Natchez Trace facility and the abuse of D.H.
243. In Septemb er 2017 , the Office of the Juvenile Defender reported the abuse
of D.H. at Natchez Trace to Defendant D'Amico.
244. The Juvenile Defender's email reporting this abuse to Defendant D'Amico
included a link to the letter sent to the CEO ofNatchezTraceby the West
Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources in May 201.5.
245. The Juvenile Defender's report of the inhumane conditions at the Natchez
Trace facility and the abuse of D.H. was ignored apparently by Defendant
D'Amico.
246. On Decemb er 77,2017 , an attorney with the Offrce of the Juvenile

Defender filed a grievance on behalf of D.H.
247. The grievance alleged improper placement of D.H. into solitary

JARVIS, MCAI{THIJF'
confinement in the North Unit.
EWLLIAMS
ATTORNEYSATIAW
SUITE 2E - PARK PI.AZA
248. In addition, the grievance indicates that the attorney from the OfEce of the
95 Sf,, PATJL STREET Juvenile Defender asked Defendant Steward to reconsider her order sending D.H.
PO.BO(9tZ
Bt RllNr6l10N.VT
o*o24m2
aoH,5a-9477 28
into solitary confinement because "it was not in line with applicable policy''and
that Steward denied the request.
249. The grievance requested a prompt review of Defendant Simons' and

Steward's decision to send D.H. into solitary confinement in the North Unit and
immediate release from the North Unit.
250. In a memo dated Decembsr lS,2olT,Defendant Simons denied the

grievance.
251. In December 2017, while D.H. engaged in disruptive and annoying

behavior at Woodside, Defendant Dubuc sent an email notifuing staffthat ooaftsr
discussion at the Clinical Team it was decided that DH would benefit from
increased support and lower stimulation" in one of the North Unit's isolation
cells.
252. The decision to commit D.H. to solitary confinement in one of

Woodside's isolation cells violated North Unit's procedure requiring Woodside
detainees to demonstrate acfual harm or imminent risk of harm to self or others
before they could be isolated in the North Unit.
253. When asked about the decision to send D.H. into solitary confinement,
Defendants Simons, Cathcart, and Steward gave contradictory explanations,
neither of which were based on North Unit's policy that only those who
demonstrated actual harm or imminent risk if harm to self or others could be
placed in a North Unit isolation cell.
254. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue every instance of the abuse D.H.
at Woodside and identifu which of the defendants named in this Amended
Complaint participated in that abuse because Plaintiff s counsel has yet to receive
a copy of D.H.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staffinteractions
with him.
FACTUAL BACKGROTIND
R.H.
255. Between April 2010 and December 2018, the Vermont Departrnent for
Families and Children (DCF) had custody of R.H. While he was in the custody of
DCF, R.H. experienced at least forty different placement transitions, ending with
his detention at DCF's Woodside Juvenile Detention Center.
JARVIS, MCARTFIT,R
&WILLIAMS
256. Numerous evaluations confirm that R.H. had suffered from repeated
physical, mental, and sexual abuse as a child and, as a result of his history of
SUIIE 2E- PARK PISZA
trauma and abuse, he suffered from a number of psychiatric conditions, including
95 SI: PAI.ILSTREET post-traumatic stress syndrome, that contributed to his challenging behaviors and
P O. BOX9(,2 internal emotional distress.
oB4urw,
aoHsa-g4tt 29
257. Between March 2018 and December 2A18, R.H. was detained at DCF's
Woodside Juvenile Detention Center.
258. Between March 2018 and December 2018, R.H. spent at least 67 days in
solitary confinement in Woodside's North Unit.
259. While R.H. was being held in solitary confinement in Woodside's North
Unit, Woodside staff tumed off the water to R.H.'s locked cell, and he was unable
to flush his toilet or get a drink of water.
260. At times, R.H. was not provided with a mattress or books to read.
261. In April 2018, Defendant Simons and Defendant Steward decided to take
everything out of R.H.'s isolation cell, including his mattress, blanket, and
reading material, and told R.H. he could'oearn it back."
262. On April 18, 2018, Woodside staff restrained R.H. in an effort to

effectuate the plan. When R.H. resisted, Woodside staff, led by Defendant Dubuc,
entered R.H.'s isolation cell equipped with a riot shield, restrained him face down
on his bed, and cut off R.H.'s clothing. R.H. spent the remainder of the night
dressed only in his shorts.
263. Following the April 18, 2018 incident, R.H. reported that he experienced
the forcible removal of his clothing as oolike a sexual assault," something that he
had, in fact, experienced as a child.
264. While held in solitary confinement in his North Unit seclusion cell, R.H.
was deprived of educational services required by his Individualized Education
Plan.
265. Defendant Steward approved the orders sending R.H. into solitary
confinement.
266. Between March 2018 and December 2018, R.H. was physically restrained
about ten times during which Woodside staff, including Defendants Hatin,
Weiner, Martinez, and Rochon, employed the pain compliance techniques
developed by Defendant Simons.
267. Defendant Steward signed the orders authorizing the physical restraint of
R.H.
JAR\/IS. McARTTfl.,R
qVyILLIAMS
268. Several weeks later, Defendant Steward watched Woodside staff members
hurting R.H. and did not intervene or take other steps to protect R.H.
AITORNEIEATTAVY
SUIIE 2E-PARKPI.AZA
95 SI: PAT'LSTREET 269. Instead, Defendant Steward threatened R.H., telling him that Woodside
P O. BOr(902 staff would take away his clothes again if he did not comply with her plan.
BI'FUNGTON,\/T
og@w
aOHSa-9411
270. On July 6,2018, an attorney for R.H. filed a Motion for an Emergency
Protective Order in the Vermont Family Court alleging that Woodside staff
improperly restrained him and transferred him to solitary confinement in the
North Unit.
27 | . According to the motion, on April 17 , 2018, while he was secluded in the

North Unit, Defendants Simons, Cathcart, and Martinez entered R.H.'s cell,
restrained him on the bed, and stripped the cell of all of R.H.'s belongings,
including his bedding.
272. The following day, Defendants Dubuc, Marlinez, Rochon, and Weiner
entered R.H.'s seclusion cell, restrained him, pinned him face-down on his bed,
and used a cutting tool to remove R.H.'s shirt.
273. On May 4,2A18, several male staff members surrounded R.H. and
restrained him and then escorted his to a seclusion cell in the North Unit. While
R.H. was pinned to the ground, Defendant Steward told R.H. that staffwould take
away his clothes again if he could not be safe with them.
274. During the May 4,2018 restraint, R.H. alleged that Defendant Weiner
oointentionally dug his finger into a pressure point on [R.H.'s] jaw and applied
pressure to [R.H's] neck in order to cause him pain. The video shows [R.H.]
yelling that Mr. Weiner is 'choking' him, but Mr. Weiner's hands are hidden from
view of the camera."
275. According to the motion, between June 17, 2018 until July 5, 2018, R.H.
was secluded in a North Unit cell almost continuously.
276. On July 18, 2018, R.H.'s attorney filed a Second Motion for a Protective
Order.
277. This motion indicated that R.H.'s attorney had tried to resolve issues
related to her client's mistreatment at Woodside, to no avail.
278. R.H.'s attorney informed Defendants Simons and Gooley that Woodside
staff members had forcibly removed R.H.'s clothing, deliberately injured him, and
had unlawfully secluded him.
279. ln response to these complaints, Defendants Simons justified this conduct,

claiming that R.H. had consented ooto having his shirt cut offwhile being pinned
face-down down on a hard [floor] by [Defendant Dubuc and others] who were
JARVIS. MCARTHTJR
literally twisting both of his arms at the time per [R.H.'s] report and video
&t ILLI,AMS
evidence."
$TTE 2E-PAFK PI.AZA
95 S[ PATJLSTREET
ll O. BO(9(,2
BT'RLII|IGTON. \,T
oEr'roz,-o,9o2
aoH5a-9411 31
284. It is unclear whether Defendant Simons or Defendant Gooley ever

responded to R.H.'s grievances.
281. Counsel then asked Defendants Simons and Cathcart to oopair" R.H. with
staff members who were less violent. That request was ignored by Defendants
Simons and Cathcart. Instead, R.H. continued to be paired with Defendant
Weiner, who had assaulted him earlier in the month.
282. By refusing to help R.H., Defendants Simons and Cathcartviolated their

constitutional duty to protect R.H. from harm.
283. On June 29,2018, R.H. met with counsel and requested a book to help
him pass time while he was held in solitary confinernent.
284. Counsel met with Defendant Steward and conveyed R.H.'s request.
Overhearing this conversation, Defendant Bunnell stated R.H. might get the book
he requested'1f and when it was determined to be clinically indicated."
285. On July 3,2018, Defendant Steward refused to allow R.H.'s expert

witness, Paul Capcara, R.N., to meet with R.H.. Defendant Steward also refused
to allow counsel to meet with her client.
286. That day, R.H. told Defendant Steward that he wanted to speak with his
lawyer.
287. On July 13,2A18, Defendant Steward met R.H. in the North Unit and tried
to ask him questions about the complaint his attorney filed in the Vermont
Superior Court on July 6,2018.
288. During this meeting, Defendant Steward informed R.H. that he had no
chance of winning or getting moved to a different placement because he was
already in a o'long-term" program at Woodside.
289. R.H. believed that Defendant Steward was pressuring him to tell his
attomey to dismiss the Complaint, and that if he did, he would get more
privileges.
290. On July 20,2018, R.H. was scheduled to meet with two investigators
about an assault on another Woodside detainee that R.H. had witnessed.
291. After R.H. refused to meet with the investigators, Defendant Steward
JARVIS. MCARTFII,'R
praised R.H. for making a oogood choice."
EVULLTAMS
ATTORNEIEATIAW
$JITE 2E-PARKPLTUZA
292. On August 3,2078, R.H. met with an investigator but refused to talk. R.H.
95 !'N PAT'LSTREET told the investigator that he was afraid that if he talked, Defendant Steward would
P O. BOX9(,2 retaliate against him.
BT,EUN6TON,VT
@o2.@o2
aoH5H41t 32
293. ln late July or early August 2018, Defendant Steward told R.H. not to
authorize his lawyer to receive copies of R.H.'s clinical notes at Woodside.
294. In a second meeting, Defendant Steward promised to give R.H. "blue

status," i.e., additional privileges, if he did not authoize the release of his clinical
records to his attorney.
295. At the time, the discovery of these records was an issue in R.H.'s Vermont
Superior Court case, with the Vermont Attorney General's Office informing
R.H.'s attorney that DCF ooopposes the release of clinical records."
296. Throughout August and September 2018, Defendants Simons and Steward
pressured R.H. to dismiss his Vermont Superior Court case.
297. In September 2018, they urged R.H. to write a letter to his attorney and
tell her he wanted the case dismissed.
298. Succumbing to this pressure, and believing he had no chance of

prevailing, R.H. wrote the letter and his case was dismissed.
299. During the four-month period between mid-March 2018 and mid-July
2018, R.H. spent 67 days in solitary confinement in the North Unit and was
subjected to an excessive number of involuntary interventions, including47
instances of seclusion and 6 instances ofrestraint.
300. A number of these incidents was investigated by the Office of Residential
Licensing and Special lnvestigations (RLSI).
301. The RLSI investigators interviewed witnesses and reviewed video

recording of the incident.
3A2. The RLSI investigative report indicates that Defendants Dubuc,Martrnez,

and Weiner restrained R.H.. According to the report, R.H. indicated that
Defendant Weiner grabbed R.H. by the neck and that R.H. was unable to breath.
303. The RLSI report indicates that on one occasion, Defendants Martinez,
Dubuc, and Weiner, all dressed in riot gear, went into R.H.'s room and pinned his
face to the floor, with his arms extended backwards.
304. At one point during the investigation, RLSI investigators told Defendant
Simon that the routine use of the North Unit to isolate Woodside detainees
violated RTP regulations. Defendant Simons responded "We violate that."
JARVIS. MCAIITHI'R
6IwlLLtrAMS
ATTORNE\4i AT IAIII'
305. The investigators also reported that R.H. alleged that Defendant Steward
interfered with his right to meet with his lawyer and the investigators believed
SUITE 2E-PARK PT.AZA
95Sf, PAI,LSTREET that R.H. demonstrated real fear of retaliation for naming concerned staff
P O. BOX902 members or addressing the restraints as using pain compliance."
BIJRUNGTON.\/T
oyuL-{tw
etH,sa-gi4tl 33
306. Based on their investigation into R.H.'s complaints, RLSI investigators

concluded that Woodside violated Regulations 201 (right to humane treatment
and right to be free from excessive use of restraint and isolation); 648 (prohibition
of pain inducement techniques and hyperextension ofjoints); 650 (prohibition of
restraint modality that is not approved by licensing agency); 651 (restraint shall
only be used as last resort); 654 (restraint shall never be used for coercion,
retaliation, humiliation, as a threat of punishment or form of discipline, in lieu of
adequate staffing, for staff convenience, or for property damage not involving
imminent danger); 660 (children in seclusion must be provided with unintemrpted
supervision by qualified staff); 701 (A RTP shall be equipped to provide physical
comfort of all children); and, 718 (No youth's bedroom shall be stripped of its
contents and used for seclusion).
307. In addition to being abused at Woodside, R.H. was placed at several out-
of-state juvenile detention centers, including Natchez Trace Youth Academy in
Tennessee after credible complaints about the treahnent of children held at that
facility had been made to Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, Dale, and
Longchamp.
308. While detained at Natchez Trace Youth Academy, R.H. was physically
abused by staff members employed by that facility on a regular basis.
309. R.H.'s complaints to Defendant Amelia Harriman regarding this abuse

were ignored and never seriously investigated.
310. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue every instance of the abuse R.H.
Complaint participated in that abuse because PlaintifPs counsel has yet to receive
a copy of R.H.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staffinteractions
with him.
FACTUAL BACKGROT'ND
T.W.
3l 1. 1n2018, PlaintiffT.W. was detained at the Woodside Juvenile

Rehabilitation Center ("Woodside") in Essex, Vermont.
312. While T.W. was being detained at Woodside, Plaintiff was repeatedly and
unlawfully placed in a seclusion cell in the so-called 'North LJnit," and repeatedly
and unlawfully subjected to painfulphysical restraints.
JARVIS. MCARTHI,,IR 313. The unlawful isolation of T.W. in the North Unit seclusion cell and painful
6rWLLTAMS
physical restraints is detailed in Woodside Orders for Restraint/Seclusion dated
ATTORNEY15 AT IA'III'
STIITE 2E- PARI( PI.AZA

February 11,2018; February 13,2078; February 27,2018; March 5,2018; March
7 , 2018; April 8, 201 8; };/lay 4, 2018; May 6, 2018; May 24, 2018; and May 25,
E O. BOX902 2018.
BT'RLINGTON. VT
MCZ.@z
ao2.6,5€.9477 34
314. According to these incident reports, Defendants Simons and Steward

issued these unlawful orders, following requests from Defendants Cathcart
Hamlin, Bunnell, Dubuc, and Scrubb.
315. According to these incident reports, Defe,ndants Bunnell, Cathcart,

Martinez, Weiner, Piette, Rochon, Hamlin, Ruggles, Hatin, Schrubb, and Dubuc
requested and/or received and carried out the orders to unlawfully place T.W. in a
North Unit isolation cell or physically restrain her, or witnessed this unlawful
conduct without fulfilling their constitutional obligation to intervene or take other
steps to protect T.W.
316. On May 29,2018, the Office of the Juvenile Defender filed a Motion for a
Protective Order requesting a court order requiring Defendant Schatz and his
agents working at Woodside to stop using dangerous restraint techniques designed
to induce pain.
317. RSLIU conducted an investigation into the use of the dangerous restraint
techniques used on T.W. and her placement in the North Unit's isolation cells
alleged in the Motion for a Protective Order.
318. Specifically, RSLIU investigated the restraints employed on May 6,2018,

May 24, 2078, May 26, 20 1 8, and June 1 I , 20 1 8 .
319. The Woodside tncident Report for the May 6,2018 restraint has been
provided to Defendants.
320. The Woodside tncident Report for the May 24,2018 restraint has been
provided to Defendants.
321. Photos of injuries suffered by T.W. while she was detained at Woodside
have been provided to Defendants.
322. On June 17,2018, a hearing was held in the Vermont Superior Court
related to the Motion for a Protective Order filed by T.W.'s attorney onMay 29,
201 8.
323. During the hearing, T.W. testified that on }day 24,2018, Defendants
Simons and Bunnell twisted her arms and that she heard a "pop in her arm when
they were twisting it." T.W. rated the pain level related to the multiple arm twists
as "8 out of 10" and "9 out of 10."
JAR\,!S, MGARTHI,TR
6iWILIJAMS
324. After T.W. returned to Woodside after the June I t, 2018 hearing, T.W.
was subjected to another painful physical restraint during which she was taken
ArroR\lEY'1S Ar rAW
down to the floor, with a staff member's knee in her back.
SI'ITE 2E- RK PT.AZA
95sf, PAI,LSTREET
It o. Eoxqrz
BURI.INCTON, \,T
ovt@w,
ao2-654-9411 35
ooyou're
325. During the restraint, a video reveals that T.W. begins to scream
breaking my arm" as an unidentified staff member puts her arm in a "position
[that] looks visibly paintul."
326. The RLSIU investigator who viewed the video indicated that it was
"extremely concerning ... tT.W.] is clearly in pain throughout the restraint which
leads this writer to believe the restraint techniques used at Woodside are utilizing
pain compliance. Given that [T.W.] is on her stomach, at points with someone's
knee in her back, there are serious safety risks for injury and difficulty breathing."
327. The RSLIU report concludes with this analysis: "The first major theme of
the grievances pertains to the use of restraints and the modality used. The restraint
modality is not evidence-based nor a nationally recognized modality. Given
[T.W.'s] pain ratings, the video evidence, the testimony of Mr. Capcara and
[T.W.] herself, this restraint modality uses pain compliance. The hyperextension
ofjoints, the crossing of the legs, the prone position, are all indicative of a law
enforcement restraint model. The restraint documentation also demonstrates that
Woodside is not using restraint only as a last resort. Many times, [T.W.'s] state of
refusal or the disruption of other residents were reasons for the restraint. This does
not show that [T.W.] or any other residents were in imminent danger.
Additionally, Woodside staffdo not give space to residents, but close in on them,
escalating their behavior thereby creating a need for restraint. This is not a
trauma-informed approach and is clearly not an effective intervention or an
appropriate de-escalation plan, glven [T.W.'s] trauma history."
328. On May 26,2018. Defendants Dubuc, Cathcatt, and Rochon restrained

T.W. and "escorted" her to her room.
329. RLSIU investigators reviewed a video of this incident and concluded that
Woodside staff members engage in conduct that only leads to escalation.
330. According to those investigators, "this is an identified thsme in some of

the restraint and incident reports reviewed by [an RLSru investigator]. Woodside
staff do not give space to residents but close in on them, almost escalating them
into needing a restraint. This is not a trauma-informed approach and does not
seem to be effective intervention or an appropriate de-escalation p1an, glven
[T.W.'s] trauma history."
331. During this restraint, Defendant Dubuc pushed his fingers into T.W.'s left
eye orbital socket, leaving a 5O-cent size bruise on T.W.'s face.
JARVIIi, MCARTHTJR
&IVILLIAMS
332. RSLIU's investigative report concluded that Woodside's (a) use of a
restraint modality that uses pain compliance that can result in hlperextended
ATTORNE\ISAT IAI"
joints on Plaintiff; and O) use of the North Unit's isolation cells to seclude
ST'ITE 2E - PARI< F!-!UZA
95 Sf, PAT'LSTREET
Plaintiff violated Regulations 201 (right to humane treatment and right to be free
P O. BO(902 from excessive use of restraint and isolation);648 (prohibition of pain inducsment
o5.oz-o,x,.z
aoH]58-9417 36
techniques and hyperextension ofjoints); 650 (prohibition of restraint modality

that is not approved by licensing agency); 651 (restraint shall only be used as last
resort); and 660 (children in seclusion must be provided with unintemrpted
supervision by qualified staff).
333. RSLIU's report concluded that the "Governing Authority must provide
RSLI a plan to address the identified areas of Non-Compliance and areas of
Compliance, but with Reservations, with the intent to come into full compliance
byNovember 16,20T8."
334. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue every instance of the abuse

T.W. at Woodside and identiff which of the defendants named in this Amended
a copy of T.W.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staffinteractions
with her.
FACTUAL BACKGROT]ND
c.w.
335. G.W. was detained at Woodside and subjected to painful physical
restraints and solitary confinement in2016 and2019.
336. In2076, G.W. was detained at Woodside for about five weeks in May and
June and for about three months between September and December.
337 . Between September and Decemb er 2016, G.W. was detained in a North
Unit isolation cell where she was physically restrained at least 31 times.
338. Defendants Steward gave many of the orders to restrain and seclude G.W.
after receiving requests from, among others, Defendants Hatin and Bunnell.
339. According to incident reports, Defendants Simons, Hamlin, Rochon,

Ruggles, Dubuc, Brice, Bunnell, Scrubb, Piette, Weiner, and Martinez erther
participated in, or witnessed these unlawful physical restraints.
340. By ordering or participating in these restraints, or by failing to intervene to

protect G.W. during these restraints, Defendants Steward, Simons, Hamlin,
Rochon, Ruggles, Dubuc, Brice, Bunnell, Scrubb, Piette, Weiner, and Martinez
failed to fulfill their constitutional obligation to protect G.W. from harm.
JARWS. MCARTHI,JR
6I VUILLTAMS
341. In addition, on November 17,2016, Defendant Bunnell notified Defendant
Dale that G.W. was subjected to solitary confinement in the North Unit.
ST'IIE 2E - PARK PI.AZA
95Sf, PAI'LSTREET
P O. BO(902
BI,IFLINGTION, \/T
o*@.ow
a.o,P6Ea-9477 37
342. After receiving this message, Defendant Dale did not intervene or take any
other steps to protect G.W. from this abuse, and thus failed to fulfill his
constitutional obligation to protect G.W. from harm.
343. On occasion, G.W. had no clothes and was only provided with a blanket.
At times, she was left naked in her isolation cell without clothes or a blanket.
344. ln October 2016, the Office of the Juvenile Defender sent Defendant Dale
an email complaining about the treatment of G.W. at Woodside, explaining that
G.W. o'seems to be getting worce at Woodside and on ISU, not better. [G.W.]
appears to be more depressed every time I see her, and she has no hope that things
will improve. Without hope, what incentive to [sic] [G.W.] have to do anything?
Furthermore, there seern [sic] to be some significant mental health needs that
remain unmet."
345. Defendant Dale forwarded the Juvenile Defender's email to Defendants

Simons and Steward.
346. On December 2,2016, an attomey from the Office of the Juvenile

Defender met with Defendants Simons and Shea and explained to thsm in great
detail how G.W., who was 13 years old at the time, was being mistreated at
Woodside.
347. The attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender told Defendants
Simons and Shea that G.W. had gained so much weight while being held in
solitary confinement in the North Unit that stretch marks could be seen on her
skin.
348. G.W.'s basic needs, including exercise and personal hygiene, were
ignored. Because the water was shut off in the cell, the toilet went unflushed and
the room smelled so bad that visitors had to mask the odor with Vick's VapoRub.
349. Defendants Simons and Shea dismissed these complaints and did nothing
to improve G.W.'s conditions of confinement. By doing so, Defendants Simons
and Shea violated their constitution duty to protect G.W. from harm.
350. ln May 2A19, after stealinga car and crashing it during a police chase,
G.W. was again detained at Woodside.
351. Before her release in July 2019, G.W. was subjected to solitary
confinsment in a North Unit isolation cell.
JARVIS, MCARTHUR
6TWILIIAMS
ATTORIIEYS AT IATfl
352. Defendant Simons signed G.W.'s seclusion orders on June 4,2019 and
SI.'TTE ?E- PARK PI.AZA
June 18,2018.
95SN PAI'LSTREET
P O. BCD(9()2
BT.,RLINGiION. VT
oE,oa.ogo,z
40H58=9411 38
353. In addition, G.W.was subjected to repeated physical restraints throughout

the month of June 2018.
354. A series of videos depict the conditions of her nightmarish confinement in

the North Unit.
355. On June 4,2019, Defendants Simons, Cathcart, Bunnell, and others are
seen on a video recording entering G.W.'s isolation cell to put a smock on her.
356. tn the video, Defendant Bunnell is wearing the green jacket. Weiner is
wearing the green tee-shirt. Defendant Cathcart is the one wearing glasses with a
checked shirt. Defendant Simon has a beard and is wearing a checked shirt.
Simons tells G.W. to ootake it off."
357. After the men enter G.W.'s isolation cell, G.W. says in a loud voice that
she is not doing anything wrong. Defendant Simons yells ooDown, down."
Defendant Bunnell and another male staff mernber hold G.W. face-down on the
bed platform. As a male staffmember uses metal bars to hold G.W.'s legs in
place, Bunnell and Weiner hold G.W.'s arms behind herback and up toward the
ceiling. Defendant Cathcartwatches as this happens, holding a smock in his
hands.
358. As G.W. screams "stop, don't do this," and with Defendants Simons and
Weine,r holding her arms up and behind her back, Defendants Bunnell and another
rnale staff member forcibly remove her clothes. As this is happening, G.W.
sounds like she is vomiting. As Simons tells G.W. she is oofine," G.W. tells the
men to let go of her. Bunnell then forcibly removes G.W.'s shirt and gives it to a
male staff member who throws it out of the cell. G.W. continues to scream and
says that she is unable to breath. Simons and the others then quickly leave,
locking the cell door once they are all out.
359. On June 4,2A79, Defendants Simon, Cathcart, and Bunnell, along with
several other staff members, surround G.W. who is on the floor at the top of a
stairway.
360. The video shows that G.W. is dressed in a tee-shirt. Bunnell is wearing a
green jacket. Simons has a
light checked shirt on, Cathcart is wearing the dark
checked shirt.
361. As G.W. screams, Bunnell tums G.W. over, and while she is face-down,
Bunnell pulls her lower legs up, crosses them, and leans into her legs. G.W.
screams "my knee, ow, my knee.o'
JAR\/IS. MCARTFIIJR
&llvrl.l.tAMs
ATTORNETEATIAUT
362. By grabbing her arms that are still behind her back, Defendants Simons
STIITE 2E-PAIIKPL]qZA
and Bunnell then lifts G.W. up from the floor. As G.W. continues to scream,
95 SN PAI'L STREET Simons, Cathcart, and Bunnell then carry G.W. down the stairway.
PO.B(D(902
BTJRLINGTON.VT
w@.w
AOrffi477 39
363. When they get G.W. to the bottom of the stairs, Defendants Simons and
Cathcart place handcuffs on G.W.'s wrists while her arms are still held high
behind her back, as Bunnell holds her legs down.
364. Defendants Simons, Bunnell, and Cathcart then pick G.W. up by her arms
and legs and carry her down the hall as she scre,Ims oomy neck" and oono."
365. After arriving at a cell, Defendants Simons, Bunnell, and Cathcartlower

her to the floor and drag her into it by her arms which are still cuffed and behind
her back.
366. Defendant Simons then puts his knee into G.W.'s back and asks Cathcart
to uncuff her as she screams in pain. Bunnell can be seen kneeling on G.W.'s legs
as the cuffs are taken off.
367. A female staff member then searches G.W. and finds a small screw in her
bra.
368. On June 18, 2018, Defendants Cathcart, Weiner, and sevsral other male
staff members enter G.W.'s cell, bringing with them a riot shield.
369. As G.W. lies on her bed, Defendant Weiner and one of the male staff
memhers presses the riot shield onto her chest and face.
370. Defendant Cathcart instructs the men to roll G.W. over so that they can
remove her blanket and smock.
37I. G.W. yells oothere's no females" as she lies on the floor with the shield
pressed up against her face.
372. As G.W. lies face-down on the floor with Weiner holding her arm up
behind her back, Defendant Cathcart removes the smock, as G.W. screams "stop,
stop, stop."
373. Once the smock has been removed, Cathculq Weiner, and the others
retreat, leaving G.W. lying naked on the cell floor.
374. On June 20,2019, G.W.'s attorney filed the Verified Motion for a
Protective Order in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Family Division that
alleged that G.W. was being abused at Woodside.
JAR\/IS. MCAFITHUR
6iWLLIAUIS
375. On June 24,2079, the Vermont Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing
on the motion for a protective order.
ATTORNEYSAT|Allv
SUITE 2E - PA{( PIJqZA
95S[, PAULSTREET 376. During the hearing, G.W.'s expert, Dr. Christopher Bellinci testified that
It o. Bor<9(n2 "Woodside had placed [G.W.] at risk of physical and psychological harm by
EIJRLINGTION,VT
oEZIO?.A90E,
aoiHBa-9zttl 40
repeatedly restraining her on the floor and stripping her naked, subjecting her to
dangerous and painful restraint techniques, and involuntarily escorting her down a
flight of stairs. Dr. Bellonci explained that the involuntary removal of clothing
and forced nudity are particularly damaging to someone [like G.W.] who has been
a victim of sexual assault."
377. A video from June 27,2019 shows Defendants Simons, Cathcart, Hamlin,
Rochon, Dubuc, and other staffmembers confronting G.W. who is standing naked
by her cell door, covered in feces.
378. A federal court described what it saw on this video as a'horrific incident"
involving Woodside staff members doing nothing as G.W. sits in her isolation
cell, naked and covered in feces, as she inserts a wire into her arm.
379. On June 28,2019, G.W.'s attorney filed a Verified Motion for an Ex Parte
Protective Order in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Family Division,
asking the court to issue an order "restraining the Commissioner of the
Department for Children and Families and his agents continuing to confine
[G.W.] at Woodside and order the Commissioner and his agents to fransfer
[G.W.] to ahospital immediately."
380. The motion refers to an incident on June 26,2019 during which G.W.'s
safety smock, along with herblanket, were forcibly removed by Woodside staff
members and that Defendants Simons and Cathcart "grappled with [G.W.] while
she was naked and forced her back into her room." Shortly thereafter, Simons and
Cathcart put their hands on G.W., who was naked, and oo oescorted' her
involuntarily to her room."
381. On June 28,2019, Defendants Dubuc and Martinez, alongwith trvo

unidentified men dress in Tyvex suits, entered G.W.'s cell as she was lying naked
on the floor.
382. Defendant Dubuc is wearing a blue shirt and shorts. Defendant Martinez is
seen standing next to Dubuc.
383. The two men in the Tyvex suits then drag G.W., who is face down, along
the cell floor.
384. As G.W. screams, the two men in the Tyvex suits pull G.W.'s arms behind
her back" while Defendant Dubuc stands over her naked body.
JARVIS. MCARTHI.'R
gWII.IJAMS;
385. The men are then seen retreating from the cell, leaving a still-screaming
G.W. lying naked and alone on the floor as they close the feces-smeared cell door
AITORNEYS AT I-AW
SUITE 2E- PARI( PI.AZA

behind them.
95 ST, PAI,LSTREET
Il o. Bo)(9{)2
BI.,RLINGTON,VT
o*@-@z
a(,HEIa.9477 41,
386. On June 9,2019, the Essex Rescue squad was called to Woodside to deal
with an emergency involving G.W.
387. The Woodside Incident Report indicates that Defendants Simons, Piette,
Hatin, and Rochon either participated or witnessed what happened to G.W. on
June 9, 2019.
388. Two days later', amember of the Essex Rescue squad sent an email to
Defendant Simons and reported what she had witnessed:
My name is Ashley Williams, I am an AEMT with Essex Rescue. This

past Sunday, June 9 at 5:34 PM, we received a call on our non-emergency
line for a 91 1 ambulance for a 16 year old female hitting her head against
the wall. We directed the staff to call 911 and responded to the Woodside
Correctional Facility. We were met outside by staff who indicated that the
patient was now stating she could not move. A staff member informed me
that they had been in contact with First Call that morning and had
concerns that the patient was prone to self harm. He also stated that she
was manipulative.
When I entered her cell she was layrng flat on the bed, naked except for a
smock. The cell was covered with water, urine and menstrual fluid. She
was soaking wet from head to toe, as was her smock. She was shivering
uncontrollably and her extremities were extremely cold to the touch.
We were able to take her to the hospital without incident, however upon
arrival at the E.D. when the nurse from Woodside Correctional was
questioned in regards to her medical and mental health history and he
reported that her only mental health history was PTSD, howevsr her list of
allergies included antipsychotics which would indicate a more extensive
mental health history.
I am writing because I am concerned about multiple issues.

1) The staff were aware of self-injurious behaviors as early as that
morning, why was she not in a more protected cell where she could not
hurt herself.
2) Why was she able to lie in her own excrement and water long enough to
be progressing towards hypothermia?
3) It is important that staff know and are able to provide adequate medical
and mental health history.
4) Staff were aware that she had a history of manipulative behavior yet she
JAR\/IS. MCARTHI.JR
was naked and alone with all male staffers while there were other fernale
&WILLIAMS
staffers available.
ATTORNETEATIAW
SUITE 2E-PARKPI.AZA
5) Staffneed to be made aware that emergency calls need to be directed to
95 !'l: PAI,ILSTREET 97t.
R O. EC,x9{)2
BT,!RL|NqION. VT
ov@-w
ao?€5a-€411 42
Obviously we were not present all day and do not know all of the details
leading up to the call, however I wanted to bring these issues to your
attention.
Please feel free to contact me with any other questions.
389. Defendant Simons responded to this report as follows:
Thank you for taking the time to look out for one of our kids. I have
copied the Residential Licensing and Special lnvestigations Unit
investigator in charge of regulating Woodside with your concems. As it
turns out we have an opportunity for you to come to Woodside to make a
difference if you like. You can apply to a Woodside Worker B position
online.
390. An investigator from RLSIU contacted the member of the Essex Recue
squad who reported what she witnessed on June 9, 2A19. At this time, it is unclear
what happened with that investigation.
391. The Woodside Incident Reports related to the June 9, 2019 incrdent filed
by Defendants Hatin, Piette, and Rochon do not explain why G.W. '\vas laying
flat on the bed, naked except for a smock. The cell was covered with water, urine
and menstrual fluid. She was soaking wet from head to toe, as was her smock. She
was shivering uncontrollably and her extremities were exkemely cold to the
touch" when the EMT's from Essex Recue arrived at the scene.
392. Defendant Cathcart approved the Operations Supervisor's report of the

incident which claimed that the stafPs "[q]uick response and staff knowing how
to utilize their skills ensured we kept the resident safe when the resident was
attempting to be unsafe and self harm."
393. By June 2019, nearly six months after RLSIU had concluded that the
conditions of confinement at Woodside violated numerous state regulations, and
nearly three years after an attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender had
described the inhumane conditions of confinement in the North Unit, DCF
officials, including Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, and Dale, and Woodside
managers and clinicians, including Defendants Simons, Steward, Cathcart, Hatin,
Bunnell, and Dubuc were aware that vulnerable children detained at Woodside,
including G.W., were subjected to unspeakable abuse at the facility.
394. Yet none of these defendants made any serious effort to prevent the
JARI,IS, MCARTIil,'R
continuing abuse of children whose safety and welfare was their responsibility,
&IIVILLI,AMS'
thus violating their constitutional obligation to protect Woodside detainees from
ATTORNEYIiATIAlt,
the abuse and horror graphically depicted in the G.W. videos from June 2019.
ST'ITE 2E - PARI( PI-'[ZA
95 S[ PAIILSTREET
It o. Box g{r2
BI'RIJN(ITON.\,T
oEr'toP-o€('2
402-654-9411 43
395. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue every instance of the abuse

G.W. at Woodside and identiff which of the defendants named in this Amended
a copy of G.W.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staff
interactions with her.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
T.F.
396. Plaintiff T.F. entered DCF custody when she was eight years old; by 2017,
she had endured thirty-seven placement transitions.
397. Between the ages of three and seven, T.F. had been sexually abused by her
father, had been subjected to physical abuse, and had witnessed physical abuse of
other family members.
398. Between 2015 and 2018, T.F. was detained at Woodside on a number of
separate occasions during which she was subjected to unnecessary and painful
physical restraints and solitary confinement in one of the North Unit's isolation
cells.
399. During one of her stays at Woodside, T.F. was apparently held in solitary
confinement in a North Unit isolation cell for three to four months.
400. It is not known at this time who gave the orders to send T.F. into the North
Unit on'who authorizedher continued placement in the North Unit after the first
seven days were up.
40L. However, by this time, Defendants Schatz, Shea, and Gooley were aware
that children detained at Woodside were being transferred to solitary confinement
in the North Unit and made no effort to stop the practice, thus violating their
constitutional duty to protect those children from harm.
402. On June 27,2018, T.F. was physically restrained by Defendants Bunnell

and Piette, and dragged across the floor by her feet to her cell with Bunnell still
on top ofher.
403. As a result of this assault, T.F. suffered friction burns on her body.
404. A video recording of this incident indicates that Defendant Bunnell

appeared anry, agitated, and aggressive.
JARVIS, MCARTHT'R
6iWILLIAMS
405. On July 5, 2018, T.F.'s attorney from the Office of the Juvenile Defender
AITOFT{E\'Ii AT TAW
ST'TTE 2E-PARI(F{.AZA
filed a Motion for an Emergency Protective Order.
95SI: PAI'LSTREET
Fl o. Bo(grz
BT'RI.ING'ION. \,T
oiloM.
8OZr65a-94!t 44
406. Subsequently, DCF's RLSIU investigated the allegations set forth in the
Motion for an Emergency Protective Order.
407. The RLSIU report indicates the video of this incident shows that before he
restrained T.F., Defendant Bunnell was ooangry, agStated, and aggressive."
408. As staff members struggled with T.F., Defendant Bunnell'ts seen with his
knee on [T.F.'s] back. This is in direct contradiction to Woodside's restraint
training in which staff mernbers are instructed to never place their weight on a
child's back as they are restrained in the prone position due to risk of asphyxia."
449. Defendant Piette then "drags tT.F.] by her feet, across the carpeted floor
and into her roorn, It appears Mr. Bunnell is still attempting to restrain her, and
his weight is on her as she is being dragged. [T.F.] suffered friction burns from
being dragged."
410. T.F. suffered significant rug burns on her body as a result of being
dragged across the floor by Defendant Piette.
411. After T.F. was dragged across the floor, she was taken into a room where
Defendant Bunnell punched her in the face with a closed fist.
412. T.F. later informed Defendant Steward that Defendant Bunnell had
punched her in the face.
413. Even though she was a mandatory reporter, Defendant Steward did not
inform the proper authorities that T.F. had told her that T.F. had been assaulted by
Defendant Bunnell.
414. Following this incident, T.F. was locked away in the North Unit, where
she made to sit in wet clothes on a slab
with no blankets and no bedding.
415. T.F. spent the rest of July 2018 locked away in the North Unit.
416. After T.F.'s attorney had filed her Motion for a Protective Order,
Defendants Steward and Bunnell pressured T.F. to dismiss her lawsuit.
417. Over the objections of T.F.'s attorney, Defendant Steward facilitated a

meeting between T.F. and Bunnell, during which Bunnell tried to persuade T.F.
that he did not intend to punch T.F. and that it was an accident.
JARVIS, MCARTHUR
5iYULLTAMS
418. Following this meeting, and over T.F.'s objections, Defendant Bunnell's
attempts to persuade T.F. that he punched her accidently continued.
AITORNEYS AT [ATi'
!;TJITE 2E-PARK PI.AZA
95 Sf,, PAIJLSTREET 419. At some point, Defbndant Bunnell entered T.F.'s North Unit cell and told
Ito. Eo(9(,2 her that he would not deliberately hit her because T.F. was like a daughter to him.
BTJELINGTI'N, VT
OUO?-W
a,l'H,5a4477 45
424. After Defendant Steward testified at a court hearing held on Motion for a
Protective Order, Defendant Steward told T.F. that if she continued to pursue her
court case, T.F. would lose her relationship with Steward.
421. Defendant Steward then advised T.F. that her attorney was tryrng to tum
T.F. against Woodside which "had been there for [T.F.] through [her] hardest
times" and that T.F.'s attorney was trying to "split up" T.F.'s relationship with
Steward.
422. Defendants Steward and Simons then advised T.F. to write a letter, instead
of placing a call, to her attomey to inform the attorney that T.F. wanted her court
case dismissed.
423. Defendants Steward and Simons told T.F. that if she called her attorney,
her attorney might "say something to wrap [her] back in."
424. As a result of Defendants Steward's, Bunnell's, and Simons' pressure

campaign, T.F. sent the letter to her attomey, who subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss T.F.'s court case.
425. On Septonber 25,2018, one of DCF's attorneys, Assistant Attorney

General Kate Lucier, interviewed T.F.. T.F.'s attorney was present during the
interview.
425. During the interview, T.F. told AAG Lucier about Defendant Bunnell's
assaultive conduct on June 27,2018 and Defendants Steward's, Bunnell's, and
Simons' campaign to pressure T.F. to dismiss the court case initiated on July 6,
2018 when her attorney filed the Motion for a Protective Order.
427. Following the investigation, RLSru concluded that the conduct of

Woodside staff on June27,2018 toward T.F. was in violation of Regulation 201
(children in a residential treatment program have a right to "be free from harm by
caregivers or others, and from unnecessary or excessive use ofrestraint and
seclusioM solation) ; Regulation 64 8 (Residential Treatment Pro grams are
prohibited from ernploying "[r]estraints that impede a child/youth's ability to
breathe or communicate," or using "[p]ain inducement to obtain compliance," arLd
"[h]yperextension ofjoints;" and Regulation 651 ("Restraint shall be used only to
ensure immediate safety of the child/youth or others when no less restrictive
intervention has been, or is likely to be, effective in averting danger. Restraint
shall only be used as a last resort").
JARVIS, MCARTHI'R
EWLLTANIS
428. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue every instance of the abuse T.F.
ATTORNEY-Ii AT IAIIU
ST,ITE 2E- PAI{( PLJqZI

95 S'I: PATILSTREET a copy of T.F.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staff interactions
P O. EOXSTz with her.
BI.IRLINGITON, VT
os,,oE.@
atH,5a-9477 46
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
B.C.
429. Plaintiff B.C. has an extensive history of trauma and neglect. B.C.'s
mother abandoned her as a toddler and she was raised by one of her father's
relatives and his wife.
430. As a child, B.C. was sexually abused.
431. B.C. entered DCF custody as an unmanageable youth after she tried to run
away while she was being transported to an alternative school in Bennington,
Vermont.
432. After a court adjudicated her guilt in two minor delinquent offenses
(disorderly conduct and retail theft), B.C. was sent to Woodside.
433. While imprisoned at Woodside, B.C. was repeatedly subjected to improper

physical restraints and solitary confinement.
434. On August 14,2Al7, an attomey with the Office of the Juve'nile Defender
filed a grievance with Defendant Simons on behalf of Plaintiff B.C.
435. The grievance complained that B.C. suffered a sprained ankle while being
restrained by two male Woodside staffmembers on July 29,2017.
436. On August 17 , 2017 , an attorney with the Ofiice of the Juvenile Defender
filed a second grievance with Defendant Gooley on behalf of Plaintiff B.C.
437. The grievance indicated that because Defendant Simons improperly

restrained on August 13,2017, the attorney asked Defendant Gooley to review
both the original grievance related to the July 29,2017 restraint and the second
restraint involving Defendant Simons.
438. On August 6,2018, B.C. was restrained when unidentified staffmembers

took her blankets away.
439. Several weeks later, on August 25,2018, Defendant Hatin and two other
male Woodside staff members entered B.C.'s North Unit isolation cell and, with
the assistance of Defendant Ruggles, pinned her to the floor and forcibly removed
her clothing, leaving her buttocks and vulva exposed.
440. Defendants Simons and Steward ordered Defendant Hatin to enter B.C.'s
JARVIS, MCARTHI,.IR
isolation cell and remove her clothing.
6iwlLLTAMSi
L{li,
AITORI\IEYs AT
ST IIE2E-PAIIKPLrqziA
441. This incident was captured on a video/audio recording.
95S[ PAT'LSTREET
It o. Box 9(,2
BTJRLINGTON. \,T
w@.@2
a0H5a-€411 47
442. The video provides a harrowing account of B.C.'s treatment at the hands
of Defendants Hatin and Ruggles as B.C.'s primal screams can be heard
throughout the recording.
443. Before cutting her clothes off, Defendant Ruggles told B.C. that if she
surrendered her clothes, she would be provided a safety smock.
444. Throughout the incident, B.C. cried out "Don't touch me."
445. As the restraint ended, B.C. was silent in the fetal position.
446. Afterwards, B.C. was not provided with bedding or adequate clothing for
her lower body for 48 hours.
447. Defendant D'Amico witnessed B.C. pants-less on day two after the
forcible removal of her clothing on8l25ll8. D'Amico made it known to many
people, including Defendants Simons and Shea, how horrible and inhumane she
thought that was.
448. After reviewing a video of the incident, Paul Capcara, R.N., reported the
abuse of B.C. with DCF's RLSIU.
449. Mr. Capcara was particularly ooconcerned that [B.C.] was left naked from
the vi,aist down as a result of the restraint. There were further concerns that given
the youth's sexual abuse history, the restraint was authorizedto be done by a
group of male staff members" and that the restraint "occurred without any visible
imminent risk of harm to self or others."
450. After completing their investigation, RLSIU investigators criticized

Defendant Ruggles attempt to use the provision of a safety smock as a bargaining
chip: "The language frecorded on the video] describes a power struggle between
[8.C.] and the staff members at Woodside, which is advised against in her safety
plan and not aligned with DBT practice. The safety smock should be seen as a
basic need for [B.C.'s] safety and privacy, not a bargaining chip for compliance."
451. RLSIU investigators then concluded that Woodside was found in violation
of Regulation2Al (a resident has the right to be free from excessive use of
restraint and seclusion); Regulation 601 (a residential treatment program shall
provide adequate supervision to the treatment and developmental needs of
children/youth); Regulation 648 (a residential treatment facility shall prohibit all
cruel, severe, unusual or unnecessary practices); Regulation 650 (restraints may
JARVIS, MCARTHI,'R not be employed without prior approval of the Licensing Authority); Regulation
SiWIIIIAMS
651 (imitations on the use of restraints); Regulation 660 (residents in seclusion
AITORIIEIaSAr lAl'y
cells shall be subject to unintemrpted monitoring); and Regulation 718 ('No
ST'ITE 2E- PARK PI.AZA
95SN, PAT.,LSTREET
child/youth's room shall be stripped of its contents and used for seclusion").
P O. BOX9()2
@4o,2.@@
aoa6E3-94t1 48
452. By late August 2018, B.C. had been confined to a seclusion cell in the
North Unit for about a month.
453. It is not known at this time who ordered B.C.'s transfer to solitary
confinement in the North Unit or who reviewed and approved further confinement
after B.C. had spent her first seven days in the North Unit.
454. However, by this time, Defendants Schatz, Shea, and Gooley were aware
that children detained at Woodside were being transferred to solitary confinsment
in the North Unit and made no effort to stop the practice, thus violating their
constitutional duty to protect those children from harm.
455. While B.C. was confined to her cell in the North Unit, she was forced to
shower naked in front of staff, could not wear any clothing, and could not have
books, paper, or writing implements.
456. In August 2018, B.C. continued to have no access to group programming,

education, or recreation at Woodside.
457. On August 23,2018, B.C.'s attorney filed a motion in the Vermont Family
Court requesting reconsideration ofa court order denying a request for a
protective order that would have required DCF to secure an appropriate
alternative placement for B.C. by a date certain.
458. The motion alleged that "Woodside has restrained [B.C.] bypinning her
face-clown against the floor or a wall, pulling her arms behind her back, and
twisting her arms."
459. It is not known at this time which Woodside staffmembers engaged in this
conduct.
460. Counsel attached an affidavit prepared by Heather Lynch, a licensed

psychologist who was familiar with the conditions of B.C.'s confinement at
Woodside.
461. In her affidavit, Lynch reported that "[B.C.'s] current placement is not
meeting her needs for treatment and comfort ... [and that] [m]aintaining [B.C.] in
deprived conditions and not providing her with appropriate treatment
accommodations is detrimental to [8.C.'s] ability to heal."
462. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue evory instance of the abuse B.C.
JARVIS, MCARTHT,R at Woodside and identifu which of the defendants named in this Amended
&IvILLI,AMS
ATTORNE\EATIAW
a copy of B.C.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staff interactions
SI'TTE 2E- PARK PI./IZA
95 ST. PAI.,LSTREET
with her.
PO.Bo(qrz
BT'RLINGTON. VT
o64oE.o,s{'2
aO2:€54-9uUl 49
FACTUAL BACKGROUNI)
A.L.
463. [n2018, A.L. was in DCF custody and detained at Woodside.
464. A.L., who turned 13 on November 23,2017, was the youngest Woodside
detainee.
465. In 2018, A.L was repeatedly subjected to painful restraints by Woodside

staff members.
466. On August 13,2018, for example, A.L. suffered rug burns from being
dragged on the floor during one of these restraints.
467. Defendant Steward approved Defendant Hamlin's request to restrain A.L.
468. The reports related to this incident do not explain how A.L. suffered the
'orug burn" on his right shoulder or why he complained about a sore right elbow.
469. In addition, A.L. spent extended periods of time in solitary confinonent,

locked away in one of the North Unit seclusion cells.
474. Defendant Steward approved staff requests to send A.L. into solitary
c:onfinement in Woodside's North Unit.
471. In April 2018, Defendant Dubuc ordered A.L. into the North Unit, later
claiming that A.L. 'ovoluntarily''agreed to Dubuc's unilateral decision to place
A.L. into solitary confinement.
472. On May 2,2A18, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile Defender
submitted a grievance on behalf of A.L. to Defendant Simons objecting to A.L.'s
transfer to a seclusion cell in the North Unit.
473. In response to grievances filed on behalf of A.L., Defendant Simons

justified Woodside's use of physical restraints and solitary confinement as a
legitimate method to control A.L. behavior.
474. The physical abuse of A.L. continued after DCF sent its detainees to the
Middlesex Adolescent Program (MAP) in2O2O.
475. On April 15,202A, a video recording captured Defendant Brice shoving

JARVIS. MCARTHI,'R
A.L. "with significant force using two hands on [A.L.'s] neck. [A.L.] appears to
6twIllAMs
be pushed into the wall from the force of the shove to the neck."
ATTORIIE\EATIAW
SI,TTE 2E- PARK PI4ZA
95 Sf, PAI,LSTREET
P O. BOX9{,2
BIJRLIN]6NON, \'T
oB,r@.-w
a(,=654-94tt 50
476. The previous day, Brice notified Defendant Simons that he'\ras feeling
anxiety and having difficulty sleeping because of the working conditions at
MAP.".
477. Simons denied Brice's request to be relieved of duty and was required to
complete his shift.
478. The incident was subsequently investigated by DCF's Residential

Treatment Program Regulatory Intervention Unit (RTPRI) whose investigators
concluded that MAP violated Regulation 122 (wittenreport of any incident that
potentially affects safety, physical or emotional welfare of child/youth within 24
hours); Regulation 201 (prohibition on the use of excessive force); Regulation
401 (program shall not hire or continue to employ persons whose behavior may
endanger children/youth); Regulation 403 (facility must maintain sufficient
number of staff); Regulation 416 (staff shall receive training in the prevention and
use of restraint); Regulation 423 $rogram shall establish procedures for adequate
communication and support among staffto provide services to children/youth);
Regulation 648 (program shall prohibit the use of cruel, severe or unnecessary
practices); Regulation 650 (program shall not use any form of restraint without
prior approval); and Regulation 651 (restraint may only be used to ensure the
immediate safety of the child/youth).
479. RTPRI investigators interviewed Todd Fountain of JKM Training.
480. In Decernber 2019, DCF notified the federal court that it had implemented
a ne\ policy requiring woodside staff to employ de-escalation techniques
/
included in the nationally-recognized Safe Crisis Management system.
481. JKM Training was hired by DCF to train Woodside staff in the techniques
included in the Safe Crisis Management System.
482. Fountain told RTPRI investigators that Woodside staff members were told
by Defendant Simons "to go back to the old techniques if [the Safe Crisis
Management techniques were not] working."
483. Fountain suggested that Defendant Simons might be "sabotaging its

implementation" in an effort to prove that "what they were doing [before the
federal court intervened] was good."
484. According to Fountain, the conduct of Woodside/MAP staff exhibited the

belief that "intimidation is a behavior-management strategy."
JAx{VIS, MCARTHI,,R
&UIILLIAMS
485. On June 29,2020, A.L. was again assaulted by Woodside/IVIAP stafi led
PARK PI.'[ZA
by Defendant Hamlin.
STJITE 2E -
P O. EO(9(,2
a)fi4a)tr.-@Z
aoH5a-€41i 51
486. During the assault, A.L. was knocked to the floor, A.L.'s arms were
twisted and pulled behind his back, and A.L.'s legs were crossed while his feet
were moved up against his buttocks.
487 . In its August 2019 order, the federal court specifically banned the further
use of this painful and unnecessary restraint technique ("The focus of forcing
youths into the final position - arms raised behind the back, feet crossed and
pushed into the buttocks - results in prolonged struggles on the floot'').
488. On July 7,2020, Disability Rights Vermont reported the two assaults to
the federal court.
489. According to Disability Rights Vermont, a "review of the video of the

lune 29,2020 incident regarding two youths confirms that the same, or even more
dangerous, pain-inflicting maneuvers that existed prior to this litigation were used
again, despite this Court's Preliminary Injunction Order and Order approving the
Settlement Agreement."
490. In August 2020, newly-appointed DCF Commissioner Sean Brown told

Vermont State legislators that when Woodside staff msmbers assaults A.L., they
'lrltimately reverted to some techniques that aren't supported by the new model
that u'e're using in the facility."
491. According to Commissioner Brown, Woodside staff restrained A.L. 'tn a

way that's inappropriate in a prone position."
492. At this point, it is impossible to catalogue every instance of the abuse A.L.
a copy of A.L.'s DCF file and the video recordings of Woodside staff interactions
with him.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE
Violations of the Eighth Amendment,s ban on

cruel and unusual punishment
493. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 573.

JARVIS, MCARTHI.'R
6iWLLI,AMS
494. At all times material hereto, Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott,
Simons, Steward, Bunnell, Cathcart,Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martinez,
ATTORI{E\E AT IAW
Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, D'Amico, Hamlin, and Brice were acting under
SI,,ITE 2E - PART( PI.AZA
95 SN PAULSTREET color of state law.

P O. BO(9(,2
BI,RLINGTON.\,T
ou@-awa
ao2:654:94tt 52
495. The Eight Amendment guarantees Plaintiffs'right to be free from cruel

and unusual punishment.
496. Defendants were vested with control over the custody and care of
Plaintiffs.
497. In addition, Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, Simons, Steward,

Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martinez, Ruggles, Piette,
Rochon, Dale, D'Amico, Hamlin, and Brice owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to
ensure their custody was reasonably safe and to detect and correct problems that
could cause injury to Plaintiffs.
498. Between 2Al7 and202A. while Plaintiffs were detained at Woodside and
the Middlesex Adolescent Program, Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott,
Simons, Steward, Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martinez,
Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice either unlawfully isolated
Plaintiffs in seclusion cells in Woodside's North Unit, physically restrained them
in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and engaged in wanton and willful
conduct that violated Plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. $1983, or failed to fulfiII their constitutional
duty to ensure that Plaintiffs were reasonably safe, and to detect and correct
problcms that could cause injury to Plaintiffs.
COUNT TWO
Violations of the Eighth Amendment's and

Fourteenth Amendmentts ban on the use of excessive force
499. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein paragraphs I through 579.
D'Amico, Simons, Steward, Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner,
Marttnez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice were acting under
color of state law.
501. The Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Plaintiffs'

right to bodily integrity and to be secure in their person and free from excessive
force.
502. The actions and use of force, or their failure to fulfilltheir constitutional
JARVIS. MCAI{TrII.|R
duty to ensure that Plaintiffs were reasonably safe and to detect and correct
6iW|LLTAMS
problems that could cause injury to Plaintiffs. as described herein, of Defendants
AATOEN*]SATIAI"
Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, D'Amico, Simons, Steward, Bunnell, Cathcart,
SI,ITE ZE- PARK PI.AZA
95 SN PAI'LSTREET
Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martinez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, Hamlin,
It o. BCrx 902
BTIRIINGION,\/T
(J64o>W
aoHsa-g411 53
and Brice were also malicious andlor involved reckless, callous, and deliberate
indifference to Plaintiffs' federally protected rights.
503. The use of force by Defendants shocks the conscience.
504. Defendants Simons, Steward, Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Hatin, Weiner,

Martinez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Hamlin, and Brice used such force as was
objectively unreasonable, excessive, and conscience-shocking physical force.
505. Defendants Schatz, She4 Gooley, Wolcott, Simons, Steward, Bunnell,

Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, }dartir,iez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale,
Hamlin, and Brice failed to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs from the
objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking excessive force ofother
Defendants despite being in a position to do so.
506. The individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each
other.
507. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were perpetrated against Plaintiffs

without legal justification. The acts were excessive, done with actual malice
towards Plaintiffs, and with willful and wanton indifference to, and deliberate
disregard for human life and the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
508. Plaintiffs were detained at Woodside and the Middlesex Adolescent

Program, Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, Simons, Steward, Bunnell,
Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Mariinez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale,
Hamlin, and Brice either unlawfully isolated Plaintifts in seclusion cells in
Woodside North Unit, to physically restrain them in violation of Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights, and engaged in wanton and willful conduct that violated
Plaintiffs' right to be free from excessive force as guaranteed by the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in violation of 42
U.S.C. $1983 or failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to ensure that Plaintiffs
were reasonably safe and to detect and correct problems that could cause injury to
Plaintiffs.
COUNT THREE
Deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights to due process of law

as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

JAR!iIS, McARTTfl,,R
&WLLTAMS
AITORNhISATIAW
SX.INE 2E-PARI(PI.AZA
95 SN, PAI,LSTREET Martinez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice were acting under
P O. BOX9(,2 color of state law.
BT'RLINGiTON. \,T
o54oz.o9o.z
402:€58-9411 54
511. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
512. Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, D'Amico, Simons, Steward,

Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scmbb. Hatin, Weiner, Martinez, Ruggles, Piette,
Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice were vested with control over the custody and
care of Plaintiffs.

Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Mlartinez, Ruggles, Piette,
Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure their
custody was reasonably safe and to detect and correct problems that could cause
injury to Plaintiffs.

Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martinez, Ruggles, Piette,
Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice violated Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment
rights when they confined, restrained, treated, and punished Plaintiffs in the
aforementioned manner or failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to ensure that
Plaintiffs were reasonably safe and to detect and correct problems that could
cause injury to Plaintiffs.

Bunnell, Cathcart, Dubuc, Scrubb, Hatin, Weiner, Martrnez, Ruggles, Piette,
Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice deprived Plaintiffs of their protected liberty
interest by punishing, restraining, and confining Plaintiffs in the manner
aforementioned or failed to fulfilltheir constitutional duty to ensure that Plaintiffs
were reasonably safe and to detect and correct problems that could cause injury to
Plaintifts.
516. The aforementioned acts of Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott,

Martinez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice were perpetrated
against Plaintiffs without legal justification. The acts were excessive, done with
actual malice towards Plaintiffs, and with willful and wanton indifference to, and
deliberate disregard for human life and the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
517. Between 2016 and2020, while Plaintiffs were detained at Woodside and
the Middlesex Adolescent Program, Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott,
Martinez, Ruggles, Piette, Rochon, Dale, Hamlin, and Brice either unlawfully
JARVT!i, MCARTHI,'R
isolated Plaintiffs in seclusion cells in Woodside North Unit, physically restrained
6IIIVILIIAMS
them in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and engaged in wanton and
ATTORNE\EAT IAIIII
ST.IITE 2E- PARK PI.AZA
willful conduct that violated Plaintiffs'right to substantive and procedural due
95SI: PAI'LSTREET process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
E O. El))(9(I2 Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. $1983 or failed to fulfiII their constitutional
BT'RUN6TON,\,T
G4e+W
ao2-648.9477 55
duty to ensure that Plaintiffs were reasonably safe and to detect and correct
problems that could cause injury to Plaintiffs.
COUNT FOUR
Defendants Schatz, Dale, D'Amico, Longchampr llarriman and Wolcott violated

R..H.'s and D.H.'s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual
punishment and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and
were deliberately indifferent to the abuse perpetrated against R.H. and D.II. by
staff members at the NatchezTrace Youth Academy
519. At all times material hereto, Defendants Schatz, Dale, D'Amico,

Longchamp, Harriman, and Wolcott were acting under color of state law.
520. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
521. Defendants Schatz, Dale, D'Amico, Longchamp, Harriman, and Wolcott

were vested with control over the custody and care of Plaintiffs..

owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure their custody was reasonably safe and to
detect and correct problems that could cause injury to Plaintiffs.

ignored complaints about the inhumane conditions at the Natchez Trace Youth
Academy registered by Plaintiffs R.H. and D.H., demonstrating deliberate
indifference to the repeated violations of R.H.'s and D.H's civil and constitutional
rights which directly and negatively impacted their physical safety and emotional
well-being in violation of their (a) right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution; (b) right to be free from excessive force as guaranteed by the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (c) right to
substantive and procedural due process oflaw as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. $1983.
COUNT FT\rE
Defendants Simons, Steward, and Bunnell violated R.H.'s and T.F.'s First
JAR\/IS, MCARTHTJR Amendment's Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances
&wILIlAtt si
ATTORNEYSATIAS'
ST,ITE 2E - PAIIK PL]qZitr
95 SN PAIJLSTREET
P O. BO(9{r2
BI,RUNGTON,VT
o5,oz-omz
aoHSa-9411 56
525. At all times material hereto, Defendants Simon, Steward, and Bunnell
were acting under color of state law.
526. The First Amendment guarantees Plaintiff R.H.'s and T.F.'s right to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
527. Defendants Simons, Steward, and Bunnell were vested with control over
the custody and care of Plaintiffs R.H. and T.F..
528. From July 2018 through September 2A18, Defendant Steward unlawfully
interfered with R.H.'s right to counsel by blocking his access to his attomey and
threatening to retaliate against him if he continued to pursue the case his attomey
filed in the Vermont Superior Court on July 6,2018.
529. At the same time, Defendant Steward unlawfully promised R.H. that he
would receive certain additional privileges if he dropped his lawsuit.
530. In August and September 2018, Defendants Simons and Steward

unlawfully pressured R.H. to contact his attorney and tell her to dismiss the case
his attorney filed in the Vermont Superior Court on July 6,2018.
531. On September 11, 2018, R.H. finally succumbed to Defendants Simons'

and Steward's unlawful pressure campaign and informed his attorneys he wanted
his case dismissed.
532. In response to R.H.'s September ll,2078letter, his attorneys dismissed

the Complaint.
533. On July 5, 2018, T.F.'s attorney filed a Motion for a Protective Order in
the Vermont Superior Court, Caledonia Family Division, in which T.F. alleged
that Defendant Bunnell had assaulted her on June 27,2018 by punching her in the
face.
534. T.F. told Defendant Steward about the assault, but Steward did not report
Bunnell's assault to the appropriate authorities even though she was mandated to
do so.
535. After T.F. filed the Motion for a Protective Order, Defendants Steward
and Bunnell unlawfully pressured T.F. as described above to dismiss her lawsuit.
536. While she was still detained at Woodside, T.F. ultimately succumbed to
JARVIS, MCAIITHTJII
Defendants Steward's and Bunnell's unlawful pressure campaign, and instructed
&WILLTAMS
her attorney to dismiss the case in a letter Defendant Steward advised her to write.
ATTOFNEIE AT IAI/II
ST,ITE 2E- PAITK PLM|A
95 SN PATJLSTREET
537. Defendants Simons, Steward, and Bunnell retaliated against R.H. and T.F.
P O. BCIX9()2 after they registered complaints about the abuse their suffered at Woodside in
BTJRLINGTON,\,T
@abwz
ao2-65a-€411 57
violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and engaged in wanton and willful

conduct that violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.
$ 1 e83.
COUNT SIX
Supervisory liability for the failing to supervise subordinates

who violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights
538. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 61 8.
539. Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, and Simons, after receiving
repeated reports, complaints, grievances, and investigatory reports prepared by
RLSIU about the abuse of Woodside detainees, demonstrated deliberate
indifference to Plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,
excessive force, and solitary confinement failed to fulfiIItheir constitutional duty
to ensure that Plaintiffls were reasonably safe and to detect and correct problems
that could cause injury to Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment
rights against excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment and their right to
substantive and procedural due process oflaw as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. $1983.
DAMAGES - COI.INTS ONE THROUGH SD(
541. As a result of Defendants outrageous, illegal, unconstifutional, assaultive,

and unlawful conduct as detailed above, Plaintiffs suffered serious physical and
psychological injuries, both temporary and permanent, and are entitled to
compensatory damages resulting from those injuries.
542. Based on Defendants' willful and wanton disregard for, and deliberate
indifference to, Plaintiff s constitutional rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary
damages.
543. In addition, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for those damages pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. $1983 and for their attorney's fees and litigation expenses pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. $1988.
PENDENT STATE CLAIMS
JAR\/IS;, MCARTHI,JR
COTT\T SEVEN
6TWILLTAMS
Assault and Batterv
ATTOEiTIEY]SAf IAW
s;tNTE 2E- PARI(PLEIZA
955[ PAT'LSTREET
s44. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein paragraphs I throryh624.
Il o. Bo(902
BURLINGTON.\.T
G.tayz-o,qriz
a0H58-9411 58
545. While Plaintiffs were detained at Woodside and the Middlesex Adolescent
Program between 2016 and2020, Defendants Simons, Steward, Bunnell,
Cathcart,Martinez,Weiner, Piette, Rochon, Hamlin, Ruggles, Hatin, and Bryce
repeatedly placed them in isolation cells in the North Unit and physically
assaulted them.
Damages for Assault and Battery
546. As a result of Defendants' outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional, and

unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered serious physical and psychological injuries,
both temporary and permanent and are entitled to compensatory damages
resulting from those injuries.
547. Based on Defendants' intentional misconduct, Plaintiffs are also entitled to

exemplary damages.
COUNT EIGHT
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm
549. Defendants were vested with control over the custody and care of
Plaintiffs.
550. The conduct of Defendants Simons, Steward, Dubuc, Hatin, Cathcart's,

Bunnell, Weiner, Hamlin, Martinez, Piette, Ruggles, and Brice, whereby they
unlawfully confined, restrained, mistreated, and punished Plaintiffs and failed to
fuIfill their constitutional duty to onsure that Plaintiffs were reasonably safe and to
detect and correct problems that could cause injury to Plaintifls was so outrageous
and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.
551. These Defendants intended to cause emotional distress to Plaintiffs and/or
acted in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress to
Plaintiffs.
552. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer emotional distress.
553. The aforementioned acts of Defendants Simons, Steward, Dubuc, Hatin,

Cathcart's, Bunnell, Weiner, Hamlin, Martrnez, Piette, Ruggles, and Brice were
perpetrated against Plaintiffs without legal justification. The acts were excessive,
JARVIS, MCARTHI,R done with actual malice towards Plaintiffs, and with willful and wanton
6TWLLTAMS
indifference to, and deliberate disregard for human life and the constitutional
ATTOFNEYIi AT IAU'
rights of Plaintiffs.
STIITE ZE- PARK T'I.AZA
95 ST. PAT,LSTREET
t o. Bo(9()2
BT,,RLIN6TOIV. \/T
oEl.f}zog()z
aO2:654-941t 59
554. By repeatedly placing Plaintiffs in isolation cells in Woodside North Unit

and by physically assaulting them, the outrageous and inexcusable conduct of
Defendants Simons, Steward, Dubuc, Hatin, Cathcart's, Bunnell, Weiner, Hamlin,
Martinez, Piette, Ruggles, and Brice caused Plaintiffs to suffer from extreme
emotional distress.
DAMAGES
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm
555. As a result of Defendants' intentional infliction of emotion harmo

Plaintiffs are entitled to both compensatory and exemplary damages.
COUNT NINE
Defendants' grossly negligent and reckless supervision

of persons in their custody and control
556. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein paragraphs 1 througfu 636.
557. By statute, Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, Simons were

vested with control, custody, and supervision of Plaintiffs and had a duty to
protect Plaintiffs from foreseeable harm.
558. Defendants Schatz, Shea, Gooley, Wolcott, and Simons owed Plaintiffs a
duty of care to ensure their custody was reasonably safe and to detect and correct
problems that could cause injury to Plaintiffs
559. As a result of their grossly negligent and reckless conduct, Defendants

breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs.
DAMAGES
Grossly negligent and reckless supervision
560. As a result of Defendants' breach of their duty of care to Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional harm, both temporary and permanent,
for which they are entitled damages and other compensation in an amount to be
determined by the jury.
JARVIS, MCARTHUR
6iIVLI.IAMSi WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
A1TORNEIE AT I./TIY
STIITE 2E- PARKPIAZA
95Sf,, PAI.IL:;TREET l. enter judgment in their favor on all counts of the Complaint;
P O. BO(9(r2
BUNLNGiTON,VT
o*oz-w
aoHsa-€411 60
2. award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by

the Court;
3. award medical expenses related to the treatment of Plaintiffs' injuries,

which are claimed as special damages, Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 9(g);
4. award exemplary damages for Defendants'outrageous and illegal conduct;
5. award Plaintiffs attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $
1988;
6. grant such other and further relief as this Court deelrls proper.
Plaintifls hereby demand atial by jury.
DATED at Burlington, Vermont this

'day ofJune,2022.
-Z-t'
B McArthur, Esq.
.
Jarvis, McArthur & Williams
r\ 't* -
,/
David J. Williams, Esq.
Jarvis, McArthur & Williams
Counsel for Plaintiffs
JARVIS, MCARTHI,'R
&I'I'ILLI,AMS
ATTORNEYSATIAW
ST'ITE 2E- PARK PT.AZA
95 ST PAT'LSTREET
P O. BO)(902
BI,NUNCTON.VT
oil@4w,
a(,H5a-9411 6t

Ammended Complaint 6/28/22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ammended Complaint 6/28/22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ammended Complaint 6/28/22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:21-cv-00283-gwc Document 65 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 61

Plaintiffs, Docket No. 5:21-cv-283

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Between 2016 and2lz1,juveniles detained at the Woodside Juvenile

Complaints regarding this misconduct were investigated and substantiated by

In addition, DCF sent two of these young people to an out-of-state facility in

l. Plaintiff Cathy Welch is a resident of Corinth, Vermont and was appointed

8. Defendant Kenneth Schatz was the Commissioner of Vsrmont's Deparfrnent for

9. Defendant Karen Shea was a Deputy Commissioner of Vermont's Department for

10. Defendant Cindy Wolcott was a Deputy Commissioner of Vermont's Department

15. Defendant Marcus Bunnell was an Operations Supervisor at the Woodside

25. Defendant Melanie D'Amico was employed by DCF as residential services

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

43. Woodside detainees who engaged in disruptive, aggressive, or self-harming

53. Defendant Dale forwarded the Juvenile Defender's complaint to Defendants

67 . h a letter dated December 2,2016, Defendant Shea dismissed these complaints

79.T\e Complaint indicates that there is a video recording of this incident.

98. Relying on investigatory reports submitted to Defendant Schatz in October 2018

107. Following this hearing, on June 28,2\l94,the Office of the Juvenile

113 . On June 27 , 2019 , four male Woodside staff members, including

ll4. Emails from Defendants Dubuc, Bunnell, andCathcartto Defendant Dale

115. ln addition to the actions filed in Vermont state courts, a series of

116. On December 29,2A17, an attorney with the Office of the Juvenile

ll7. The grievance requested a prompt review of A.L.'s placement in solitary

118. ln a memo dated December 29,2017, Defendant Simons denied the

122. The grievance alleged improper placement of D.H. into solitary

124. The grievance requested a prompt review of Defendants Simons' and

I25. In a memo dated December 18,2017, Defendant Simons denied the

136. R.H.'s amended grievance complained about an unnecessary and

138. The amended grievance indicated that R.H's conditions of confinement

L40. On October 23,2A18, DCF held a Woodside Stakeholder Meeting.

143. RLSIU investigated R.H.'s conditions of confinement at Woodside, the

144. In particular, RLSIU concluded that Woodside's attempt to silence R.H.

145. ln November 2018, after RLSru investigated a different complaint filed

146. In particular, based on this investigation, RLSIU concluded that

I47. Based on this investigation, RLSIU investigators informed the "Governing

148. On August 31,2018, Paul Capcara filed a complaint with RLSIU

152. After completing the investigation into Capcara's complaint, RLSIU

154. Based on this investigation, RLSIU investigators informed the "Governing

156. Subsequently, RLSIU investigated an incident that occurred on Jvne 27 ,

157. In particular, based on this investigation, RLSIU concluded that Defendant

159. Despite RLSIU's multiple findings that Woodside was mistreating

160. ln fact, in response to RLSIU's detailed investigative reports, Defendants

o 'oRetaliation is not acceptable and we do not believe that it is a pervasive issue

164. As a result of Defendants Schatz's and Shea's failure to fulfill their

165. Nothing demonstrates Defendant Schatz's, Shea's, Gooley's, and Simons'

169. An investigation undertaken by the West Virginia Department of

170. Vermont children placed by DCF at Natchez Trace reported similar

174. In Septemb er 2017, the Offrce of the Juvenile Defender contacted

175. Defendant D'Amico responded by telling the Office of the Juvenile

185. DCF officials, including Defendants Schatz, Wolcott, Dale, Longchamp,

THE EFFECTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ON JUVENILES

189. New technologies in brain research have allowed us to recognize and

SI'ITE 2E- PARK PI.AZA

t97. Dr. Grassian's report has been provided to Defendants.

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN THE NORTH TINIT

198. Woodside managers had to approve the transfer of children detained at

200. In at least one instance, Defendant Cathcart, in his capacity as acting

20I. Before becoming Director of Woodside, Defendant Simons had worked at