Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc.

#: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 1 of 70 PageID #: 728

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA K. HAYNES (a/k/a Cynthia K. Randolph), )

individually and under the Missouri Wrongful Death )
Statute )
)
)
Plaintiffs )
v. ) Cause No. 1:21-CV-00160-SNL
)
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, individually ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, d/b/a WILLIAMS LAW, )
)
SPAIN, MILLER, GALLOWAY & LEE, LLC, )
a Missouri limited liability company, )
)
BERNICE HAYNES, individually and )
)
CHARLES HAYNES, individually )
)
Defendants. )
)

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 2 of 70 PageID #: 729

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................... 1

PARTIES
Plaintiffs .............................................................................................................. 1
Defendants ........................................................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 6

CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................... 49

COUNT I
Wrongful Death - Acting Outside the Scope of GAL Duties
(Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller) ............................................. 49

COUNT II
Wrongful Death - Legal Malpractice
(Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller) ............................................. 54

COUNT III
Wrongful Death - Breach of Fiduciary Duties
(Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller) ............................................. 56

COUNT IV
Personal Claim of Plaintiff - Acting Outside the Scope of GAL Duties
(Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller) ............................................. 59

COUNT V
Wrongful Death - Negligent Supervision
(Defendant Spain, Miller) ...................................................................... 62

COUNT VI
Wrongful Death - Negligence
(Defendant Bernice Haynes) .................................................................. 64

COUNT VII
Wrongful Death - Sexual Assault and Battery
(Defendant Charles Haynes) ................................................................. 66

JURY DEMAND ............................................................................................................ 68

i
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 3 of 70 PageID #: 730

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Cynthia Haynes, individually, and as the mother of M.H. under

the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and for her

causes of action against Defendants states the following:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted against Defendants

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 because no Defendants are the citizens and residents of the same

state as Plaintiff and the amount in controversy exceeds $100,000.

2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1402 because at all times relevant, all

Defendants resided in this district and all of the wrongful acts and/or omissions complained of

herein occurred in this judicial district.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

3. M.H., deceased, was the daughter of Cynthia Haynes. At the time of her death,

M.H. was a kind, smart and hardworking student, a loving daughter, and sister, and committed to

socially just causes. Prior to December 2016, M.H. did not suffer from depression, anxiety, or

agitation according to her medical records. M.H. took her life in Ripley County, Missouri. M.H.

was born on August 30, 2004. M.H. died on November 24, 2018. She was fourteen (14) years

old.

4. Cynthia Randolph is a natural person who is and at all times relevant to this claim

was M.H.’s mother and is M.H.’s “heir” under Missouri’s Wrongful Death Statute. As of the

filing of this suit, Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the City of Palmetto, Fulton County, State

of Georgia.

1
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 4 of 70 PageID #: 731

5. Plaintiff’s claims are brought individually and under R.S. Mo. §537.080, the

Missouri Wrongful Death Statute. When M.H. died, she was not married and had no children;

she was survived by both parents.

B. Defendants

6. Defendants Jennifer Williams and Jennifer Williams d/b/a Williams Law and are

citizens and residents of Missouri. Defendant Williams is an attorney licensed to practice law in

the State of Missouri with a place of business in the City of Poplar Bluff, Butler County, State of

Missouri. Williams was a court appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) in the Divorce Case Charles

Haynes v. Cynthia Haynes, 13RI-CV00554, Ripley County Circuit Court, Missouri. (A copy of

the GAL Appointment Order dated May 6, 2016 is attached as Exhibit 1.) Williams was also a

personal attorney to M.H. in the above-referenced case. (A copy of the January 30, 2017 Order

Appointing Williams as a Personal Attorney for M.H. and her sister S.H. is attached as Exhibit

2.)

7. Defendant Spain, Miller, Galloway & Lee, LLC (Spain, Miller) is a Missouri

limited liability company with its principal place of business in Poplar Bluff, Butler County. At

all times relevant to this lawsuit, Spain, Miller engaged in the practice of law in the State of

Missouri. Spain, Miller is a citizen of Missouri. The causes of action asserted in this suit against

Spain, Miller arise out of their practice of law.

7. (a) Spain, Miller’s registrations with the Missouri Secretary of State are more than

eight years old. All of them show that its members and/or members of any

predecessor limited liability corporations resided in Missouri (See copies of

Spain, Millers’ registrations, Exhibit 46.)

2
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 5 of 70 PageID #: 732

7. (b) Spain, Miller’s website lists three attorneys associated with the firm. Samuel P.

Spain, Matthew B. Lee, and Karen Jolly Miller. (See copies of portions of Spain,

Miller’s website, Exhibit 47.) Samuel P. Spain is a resident and citizen of the

State of Missouri. Matthew B. Lee is a resident and citizen of the State of

Missouri. Karen Jolly Miller is a resident and citizen of the State of Missouri.

Spain, Lee and Miller are attorneys licensed to practice law in Missouri. They list

their office address as the office address of Spain, Miller in Poplar Bluff,

Missouri. All three attorneys reside in Missouri. All three attorneys have

Missouri drivers licenses. All three attorneys are registered to vote in Butler

County, Missouri.

7. (c) A former “partner” in Spain, Miller, Amy Galloway, passed away in December

2014.

7. (d) Through discovery Plaintiff will inquire whether there are any other current

members of Spain, Miller, LLC other than the three attorneys listed as practicing

with Spain, Miller and what the citizenship of each member currently is. There

are no public records that provide this information.

8. From May 2016 until December 2019, Williams acted within the scope and

course of her employment, servancy and/or agency with Spain, Miller.

9. From December 2019 until April 29, 2021, Williams was the sole proprietor and

used a fictitious name Williams Law. During this time, Williams acted within the scope and

course of her employment, servancy and/or agency for Williams Law registered with the

Missouri Secretary of State as a fictitious entity, located in Poplar Bluff, Butler County,

Missouri.

3
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 6 of 70 PageID #: 733

10. Williams served as a GAL in the Haynes’ divorce from May 6, 2016 until M.H.’s

death on November 24, 2018.

11. Williams served as M.H.’s personal attorney in the Haynes’ divorce from January

30, 2017 until M.H.’s death on November 24, 2018. Williams’ two roles created a conflict of

interest for her for which she did not receive waivers from her clients or their guardians or the

Divorce Court.

12. In her position as GAL, Williams functioned for the benefit of the Court. State ex

rel. Bird v. Weinstock, 864 S.W.2d 376, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). Williams was not M.H.’s

and S.H.’s personal attorney in her role as a GAL.

13. As a GAL Williams was required to conduct investigations, to interview all

necessary parties, including M.H. and S.H., to ascertain their wishes, feelings, attachments, and

attitudes. R.S. Mo. §452.423. Williams was mandated to report her findings to the Divorce

Court. Baumgart v. Baumgart, 944 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). As a GAL

Williams was obligated to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, Missouri

Rules of Professional Responsibility (MRPR) and the Missouri Supreme Court GAL Standards.

(A copy of the GAL Standards is attached as Exhibit 3.)

14. As a personal attorney for M.H. and S.H., Williams’ duties were to provide

quality legal services to M.H., to safeguard M.H.’s confidences, to avoid conflicts of interest, to

communicate with M.H. and to pursue vigorously and zealously M.H.’s wishes, as well as to

advocate for M.H.’s safety and wellbeing.

15. At all times relevant hereto, Williams and/or Spain, Miller received money, as a

result of Williams’ involvement in the Haynes divorce and of Williams representing M.H.

Spain, Miller controlled or had the right to control Williams’ actions complained of herein.

4
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 7 of 70 PageID #: 734

Spain, Miller exercised or should have exercised oversight of Williams in the form of daily,

weekly, and/or monthly reporting and monitoring.

16. Defendant Bernice Haynes was, at all times relevant hereto a citizen and resident

of the State of New Jersey, City of Cape May in Cape May County. Bernice Haynes

(Grandmother Haynes) is Charles Haynes’ (Charles) mother who intervened in the divorce case

to seek custody of M.H. and S.H. Grandmother Haynes was awarded physical custody and sole

decision maker responsibility for M.H. on December 22, 2016. (A copy of that Order dated

December 22, 2016 placing daughters with Grandmother Haynes and making her primary

decision maker is attached as Exhibit 4.) By virtue of the Divorce Court Order, Grandmother

Haynes was charged with safeguarding and protecting M.H.’s wellbeing.

17. As a custodial grandparent of M.H., Grandmother Haynes was responsible for the

care and wellbeing of M.H. as well as her safety. Grandmother Haynes was obligated to ensure

compliance with the December 22, 2016 Divorce Court Order mandating her to supervise

Charles Haynes’ visits with her minor granddaughters, M.H. and S.H. She failed to do that.

18. Defendant Charles Haynes (Charles) was, at all times relevant hereto, a citizen

and resident of State of Missouri and Ripley County. Charles is the biological father of M.H.

and S.H. Charles sexually abused M.H. when M.H. was in the custody of Grandmother Haynes.

As M.H.’s parent Charles was responsible for the care and wellbeing of M.H. as well as her

safety. Charles was obligated to comply with the December 22, 2016 Divorce Court Order

mandating that he not have unsupervised visits with his minor daughters, M.H. and S.H. Charles

failed to do that.

19. Charles is currently serving a seven-year term of incarceration at the Farmington

Correctional Facility in St. Francois County, Missouri for deviant sodomy of M.H.’s older

5
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 8 of 70 PageID #: 735

stepsister M.S.H. (who was between twelve and fifteen years of age at the times of the sodomy).

He also sexually abused M.H. during her life. He does not deserve to be awarded any amount

from whatever sums are recovered pursuant to the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

20. Plaintiff and Charles were married on May 23, 2008 in Ripley County, Missouri.

21. This lawsuit stems from a divorce case involving Plaintiff and her husband,

Charles. They had two daughters born of their union: M.H. Haynes born on XX.XX.2004

(deceased on November 24, 2018) and S.H. born on XX.XX.2009.

22. Plaintiff was previously married to Paul Hogg with whom she had two daughters,

M.S.H. (born on XX.XX.1999) and Melinda Hogg (born on May 18, 1993). Both M.S.H. and

Mindy lived with Plaintiff and Charles after Plaintiff’s first divorce in 2008.

23. During Plaintiff’s marriage with Charles, Plaintiff and her daughters struggled

through cycles of Charles’ abuse. The verbal abuse started early in the marriage, with Charles

often calling Plaintiff “stupid bitch,” “stupid Bible thumper,” “cunt,” “whore,” and “dumb and

lazy bitch, who deserves to die.” Often, Charles’s disparaging epitaphs toward Plaintiff were

expressed by shouting at the top of his lungs in the presence of their minor daughters and

stepdaughters.

24. Charles abused his daughters, M.H. and S.H., and his stepdaughters, Mindy and

M.S.H. physically and emotionally during his cycles of abuse. He referred to his minor

daughters and stepdaughters as “stupid,” “whores,” “cunts,” “worthless bitches,” “dumb

bitches,” “failure,” “queer,” “freak,” “scum,” and “sluts and cunts, just like your mother” often

outside of Plaintiff’s presence.

6
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 9 of 70 PageID #: 736

25. Generally, the first phase of an abuse cycle is the “honeymoon phase,” where the

abuser creates a safe place filled with love and a sense of security in the relationship. The victim

is drawn close to the abuser by a powerful sense of belonging. The victim is enticed by the

abuser’s ability to say and do the right things at the right time.

26. The second phase of the abuse cycle is the “tension building phase.” It begins

when the victim becomes aware of the tension increasing in the relationship. The abuser uses a

variety of techniques to maintain control over the victim, such as the silent treatment, jealousy,

mind games, blaming, and gaslighting. The victim tries to appease the abuser in order to

decrease the tension.

27. The third phase of the abuse cycle is when the abuse is exposed or the abuser feels

a loss of control. This “explosive phase” begins when the victim becomes the target of extreme

verbal, emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse at the whim of the abuser.

28. Charles repeatedly cycled through all three phases of abuse.

29. Plaintiff was naïve to the fact that she was a victim of domestic and intimate

partner violence as she dutifully and lovingly met her daughters’ needs for emotional support,

loving parenting, and access to appropriate medical and mental health treatment even while

Charles was abusing all family members.

30. Throughout the time Plaintiff lived with Charles, Plaintiff continued to focus on

her daughters, on their positive behaviors by motivating them to do well academically, to engage

in extracurricular activities and spiritual training, to engage them with their emotions, to accept

responsibilities at home, to improve their social skills, and to be respectful towards their family

members.

31. Plaintiff continually attempted to provide support to her daughters to decrease the

7
 Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 10 of 70 PageID #: 737

impact of Charles’s explosive anger cycles. However, Plaintiff was not able to protect her

daughters or herself from Charles’s never-ending abuse. Plaintiff failed to end her marriage in

the early cycles of abuse. Initially, Plaintiff was not aware of Charles’ physical and sexual abuse

of her daughters.

32. On May 7, 2011 Charles assaulted Plaintiff at their home. Plaintiff heard Charles

screaming at his stepdaughter, M.S.H., who was playing with her friend in her bedroom with

Barbie dolls. Charles demanded that M.S.H. open Barbie doll’s legs “to do some nasty!” When

M.S.H. refused “to do the nasty,” Charles started yelling and screaming at M.S.H. demanding

that M.S.H. “then do the nasty!”

33. Plaintiff rushed into the bedroom and asked Charles to leave M.S.H.’s room.

Instead, Charles assaulted Plaintiff by punching Plaintiff’s face breaking her nose and cheek

bone in front of M.S.H. and her friend. Plaintiff, bleeding profusely and suffering a terrible

headache, rushed to the Southeast Health Center of Ripley County where she was hospitalized

and treated for her injuries.

34. Plaintiff filed for divorce, but then Charles immediately transitioned into the

“honeymoon phase.” He begged Plaintiff to forgive him because he was “a changed man” who

would never again hurt Plaintiff and his daughters and stepdaughters. In reliance on these

promises, Plaintiff naively dismissed her divorce with Charles.

35. On December 1, 2013, Plaintiff’s daughter M.S.H. told Plaintiff and Ripley

County law enforcement that Charles forced M.S.H. to give him oral sex and fondled her sexually

many times.

36. Having learned of Charles’s sexual abuse of M.S.H., Plaintiff moved to Randolph

County, Missouri and filed for divorce there in December 2013. Charles then filed for divorce in

8
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 11 of 70 PageID #: 738

Ripley County in December 2013. The cases were consolidated into Charles Haynes v. Cynthia

Haynes, Case 13RI-CV00554 (Divorce Case) which is still pending in Ripley County, Missouri.

Since December 1, 2013, Plaintiff and Charles have not lived together as a married couple.

37. On December 2, 2013, Charles was served with a charging document in State of

Missouri v. Charles M. Haynes, 13RI-CR00907, accusing Charles of:

Count I – Unclassified Felony of Statutory Rape in the First Degree

Count II – Class B felony of Child Molestation in the First Degree
Count III – Unclassified Felony of Forcible Sodomy in the Second Degree

based on his sexual abuse of M.S.H.

38. On December 3, 2013, Charles posted a Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollar bond

and was released from incarceration.

39. Throughout the divorce proceedings, Charles threatened Plaintiff that if she

divorced him, Charles would kill Plaintiff and “her slut daughter M.S.H.” Charles also

threatened that if Plaintiff and any of the daughters testified against him in the criminal case, he

would take custody of S.H. and M.H. and would kill M.S.H. and Plaintiff.

40. On April 3, 2014, M.S.H. testified at Charles’s preliminary hearing stating that

Charles had been sexually abusing her for three years, from 2011 through 2013. M.S.H.

provided numerous and graphic details of the sexual abuse she endured such as having to give

“blow jobs,” “vagina licking,” “vagina fingering,” “boob fondling” and touching her body

elsewhere. (A copy of the transcript of M.S.H.’s testimony at Preliminary Hearing on Charles’

criminal charges is attached as Exhibit 5.)

41. The Ripley County Prosecuting Attorney procured DNA tests confirming

Charles’s sperm from samples collected at numerous locations disclosed by M.S.H. where

Charles sodomized her.

9
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 12 of 70 PageID #: 739

42. After the preliminary hearing on April 3, 2014, the State filed an Amended

Criminal Complaint in State of Missouri v. Haynes, 13RI-CR00907-01 charging Charles with the

following criminal conduct resulting from his actions against M.S.H.:

Count I – Felony of Statutory Sodomy in the First Degree

Count II – Class B felony of Child Molestation in the First Degree
Count III – Class C Felony of Statutory Sodomy in the Second Degree
Count IV – Class C Felony of Statutory Sodomy in the Second Degree 1

(A copy of the criminal charges against Charles is attached as Exhibit 6.)

43. Attorney Christopher Yarbro (Yarbro) initially represented Charles in the criminal

proceedings and in the divorce. In November 2015, Charles delivered to Yarbro Grandmother

Haynes’ computer that Charles used while at his mother’s house. Yarbro discovered numerous

images of child pornography on Grandmother Haynes’ computer. Yarbro delivered

Grandmother Haynes’ computer to the Prosecuting Attorney in Butler County. Yarbro

immediately withdrew from representing Charles in his criminal and divorce cases.

44. After November 2015, Theodore Liszewski began representing Charles in his

criminal and divorce proceedings.

45. On April 28, 2016, Charles petitioned the Divorce Court to appoint Williams as

guardian ad litem (GAL) alleging educational neglect of M.H. and S.H. by Plaintiff who had

been homeschooling them with Charles’ assistance from an early age. Charles never previously

questioned the adequacy of M.H.’s and S.H.’s schooling.

46. Based on Charles’s allegations of educational neglect, Williams was appointed to

assist the Divorce Court and to represent the best interests of M.H. and S.H. on May 6, 2016.

(See Exhibit 1.) In Missouri GALs are required to abide by Missouri statutes, case precedent,

1
Plaintiff is asking this Court to take a judicial notice of all criminal cases in State v. Charles
Haynes, Cause No. 13RI-CR00907 and 13RI-CR00907-01 that were pending in Ripley County,
Missouri.
10
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 13 of 70 PageID #: 740

Missouri Rules of Professional Responsibility (MRPR) and Supreme Court GAL Standards.

(See Exhibit 3.)

47. Williams’ GAL Appointment Order mandated that Plaintiff and Charles each pay

Williams $750.00 to compensate her for her GAL services pursuant to R.S. Mo. §452.423.

Plaintiff paid Williams that amount.

48. After May 6, 2016, Plaintiff attempted to schedule an appointment with Williams

to discuss the safety, wellbeing, and the best interests of her children. Williams, through her

assistant, refused to communicate with Plaintiff. Plaintiff was told that there was no need for

Williams to talk to Plaintiff.

49. On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff was required by court order to drive in a car with

Charles to pick up documents for the divorce proceedings. During this ride, Charles was in the

“explosive phase” of his abuse cycle. He threatened Plaintiff:

Charles: You won't have to worry about me a whole lot longer. You ain't going
to have to worry about a couple of others a whole lot longer either!

Plaintiff: And what's that mean?

Charles: Cause I ain't going out, I ain't going out of this one alone! I'll go out of
this one in a blaze of glory! You don't want to hold people fucking
accountable, I will! Do you think I am going to let that [M.S.H.]
fuck these kids [M.H. and S.H.] up the rest of their lives? SHIT! You
will, I won't!

Charles: She's [M.S.H.] too evil! She's too evil! She gets more evil by the day!
When she starts fucking with these other two kids, she's, she's too evil
for me. She ought to be killed!!!

Charles: You're supposed to bury that **** [M.S.H.]!!!! That's what you're
supposed to do!

Charles: You destroy that kid [M.S.H.] or that kid's going to destroy you!
And worse than that she's going to destroy those other two kids!!!
[M.H. and S.H.]. Those other two kids don't deserve to be in a
house with a piece of shit like her! Fucking queer! Liar!! Thief!!!

11
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 14 of 70 PageID #: 741

Sneak!!!! Deadbeat!!!! Find something good about her?!!!

Charles: This comes under the heading "is it worth it?" Well, you're, you're
gonna have to ... I told you that you're going to have to make a
choice between M.S.H. and the three of us or two of us, because
I'm probably fucked. So. You're gonna have to make the choice
between a piece of garbage like her [M.S.H.] or two good kids
[M.H. and S.H.]. She's trying to destroy me! She's trying to
destroy you! And she's trying to destroy those other two kids! Is
she worth that??? FUCK NO!!!

[Emphasis added.] (Quotes from a recording of this conversation). (A copy of the

transcript from May 29, 2016 conversation of Charles with Cynthia is attached as Exhibit 7.)

50. In his abusive rant, Charles expressed that he wanted M.S.H. killed so that she

would not be able to testify to his sexual abuse of her.

51. In June or July 2016, Plaintiff told Williams that Charles has been threatening to

kill Plaintiff and M.S.H. because M.S.H. disclosed to the police Charles’ sexual abuse of her.

Plaintiff told Williams that the Ripley County Sheriff had a recording of Charles’s threats against

Plaintiff and M.S.H. That recording was lodged into the evidence in State of Missouri v. Charles

Haynes, 13RI-CR00907-01. Williams refused to review the video.

52. Plaintiff assumed that as an officer of the Divorce Court and as the GAL,

Williams would report Charles’ threats to the Divorce Court. Later, Plaintiff learned that

Williams never reported Charles’ threats to the Divorce Court.

53. On November 9, 2016, Grandmother Haynes filed a Motion to Intervene in the

Divorce case seeking custody of M.H. and S.H. because of the alleged emotional bond she had

with M.H. and S.H.

54. On December 7, 2016, the Divorce Court heard Charles’s Motion for Custody

Pendente Lite in which Charles alleged that Plaintiff committed educational neglect of S.H. and

M.H. while homeschooling them.

12
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 15 of 70 PageID #: 742

55. At that hearing, Grandmother Haynes asked the Divorce Court to award her sole

legal and physical custody of S.H. and M.H. because of Plaintiff’s educational neglect of them.

On the stand, Grandmother Haynes admitted under oath several times that:

a. She was turning 90 years old the next month and she was in good health
with no illnesses but did not have a doctor in Missouri;

b. She wanted custody of S.H. and M.H. and would abide by the conditions
imposed by the Divorce Court with respect to S.H.’s and M.H.’s care;

c. Charles was charged with a sex crime against a minor and was currently
on $50,000.00 bond which he posted;

d. She would supervise S.H. and M.H. and would keep them constantly in
her presence;

e. In the past she failed to supervise S.H. and M.H. and allowed them to be
with Charles alone, unsupervised and allowed Charles to take the girls to
ride on a four-wheeler out of her sight almost every Sunday; and that she
did not think it was a problem for Charles to take the girls in the woods
without telling her that he was going there even though he was charged
with sexually abusing M.S.H.;

f. Charles hoisted S.H. on a barn roof top and exposed S.H. to bare electrical
lines and rusty nails and she was not around to stop Charles from doing it;

g. She left Charles with the girls alone in Charles’ house while she went to
her home to let her dog out;

h. Charles took the girls to a remote location under a bridge and she was not
with them to supervise Charles;

i. She was careless in the past by allowing Charles to be with the girls alone,
but it was S.H.’s fault because S.H. is always on the go; and

j. She would take the girls to and from school even though she was no
longer driving.

56. At the same hearing Grandmother Haynes agreed under oath to the following:

a. She would have her eyes on the girls at all times;

b. She understood now that it was and would be her job to advocate for
making sure that the girls are safe;

13
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 16 of 70 PageID #: 743

c. She was and would be a supervisor and a placement provider who would
be able to adequately supervise the girls;

d. She guaranteed that she would never leave Charles alone with the girls;

e. “[H]er neck was and would be on the line as the girls’ “supervisor” not to
let Charles to be alone with the girls; and

f. She understood the consequences if she failed to protect the girls from
Charles.

57. At the same hearing, under oath M.H. testified that:

a. “I want to live with my mother.”

b. “Grandmother is not able to take care of me.”

c. “I will not feel safe in her [Grandmother Haynes] care.”

d. “Grandmother cannot get up in the morning to take us to school and she

cannot drive at night.”

e. “Grandmother allowed us to be alone with Charles and she did not go with
us to see what we were doing. I was left with Charles alone in his house
by grandmother.”

f. “I do not want to see my dad more. I don’t want to see him at all.”

g. “He [Charles] made me not like mom. He made me not like M.S.H. I
kind of see what he does, and if you hear something for a long time you
start believing it.”

h. “I don’t hate him [Charles] but I dislike the things that he does.”

i. “No, it did not occur to me that he didn’t do what M.S.H. was claiming,”
“Don’t we have evidence in the court?”

j. “He did more than hurting M.S.H. I have seen him hurting my mom.”

k. “He [Charles] and Grandma asked me to keep things from my mom.”

l. “I am happy where I am and I, I love my mom.”

58. At the December 7, 2016 hearing Williams testified that she met with Plaintiff,

14
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 17 of 70 PageID #: 744

Charles, M.H., S.H., and Grandmother Haynes and reviewed all pleadings Charles provided to

Williams. Williams also testified that she asked Plaintiff for her daughters’ educational records

and that Plaintiff refused to provide them to Williams.

59. Williams’ testimony was false. Plaintiff offered her daughters’ educational

records to Williams during the previous summer and then again in fall 2016, but Williams

refused to look at the girls’ educational records. At that hearing Williams attacked Plaintiff on

the stand and falsely told the Divorce Court that Plaintiff had no educational records that

Williams requested from Plaintiff.

60. Carl Reed, a Missouri approved home schoolteacher, who helped Plaintiff

homeschool S.H. and M.H. came to the December 7, 2016 hearing prepared to testify that S.H.

and M.H. showed consistent academic progress and were ahead of their peers academically in all

school subjects. He was prepared to testify about S.H.’s and M.H.’s school curriculum and their

grades and homeschooling testing results.

61. At that time, neither S.H. nor M.H. had been tested using the Missouri Public

Schools Standardized Testing. Williams asked the Divorce Court not to hear Reed’s testimony

claiming that Reed’s testimony would be tainted because Reed was present in the courtroom

during Grandmother Haynes’ testimony. The Divorce Court declined to hear from Reed.

62. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams told the Divorce Court that being

“fairly informed” it was her opinion that “the educational endeavors of the girls have been

hindered” and “had not been pursued appropriately” by Plaintiff, based on what “I am being told

by the children.” “I have great concerns about their education.” “I believe that Bernice Haynes is

in the better position to make that happen and hopefully get them caught up to where they need

to be.”

15
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 18 of 70 PageID #: 745

63. At that the time of the hearing, M.H. and S.H. excelled academically based on the

testing offered by Plaintiff’s homeschooling program. Plaintiff offered these documents to

Williams, who declined to review them, but instead relied on Charles’ assertions in violation of

Missouri law 2 and the Supreme Court GAL Standard 4. (See Exhibit 3.) Prior to the hearing,

Plaintiff scheduled M.H. and S.H. to complete Missouri standardized testing, but the Doniphan

School District did not have any available testing times until January 2017.

64. Williams testified at the hearing that Plaintiff’s academic records of S.H. and

M.H. were not good enough for Plaintiff to overcome educational neglect allegations.

65. On December 15, 2016, the Divorce Court issued the following Memorandum:

After all other evidence was presented, the Guardian Ad Litem testified
that, even though she has concerns about Bernice Haynes’ failure to fully
supervise Father’s visits in the past, her recommendation is that the minor
children be place with Bernice Haynes. The GAL stated that placement of
the children with their grandmother is in their best interests at this time.

(A copy of the Divorce Court Memorandum from December 15, 2016 is attached as

Exhibit 8.)

66. On December 18, 2016, M.H. learned from Grandmother Haynes that

Grandmother Haynes tried to poison Plaintiff by sending her key lime pie with rat poison. M.H.

was very traumatized and concerned for Plaintiff’s health learning this. (A copy of the text from

M.H. to Plaintiff from December 18, 2016 regarding rat poisoned pie made by Grandmother

Haynes is attached as Exhibit 9.)

67. On December 22, 2016, based on Williams’ and Grandmother Haynes’ testimony,

the Divorce Court granted Plaintiff, Charles and Grandmother Haynes joint legal custody of

2
“[I]t is imperative that the GAL investigate and have input on the perspective of the child's
best interest and [that] this be presented to the trial judge.” Portwood-Hurt v. Hurt, 988 S.W.2d
613, 619 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999).
16
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 19 of 70 PageID #: 746

M.H. and S.H. and sole physical custody of the girls to 89-year-old Grandmother Haynes and

ordered that Grandmother Haynes be “the ultimate decision maker with respect to the health,

safety, and welfare of the minor children.” (See Exhibit 4.)

68. The Divorce Court granted Charles supervised visitation and liberal supervised

visitation was encouraged at Grandmother Haynes’ house. Plaintiff was awarded unsupervised

visitation from Friday at 6:00 pm until Sunday noon every weekend and other times as agreed.

69. At the time Grandmother Haynes received physical custody of M.H. and S.H., she

had been suffering and treated for prolonged congestive heart failure and had been medicated

heavily by prescription painkillers and sleeping pills for many years, with routine dosage

increases. Grandmother Haynes did not see well, and could not drive because of her declining

eyesight. She also had hearing problems and had difficulty hearing during the December 7, 2016

Divorce Court hearing.

70. Prior to the December 7, 2016 hearing Plaintiff informed Williams that

Grandmother Haynes was in poor health, suffered from congestive heart failure, had arthritis, did

not drive because she could not see and that she was heavily medicated with prescription

painkillers and sleeping drugs.

71. Williams did not investigate Grandmother Haynes’ health condition, nor did she

report to the Divorce Court Plaintiff’s concerns about Grandmother Haynes’ health which

adversely affected her ability to care for S.H. and M.H.. 3 Instead, Williams told Plaintiff that she

would not be easily manipulated by Plaintiff and her “fabricated stories.”

72. Before the December 7, 2016 hearing, Plaintiff did not know that pornographic

3
In divorce proceedings, the safety and the best interests of the children are always paramount,
and it is the duty of the guardian ad litem to protect these interests. Keling v. Keling, 155 S.W.3d
830, 834 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005)

17
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 20 of 70 PageID #: 747

images of underaged girls were found on Grandmother Haynes’ computer that Charles used and

that Charles’ attorney Yarbro delivered the computer to the Prosecuting Attorney of Butler

County.

73. In early January 2017, Charles told Plaintiff that in November 2015, Yarbro

delivered Grandmother Haynes’ computer to the Prosecuting Attorney of Butler County after

Yarbro found children’s pornographic images on it. Plaintiff informed Williams that

Grandmother Haynes’ computer used exclusively by Charles contained pornographic images of

minor children. (See also ¶43 above.)

74. At no time did Williams disclose this information to the Divorce Court or that the

Butler County Prosecutor had the computer. Williams did not investigate what was on that

computer.

75. Neither the December 7, 2016 Court hearing nor at any time thereafter did

Grandmother Haynes report to the Divorce Court that Charles used her computer to view and

store pornographic images of children.

76. The December 22, 2016 Divorce Court Order mandated that Grandmother Haynes

enroll M.H. and S.H. in the Doniphan Public School. There M.H. and S.H. were bullied and

called “sluts” and “whores” just like their sister M.S.H. who “did the nasty with Charles.” In

school M.H. was mocked and asked whether “she fucked her daddy like her sister M.S.H. had

been fucking.” Some students asked M.H. if she would “fuck them.”

77. Plaintiff informed the principal of the Doniphan School which her daughters

attended of them being bullied. The school principal told Plaintiff that the School district did not

have any resources to protect M.H. from students’ bullying.

78. Plaintiff continued to raise concerns with the Doniphan School District principal.

18
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 21 of 70 PageID #: 748

Finally, the school principal suspended one student for bullying M.H. The school officials

refused to do anything more to protect M.H. from bullying and the students’ requests for M.H.

“to fuck them, just like she did her daddy.” The school bullying traumatized M.H.

79. Plaintiff informed Grandmother Haynes and Williams that M.H. was bullied by

other students in school and that M.H. was very hurt by it. Neither Williams nor Grandmother

Haynes did anything to protect M.H. and S.H. from the school bullying. Instead, Williams

accused Plaintiff of spreading her “fabricated M.S.H.’s sexual abuse stories.” Williams blamed

Plaintiff and M.S.H. for M.H.’s school bullying.

80. On January 6, 2017, M.H.’s academic progress was tested through the use of the

Missouri standardized Wechsler Test which confirmed that M.H. was performing on all the

subjects on each scale either at “average to above average” or “above average to far above

average” of her peers. (A copy of M.H.’s Wechsler Individual Assessment Test results taken in

early January 2017 is attached as Exhibit 10.)

81. Plaintiff provided the Wechsler’s Individual Assessment Test results to Williams

as proof that Plaintiff did not neglect M.H.’s educational needs. Plaintiff asked Williams to file

the test results with the Divorce Court. Williams told Plaintiff’s attorney and Plaintiff that if

Plaintiff challenged her authority and provided the test results to the Divorce Court, Plaintiff

would lose her visitation time with her daughters.

82. Plaintiff scheduled S.H. to take the same academic test as M.H. in January 2017.

As soon as Williams received M.H.’s testing, Williams blocked Plaintiff’s efforts to test S.H.

Williams again told Plaintiff’s attorney that if Plaintiff challenged Williams’ authority, Plaintiff

would lose her visitation rights due to Plaintiff’s ongoing manipulation. (A copy of the January

11, 2017 email from Plaintiff’s attorney, Jasper Edmundson, confirming his conversation with

19
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 22 of 70 PageID #: 749

Williams is attached as Exhibit 11.)

83. Plaintiff asked Grandmother Haynes if Plaintiff could test S.H.’s academics.

Grandmother Haynes threatened Plaintiff stating that Williams told her that if Plaintiff tested

S.H., Charles would get custody of S.H. and M.H. and that Plaintiff would have no more

visitation with her daughters.

84. Hearing these threats, Plaintiff’s lawyer Jasper Edmundson asked Williams to

recuse herself from the Haynes divorce case. Edmundson informed Plaintiff that Williams

stated, “Judge Shock will never recuse me [Williams]. Your client has already lost her custody.

If she decides to disqualify me, she will lose all visits with her daughters.” [Emphasis added.]

(A copy of the January 9, 2017 email from Jasper Edmundson to Plaintiff confirming Williams’

threats is attached as Exhibit 12.)

85. While M.H. and S.H. were at Grandmother Haynes’ house, Charles was present

and unsupervised most of the time. Charles came into M.H.’s room in the middle of the night

without Grandmother Haynes present and sexually abused her. Some nights M.H. was so scared

that she ran to Plaintiff’s home very agitated. M.H. did not disclose to Plaintiff at that time that

Charles had molested her. (See ¶¶144-145 below.)

86. In early January 2017, M.H. told Plaintiff that she informed Williams about

Charles’s nightly visits to her bedroom without Grandmother Haynes present. Williams did not

investigate what M.H. told her. Nor did she protect M.H. from Charles’ visits into M.H.’s

bedroom in the middle of the night without Grandmother Haynes present. M.H. was very

disheartened because Williams did not protect her.

87. After M.H. informed Williams that she ran to Plaintiff’s home in the middle of the

night because she was terrified of Charles, Williams informed Charles of this fact. Not only did

20
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 23 of 70 PageID #: 750

Williams not act to prevent Charles from being alone with M.H. in her bedroom, Williams also

did not hold Grandmother Haynes accountable for not supervising Charles’ nightly visits with

M.H.

88. Instead, Williams accused Plaintiff of manipulating M.H. She ordered Charles to

install four cameras at Grandmother Haynes’ house to watch M.H. at night. Williams told

Plaintiff and M.H. that Williams would cut their visitation times if M.H.’s nightly outings to her

mother’s home continued. M.H. told Williams and Plaintiff, “I feel like an animal in a cage.”

M.H. begged her mother to remove Williams from her case.

89. Plaintiff demanded that Williams recuse herself from the Haynes’ divorce.

Williams told Plaintiff that she would not recuse herself and that if Plaintiff kept pushing for it,

“You [Plaintiff] will lose all visits with your daughters.” On advice of her attorney, Plaintiff did

not move to disqualify Williams. Plaintiff was afraid to lose visitation time with M.H. and S.H.

90. Williams did not report that Grandmother Haynes did not supervise Charles and

that he came into M.H.’s room alone to the Divorce Court. Williams continued to threaten

Plaintiff with loss of her visitation time with her daughters if Plaintiff “interfered” with

Grandmother Haynes’ custodial rights.

91. On January 11, 2017, Williams asked the Divorce Court to award her additional

GAL fees for her services, which was granted on January 17, 2017. Plaintiff, Charles and

Grandmother Haynes each were ordered to pay Williams $750.00. Plaintiff paid her share.

92. While in Grandmother Haynes’ custody, S.H. was bitten several times by

Grandmother Haynes’ dog while Grandmother Haynes was not present. When S.H. showed

Grandmother Haynes the dog bites on her arms and fingers, Grandmother Haynes told S.H.,

“Shut up and stop complaining!”

21
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 24 of 70 PageID #: 751

93. Seeing the dog bites on S.H.’s body, Plaintiff took S.H. to Southeast Missouri

Hospital for treatment. Plaintiff was very upset about S.H. being injured. Plaintiff informed

Williams about Grandmother Haynes’ failure to protect S.H. from her dog. Williams’ reaction

was, “So what, the dog bit S.H.; why are you bothering me with this drama?”

94. M.H. started cutting herself. Grandmother Haynes saw the cuts, but did nothing

to protect or to treat M.H. Instead, she accused M.H. of harassing her dog. (See the picture of

M.H.’s hand and forearm from January 29, 2017 attached as Exhibit 13.)

95. When Plaintiff asked M.H. how she got the cuts, M.H. refused to answer saying

sadly, “Grandma and Dad told me not talk to you about it, Mom. I can’t. Mom, please don’t

make me.”

96. Concerned with cuts and secrets, Plaintiff rushed M.H. to Southeast Health

Hospital of Ripley County where it was confirmed that M.H. was mutilating herself while in

Grandmother Haynes’ custody. Southeast Health Center contacted Williams and asked her to

come to Southeast Health Center, which Williams did. When there, Williams yelled and

screamed at M.H. for making “. . . me waste my Sunday on you and drive to Doniphan.” M.H.

cried.

97. Ignoring Williams, Southeast Health Hospital referred M.H. to DePaul Hospital in

St. Louis where M.H. (at age 12-1/2) was hospitalized on January 29, 2017 in a locked

psychiatric ward for treatment for self-mutilation behavior. Plaintiff was devastated about

M.H.’s health.

98. On January 29, 2017, Williams authorized DePaul Hospital personnel to provide

treatment and prescription medication for M.H., although Williams did not have such authority

from the Divorce Court. Williams instructed DePaul Hospital personnel to prohibit M.H.’s

22
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 25 of 70 PageID #: 752

communication with Plaintiff, although Williams, again, did not have such authority.

99. On January 30, 2017 Williams filed a memorandum with the Divorce Court

requesting an Order seeking to be appointed as the personal attorney for S.H. and M.H. The

Divorce Court granted that request without a hearing. (See Exhibit 2.) Williams did not consult

with Plaintiff when she decided to become M.H.’s and S.H.’s attorney. The essential portions

the Court Order of Williams’ appointment as their attorney stated:

(1) The Guardian ad Litem shall be the legal representative of the

minor children throughout the proceedings.

(2) The Guardian ad Litem shall be a party to this cause.

(4) Upon presentation of an attested copy of this order to any agency,

hospital, organization, school, person, or office, including the clerk
of this court, pediatrician, psychologists, psychiatrists, or police
department, the aforementioned shall permit the Guardian ad
Litem to inspect and copy any records relating to the minor
children and their parents. The Guardian ad Litem shall maintain
any information received from any such source as confidential, and
[it] shall not be disclosed except in reports to the Court, to the
parties to this case and their counsel, or as directed by the Court.

(5) The Guardian Ad Litem shall have an attorney-client relationship

with the minor children, and all communications between the
Guardian Ad Litem and the minor children shall be privileged, and
shall not be disclosed by the minor children or the Guardian Ad
Litem except as she shall deem appropriate in the effective
representation of the minor children, and then only generally and
not specifically. Neither of the parties nor their counsel shall seek
to invade this privilege either directly or indirectly, or to make any
attempt to seek the disclosure or confidential communications from
either the minor children or the Guardian Ad Litem.

100. On or about January 30, 2017 Williams instructed DePaul Hospital personnel not

to allow Plaintiff in the hospital to see M.H. According to Williams, only Grandmother Haynes

and Williams could communicate with M.H. and her doctors.

101. As the “ultimate decision maker with respect to the health, safety, and welfare of

23
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 26 of 70 PageID #: 753

the minor children,” (see Exhibit 8) Grandmother Haynes instructed DePaul Hospital personnel

to communicate with Williams only.

102. After January 30, 2017 Williams, however, openly acted as Charles’ lawyer.

Williams threatened M.H. that if M.H., M.S.H. or Plaintiff testified against Charles in his

criminal case, Williams would not recommend to the Divorce Court that Plaintiff have custody

of S.H. and M.H., but instead would recommend that they be returned to foster care. Williams

repeatedly alleged that Plaintiff and M.S.H. “brainwashed” S.H. and M.H. against their father.

Williams advocated for Charles to spend time with S.H. and M.H. through visits and

reunification therapy. Williams persistently alleged that Plaintiff was guilty of “educational

neglect.”

103. Williams’ appointment as a GAL was never rescinded. Williams billed and

received payment for her services as M.H.’s, S.H.’s and Charles’ attorney from Charles and

Grandmother Haynes in violation of Missouri Rules of Professional Responsibility (MRPR) Rule

4-1.8(f). 4 In Missouri, the MRPR have the force and effect of judicial decisions. McVeigh v.

Flemming, 401 S.W.3d 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).

104. On January 30, 2017 Pediatric Psychiatrist, Fernando Perez-Magnelli with DePaul

Hospital recorded the following, among other observations:

Ms. Haynes [M.H.] started cutting herself when she was moved to her
grandmother in December 2016. Because of the move she misses her mom. She
has trouble sleeping. She lives with grandmother and father.

4
MRPR Rule 4-1.8 (f) states: A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client
from one other than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or
with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a
client is protected as required by Rule 4-1.6.

24
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 27 of 70 PageID #: 754

• M.H. is the saddest about placement in the foster care 3 years ago 5
because her biological father molested her 18-year-old half-sister (who
was 12 years at the time of molestation). He went to jail twice. She is
angry at him.
• M.H. is the maddest at her father.
• M.H.’s wishes are: 1) return home [to her mother]; 2) all the court to stop;
and 3) dad in jail
Psychological stressors: father molested her half-sister.

(A copy of the partial medical record from DePaul Hospital of January 30, 2017 is attached as

Exhibit 14.)

105. Plaintiff asked DePaul Hospital to release M.H. to her. Williams blocked that

release, threatening Plaintiff with loss of custody and visitation rights and falsely stating that

Plaintiff and her daughter M.S.H. fabricated allegations of sexual abuse against Charles to

alienate M.H. and S.H. from their father.

106. From after May 29, 2014 the Prosecuting Attorney in Ripley County had a

recording of Charles admitting to sexually abusing M.H.’s stepsister M.S.H. Even though

Williams knew of the recording, Williams refused to listen to it.

107. On February 3, 2017, Williams filed a memorandum seeking an Order Amending

the Temporary Custody Order after Williams was told that DePaul would not release M.H. into

Grandmother Haynes’ custody. In that pleading Williams falsely stated to the Divorce Court:

That since the order of this Court on December 22, 2016, there has been a
deterioration of conditions with the minor children to the extent that
Petitioner, Respondent, Intervenor and Guardian ad litem now agree that it is
in the best interest of the minor children that they be taken into custody by the

5
M.H. and S.H. were placed into foster care in 2014 when Charles came to Plaintiff’s home
uninvited to be at Sara’s birthday party. While at the party Charles threatened M.S.H. that he
would kill her if M.S.H. testified against him at his criminal trial. M.S.H. called the police. The
DFS took the children the day of the birthday party deeming that Plaintiff failed to protect them
and M.S.H. from Charles. M.S.H., M.H., and S.H. spent 18 months in foster care, during which
time they were placed with three different foster families and moved three times to different
school districts. M.S.H., M.H., and Sara were very traumatized with this DFS and foster care
experience.
25
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 28 of 70 PageID #: 755

Ripley County Juvenile Office and placed into the legal custody of Children’s
Division.

(A copy of the February 3, 2017 Memorandum filed by Williams is attached as Exhibit

15.)

108. Williams never consulted with Plaintiff regarding placing her children into the

legal custody of the Children’s Division. Relying on Williams’ misrepresentation, the Divorce

Court placed M.H. and S.H. into the custody of the Department of Family Services (DFS)

without a hearing and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard.

109. On or about February 3, 2017, Williams reported to the DFS that Plaintiff was not

a suitable parent because she neglected M.H. and S.H. educationally. Williams’ reports were

false because Williams was in possession of M.H.’s Weschler test results as of January 7, 2017.

(See Exhibit 10).

110. On February 6, 2017, Pediatric Psychiatrist Zafar Rehmani, who was then

affiliated with DePaul Hospital, recorded the following among his observations:

• M.H. is the saddest about placement in the foster care 3 years ago because her
biological father molested her 18 [15 at that time] year old half-sister. He
went to jail twice. She is angry at him.
• M.H. is the maddest at her father.
• M.H.’s wishes are: 1) return home [to her mother]; 2) all the court to stop; and
3) dad in jail.

(A copy of the partial medical record from DePaul Hospital of February 6, 2017 attached as

Exhibit 16.)

111. The DFS opened two juvenile cases to investigate Plaintiff’s educational neglect;

Case No. 17RI-JU00011 for M.H. and Case No. 17RI-JU00012 for S.H. The DFS placed S.H.

with a foster family, John and Cassandra Rideout, on February 3, 2017 and M.H. with them on

February 6, 2017.

26
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 29 of 70 PageID #: 756

112. Williams did not investigate why DePaul Hospital doctors refused to release M.H.

to Grandmother Haynes. Williams did not investigate why M.H. was mutilating herself.

Williams did not hot line the child abuse at Grandmother Haynes’ home as the MRPR, Supreme

Court GAL Standards and R.S.Mo. §210.115 required.

113. On March 10, 2017 the DFS held a monthly Family Support Team (FST) meeting

with M.H., Williams, DFS Officer Theresa Whaley, M.S.H., and Plaintiff. M.H. reported that

Charles was at Grandmother Haynes’ house “all the time unsupervised.” Williams showed no

concern about that. Williams, instead, insisted that M.H. and Charles participate in reunification

therapy together. Williams blamed M.S.H. for “inserting herself” in “everything.” M.H. told

Williams and the DFS that she did not want to see her father and grandmother.

114. At that FST meeting, the DFS opposed Charles and Grandmother Haynes

engaging in therapy with M.H. because Charles and Grandmother Haynes had shown no concern

for M.H. and S.H. since they were placed in the DFS custody. The DFS arranged for M.H. and

S.H. to see Scott Foster, a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). (See excerpts from the

transcript of the March 10, 2017 FST meeting attached as Exhibit 17.)

115. Reluctantly, Williams agreed to Plaintiff’s visits with her daughters as long as

they were supervised because of Plaintiff’s “educational neglect” of her daughters. The DFS,

however, noted that there was no evidence that Plaintiff neglected her daughters’ education

based upon the Missouri Standardized Wechsler Test results.

116. On March 20, 2017 M.H. was admitted into Twin Rivers Regional Medical

Center (Twin Rivers) into a psychiatric unit because her foster parents noticed that she again was

cutting herself. The hospital records from the admission state that M.H. cut herself the night

before and that her father “. . . had legal issues involving molestation of her 18-year-old half-

27
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 30 of 70 PageID #: 757

sister. Mom is asking for divorce. The patient is not happy not being home. The patient was

living at the same house [Grandmother Haynes’] in which father molested her stepsister.”

[Emphasis added.] (A copy of the March 20, 2017 medical records from Twin Rivers is attached

as Exhibit 18.)

117. On March 21 & 22, 2017, the Twin Rivers nurse’s notes show that, “Patient

reports thoughts of self-harm … due to dad’s trial set back” and that “Patient identifies “dad’s

trial” as the cause of her depression. Patient states that the trial has been ongoing for the past

three years and has been present[ly] set back again.” (A copy of the March 21, 2017 medical

record from Twin Rivers is attached as Exhibit 19.)

118. The Twin Rivers medical records show that the hospital personnel contacted

Williams who expressed her “concerns for dad not having contact” with M.H. M.H. was

discharged on March 23, 2017 from Twin Rivers. (A copy of the Twin Rivers notes with

comment by Williams re: dad not having contact and Discharge Summary is attached as Exhibit

20.)

119. On April 25, 2017, M.H.’s and S.H.’s pediatrician, Dr. Roger Bost, wrote a letter

to the Juvenile and Divorce Courts stating that he has been M.H.’s and S.H.’s doctor their entire

lives. Dr. Bost continued:

I am writing this letter on behalf of the mother who has done nothing
wrong, and the guardian ad litem of these girls seems to object to their
returning to mom’s custody despite the girls’ wish to return home to their
mom. I want to vouch for the biologic mom as being a capable and good
mother for all their lives and I see no reason for the girls to go to foster
care instead of returning to their mom’s care. Hopefully this can be
accomplished.

(A copy of Dr. Bost’s letter dated April 25, 2017 is attached as Exhibit 21.)

120. Williams received Dr. Bost’s letter, but she still insisted that M.H. and S.H. could

28
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 31 of 70 PageID #: 758

not return to Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s “educational neglect.” Williams warned Plaintiff that

she would object to Plaintiff having custody of her daughters and if Plaintiff “keeps pushing it, I

[Williams] will cut your [Plaintiff’s] visitation times.” At that time, Plaintiff was allowed to see

her daughters only one time per week for four hours based on Williams’ recommendation to the

DFS.

121. Prior to April 27, 2017 the DFS Officer, Theresa Whaley, sent an email to

Williams, Grandmother Haynes’ attorney, all therapists involved, foster parents and Plaintiff

informing them of the FST meeting and a very disturbing note that M.H. wrote about M.H.

wanting Charles to “fuck her pussy.” (See copy of M.H.’s note attached as part of Exhibit 22.)

122. Neither Williams nor Grandmother Haynes, nor Grandmother Haynes’ attorney

appeared at the April 27, 2017 FST meeting. Theresa Whaley (the DFS), Casey Salyer (Juvenile

Officer), Scott Foster (DFS appointed therapist), Judy Moss (Court Appointed Special

Advocates) (CASA) Director, John and Cassandra Rideout attended. Cassandra Rideout

(Cassie) reported that S.H. and M.H. were getting straight A’s in school. Cassandra Rideout

stated that M.H. was currently doing the A plus program at school 6 and that M.H. was one year

ahead of her peers based on the school testing, all evidence contradicting prior allegations of

“educational neglect.” (See transcript of April 27, 2017 FST meeting, Exhibit 22 at pgs. 5 & 7

and a copy of M.H.’s note attached.)

123. Theresa Whaley stated:

S.H. and M.H. did fine during the [forensic] interview [with DFS], but neither of
them disclosed anything that we didn't already know as far as we already knew
that Grandma was allowing them access, allowing dad to have unsupervised
access to them. They talked about that. S.H. talked about that their dad would cuss

6
This program allows high school students to take first-year college subjects and transfer them
to a college upon college acceptance.

29
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 32 of 70 PageID #: 759

at them and made them cry and called them names. (Exhibit 22 at pg. 12.)

124. At this meeting, M.H.’s foster parents produced a disturbing letter written by

M.H. stating, “fuck me, fuck my pussy daddy.” Every adult present at the meeting agreed that

Charles molested M.H. M.H. again said that she did not want to see Charles and that at

Grandmother Haynes’ house she could not sleep at night because she “never knew when dad

would come in.” (See generally Exhibit 22 at pgs. 17-20). (Although not explicitly stated in

these terms; the note was not quoted verbatim in the transcript.)

125. The Rideouts discussed that they had experience previously with a teenager who

had been sexually abused and that M.H. exhibited similar behaviors. M.S.H. stated that M.H.

was hesitant to discuss what happened to her because she saw what was occurring to M.S.H. who

testified against Charles. Cassie Rideout reported M.H.’s conflicting messages from M.H.’s

journal and that M.H. wrote that she was “ok” but also that she needed “HELP.” The adults

concluded that M.H. had been abused by Charles. (See Exhibit 22 at pgs. 17 & 19.)

126. Theresa Whaley and Plaintiff told Williams about M.H.’s note. Williams did not

discuss M.H.’s note with M.H.’s foster parents or M.H. Williams showed no concern about

M.H.’s note, why M.H. wrote it, or why M.H. was afraid to sleep at Grandmother Haynes’

house.

127. The May 26, 2017 DFS FST meeting was attended by the DFS officer Theresa

Whaley, Williams, Judy Moss, CASA’s Director, Angela Champion, CASA Representative

Pamela Stark, a Juvenile Officer, Plaintiff, M.H., Scott Foster, and Grandmother Haynes’

attorney, Siegrid Maness. Williams talked about her “extremely serious concerns about

educational neglect” by Plaintiff. M.H. requested a new GAL. Williams agreed to talk to M.H.,

but admonished that “it would not change my mind about anything.” (See excerpts from the

30
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 33 of 70 PageID #: 760

May 26, 2017 FST meeting attached as Exhibit 23.)

128. The DFS notes state that Williams was not listening to M.H. and not putting
M.H.’s concerns into her recommendations. When Theresa Whaley asked Williams what other
concerns she had, Williams stated,

I am very concerned Mom and M.S.H. are manipulating these girls,

pressuring them to take actions that are not consistent with their ages. I
know that there have been times when the girls were in Grandmother
Haynes’ care that Mom tried to get the girls to her, specifically, M.H., to
record things that were happening in the home in an attempt to manipulate
them. (See Exhibit 23.)

129. Plaintiff confronted Williams regarding her persistent allegations of educational

neglect. That following exchange took place:

Plaintiff: Being that M.H. is in 7th grade and her peers are in 6th
grade that is like a real big red flag that they don't have
educational neglect, she [M.H.] is a year advanced.

Williams: Information has come to light now based on their [S.H.’s

and M.H.’s] enrollment in public school, it does help
address that for me and I don’t have concerns that they're
not up to par in education. (See Exhibit 23.)

130. Williams never addressed Plaintiff’s and M.S.H.’s “manipulation tactics” with

Plaintiff, M.S.H. or M.H. At that May 2017 meeting, Williams demanded that Plaintiff undergo

a psychological evaluation. Williams never asked Charles, who was accused of sexual abuse of

a minor, to undergo a psychological evaluation. Williams never asked Grandmother Haynes for

her medical records although Grandmother Haynes was very frail, took prescription painkiller

and sleeping pills, had poor eyesight and was significantly deaf in both ears.

131. The DFS officer, Theresa Whaley, expressed that Williams, Grandmother

Haynes’ lawyer and Charles made M.S.H., a child victim, out to be “a villain.” Whaley stated,

“Children’s Division considers M.S.H. a victim at this point.” Grandmother Haynes’ lawyer

stated, “A victim can still profile other children and can cause other problems.” Whaley replied,

“And former perpetrators can also perpetrate on other children.” (See Exhibit 23.)
31
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 34 of 70 PageID #: 761

132. Plaintiff asked Williams to recuse herself for Williams’ failure to protect her

children. Williams screamed “I am not going to voluntarily recuse myself; absolutely not!!!!”

(See Exhibit 23.)

133. Scott Foster, a therapist, reported that “I don’t think that M.H. is gonna open up

with anybody…. M.H.’s got a mental shutdown. It’s almost like you can see a curtain fall over

her face and she’s just that.” Except for Williams, no one at that meeting, including Plaintiff,

knew that Williams threatened M.H. to keep M.H. and S.H. in foster care if M.H. testified

against Charles at his criminal trial. 7

134. Grandmother Haynes’ lawyer demanded that M.H. and S.H. have therapy with

Grandmother Haynes. The foster parents objected, stating that Grandmother Haynes contacted

them once in four months and did not seem to care about M.H. and S.H. The foster parents also

reported that “M.H. is scared of Charles.” “She can’t see him.” Whaley stated, “I don't think

they want to see her [Grandmother Haynes] because grandma has not protected them.” (See

Exhibit 23.)

135. On June 7, 2017, the DFS appointed therapist Scott Foster, wrote a letter to the

DFS stating that Plaintiff has been compliant with all goals set by the DFS and with

recommended therapy. Scott Foster reported:

M.H. and S.H. are insistent that they return home to reside with mother”
and consistently report in sessions with him “their desire to return to reside
with their mother.” “It is my recommendation, at this time, that S.H. and
M.H. return to reside with mother as swiftly as possible. Furthermore it is
not in the best interest of the children to have contact with their father
or their paternal grandmother. [Emphasis added].

(A copy of Scott Foster’s letter dated June 7, 2017 is attached as Exhibit 24.)

136. Upon receipt of Scott Foster’s letter, Williams started advocating with the

7
In spring 2018, M.H. told Plaintiff that Williams had been threatening M.H. since 2017.
32
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 35 of 70 PageID #: 762

Juvenile Court and the DFS to remove Scott Foster as M.H. and S.H.’s therapist because he

thought that “seeing Grandmother Haynes and Charles” was not an option for S.H. and M.H.

(Subsequently, Scott Foster recused himself from therapy because he disagreed with Williams

about therapeutic goals for S.H. and M.H. Scott Foster believed that neither S.H. nor M.H.

should be reunified with Charles and Grandmother Haynes.)

137. On July 6, 2017 the DFS report stated that, “The girls were very excited to see

mom and it was mentioned during the first couple hours of the visit that they do not want to

leave and have to go back to foster care. They just want to be home.”

138. Williams refused to consider returning M.H. and S.H. to Plaintiff’s custody.

Williams continued to claim “educational neglect” in spite of there being no evidence of that.

Williams threatened Plaintiff that if M.S.H. and Plaintiff continue “brainwashing S.H. and M.H.”

against Charles, Williams would keep M.H. and S.H. in foster care.

139. Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Divorce Court and to Williams asking her to recuse

herself. Williams refused to recuse herself and, instead, continued to advocate for Charles to see

M.H. and S.H. despite the healthcare professionals’ recommendations against it. Williams

continued to threaten Plaintiff with loss of custody and reduction in visitation hours if Plaintiff

continued insisting on Williams’ recusal from the Haynes’ divorce.

140. On July 7, 2017 the DFS report presented to the Juvenile Court and Williams

praised Plaintiff’s parental strengths and complimented her on being fully compliant with all

DFS goals and recommendations. The Juvenile Court and Divorce Court proceedings were

taking place concurrently and addressed the same concerns regarding S.H. and M.H. The DFS

report concluded:

The Children's Division recommends that M.H. and S.H. be returned to

the physical custody of their mother at this time with Children's Division

33
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 36 of 70 PageID #: 763

retaining legal custody. During the past five months, there has been no
evidence or disclosures of abuse or neglect to the girls by their mother.
The separation from their mother has been devastating to them and has
likely attributed to M.H.'s depression and anxiety. Cindy [the mother] has
been cooperative with everything that has been asked of her, and no safety
concerns have been identified. (A copy of the July 6, 2017 DFS report is
attached as Exhibit 25.)

141. On July 24, 2017, Angela Champion, a worker with CASA for the 36th Judicial

Circuit wrote a letter to the Divorce Court reporting that “on February 3, 2017 M.H. and S.H.

were placed in legal custody of the DFS, due to allegations of educational neglect.” The CASA

worker further wrote: “on January 6, 2017 M.H. was given the Wechsler Individual Achievement

Test and was within or above the appropriate grade levels as her peers. Clearly, M.H. is not

being neglected educationally.”

142. The report further stated:

In talking with the girls, M.H. let it be known that she has felt “left out” of the
case by her guardian ad litem, Jennifer Williams. M.H. said that Jennifer told her
“It was not her [Williams’] job to talk to her [M.H.].” She stated that she felt as if
“Jennifer is really my dad’s lawyer.” …. Because M.H. and S.H. aren’t
communicating with their GAL and have confused feelings about the GAL, this
raises a concern for me. I understand that the GAL represents the best interests of
the children, while a CASA volunteer represents the voice of the children, which
might not be the same thing at times in a particular case. Because the girls have
expressed a concern about the relationship they have with their GAL, I felt it
needed to be brought to the attention of the Court.

(A copy of the July 24, 2017 Champion letter (CASA volunteer) to the Divorce Court is attached

as Exhibit 26.)

143. Dr. Bost’s records from July 27, 2017 show that:

M.H. got depressed while there [in Grandmother Haynes’ custody] because the
dad was sexually molesting her and she [M.H.] stayed in her room to avoid dad.
She got depressed and started cutting herself and was sent to psych unit at Kennett
in February 2017 and was started on Remeron.

(A copy of Dr. Bost’s medical record of July 27, 2017 is attached as Exhibit 27.)

34
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 37 of 70 PageID #: 764

144. After M.H.’s disclosure to Dr. Bost that Charles molested her, Dr. Bost tested

M.H. for HIV, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and HPV virus. In the social history of Dr. Bost’s

records from July 27, 2017, he noted that M.H. was sexually abused. (See Exhibit 27).

145. Concerned with M.H.’s disclosure of sexual abuse, Dr. Bost wrote a letter which

was delivered to the Divorce Court, the DFS and Williams on July 27, 2017. Dr. Bost refers to

Williams’ efforts “to reunify [M.H. and S.H.] with the paternal grandmother who allows

biological father access to the girls when there is evidence he has sexually abused one of the

daughters.” Dr. Bost continues, “It does not sound wise to permit him [Charles] or the paternal

grandmother access to his daughters.” Williams ignored this letter and advocated for Charles’s

meetings with M.H. and S.H. while threatening Plaintiff with the loss of Plaintiff’s custodial

rights. Williams never spoke to Dr. Bost about M.H. (A copy of Dr. Bost’s July 27, 2017 letter

is attached as Exhibit 28.)

146. The DFS July 2017 records show that Williams continued demanding M.H. have

visits with Charles. M.H. reported “having no intentions of sharing what happened between me

and my dad, even if it is means being forced to have visits with him.” M.H. felt that nobody

listened to her. Both girls said they did not want anything to do with father or paternal

grandmother and they wanted to be at home with their mother because “that is where we feel

most safe.”

147. Williams insisted that because of Plaintiff’s “educational neglect,” Plaintiff

should not have unsupervised visits with her daughters. The Doniphan school records showed

that “M.H. was only twelve and one year ahead of her peers in school.” (A copy of M.H.’s

Doniphan school records is attached as Exhibit 29.)

148. On July 27, 2017, the Juvenile Court returned M.H. and S.H. to Plaintiff’s

35
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 38 of 70 PageID #: 765

physical custody after the DFS determined that there was no educational neglect on Plaintiff’s

part. The two juvenile cases remained open since Williams insisted that Plaintiff should not have

legal custody of M.H. and S.H. because of Plaintiff’s prior “educational neglect.” (A copy of the

Juvenile Court Order of July 27, 2017 is attached as Exhibit 30.)

149. Because therapist Scott Foster LPC wanted M.H. and S.H. to be returned to their

mother, Williams insisted on finding another therapist to work with M.H., S.H. and Charles.

150. On September 2, 2017, the DFS appointed Jerry Marks, Ph.D. and Licensed

Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) to work with M.H. and S.H.

151. On September 8, 2017, Dr. Marks noted that:

“She [M.H.] has been sexually abused by her biological father who has denied the
incidents but is awaiting court action for the alleged abuse of another daughter
living at the house.” She [M.H.] says that she doesn't want to go through what her
sister has been through with the courts as she has disclosed that their father was
sexually abusive with her [M.H.].

(A copy of Dr. Marks’ letter of September 8, 2017 is attached as Exhibit 31.)

152. The September 2017 DFS report reflected that the DFS had “no concerns with the

girls’ safety at Plaintiff’s home;” “M.H. and S.H. were on the Honor Rolls at school with no

behavioral issues.” “Both M.H. and S.H. were adamant that they did not want to have any

contact with their father and paternal grandmother.” Williams still insisted on “therapeutic

visits” with Charles. (A copy of the April 25, 2018 DFS report that references the September

2017 DFS report is attached as Exhibit 32.)

153. The October 2017 DFS report showed that “[g]irls still want no contact with

father or paternal grandmother and stressed about the idea of being forced to see them in a

therapeutic setting.” At the same time, M.H. confided to M.S.H. that she was scared because

Williams told M.H. that “your dad won’t go to jail” and “if we [M.S.H., M.H., and Plaintiff]

36
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 39 of 70 PageID #: 766

testify against him, Williams will put me and S.H. back in foster care.” Williams instructed

M.H. not to discuss this conversation with anyone. M.H. begged M.S.H. not to testify against

her father because M.H. feared that would force S.H. and her back into foster care.

154. During all times after January 30, 2017, Williams was not only the GAL in the

Haynes’ divorce, but also representing M.H. and S.H. as their attorney. However, Williams

consistently ignored their wishes, constantly ignored findings of the DFS and professionals who

worked with the DFS, consistently ignored school records for S.H. and M.H., consistently acted

as an advocate for Charles, and consistently threatened to return S.H. and M.H. to foster care if

they testified that Charles had sexually abused them.

155. On November 1, 2017, the DFS again found that there was no educational

neglect. The DFS report stated in pertinent parts:

Charles:
Charles has not participated in the team planning since the 24-hour
meeting February 2017. CD scheduled psychological evaluation for
Charles. The soonest evaluation date is in December 2017

Cynthia:
Cynthia has been compliant with all home visits, drug screens, team
meetings and provided services. Cynthia obtained counseling for her and
her children even when the juvenile office requested, she changed from
current counselors already familiar with the family. Cynthia transports her
children to regular therapy sessions with Dr. Jerry Marks in Washington,
Missouri. Dr. Kennedy will update a psychological evaluation for Cynthia
November 6, 2017 at 12:00 noon

M.H.:
M.H. is excelling at West Point Christian Academy. She reports having a
better understanding of the material now than in public school. She makes
A's and B's on all assignments. - Jerry Marks, DSW, LCSW is doing
individual therapy with M.H., and she likes having an opportunity to talk
and not bottle up emotions. M.H. is not on any medication. M.H. does not
want visits with her father

It is in the best interests of S.H. and M.H. to remain in the physical

custody of their natural mother, Cynthia Haynes. Children’s Division
recommends the goal remain reunification with Plaintiff.
37
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 40 of 70 PageID #: 767

(A copy of the DFS November 1, 2017 report is attached as Exhibit 33.)

156. Despite the DFS findings that Plaintiff was a safe and suitable parent, the DFS

kept its case open because of Williams’ ongoing concerns with Plaintiff’s alleged “educational

neglect” of M.H. and S.H. Williams represented M.H. and S.H. during all DFS, Juvenile and

Divorce Court proceedings as their personal attorney. Charles and Grandmother Haynes paid

Williams for her services for M.H. and S.H.

157. On December 15, 2017, Dr. Marks wrote to the DFS:

She [M.H.] says that when she was placed with her paternal grandmother
it was hard because her Father was at the house daily. She knew that he
was not supposed to be there, but she did not know what to do or say. …
She has many memories of the multiple foster homes and some of the
challenges that she faced with each placement. She has experienced real
trauma in the moves to foster homes and the various schools that she
attended. We are in the process of working through these memories and
helping her to strengthen her coping skills about what has happened in
these placements.

M.H. admits that she had a very hard time trying to adjust to the different
homes and to comfort her sister. S.H. is able to talk about the sadness that
she felt being separated from her Mother. They all report that getting back
to their mother has been good for them. M.H. has achieved an honorable
mention on the honor roll this past term and S.H. is on the honor roll this
term. Both girls talk about feeling happy to be back with their Mother and
are having a hard time understanding the reason they were placed in foster
care in the first place. They do not seem to believe that there was a good
reason for the placements.

(A copy of Dr. Marks December 15, 2017 letter to the DFS is attached as Exhibit 34.)

158. Each time Plaintiff was forced to communicate with Grandmother Haynes and

Charles, they threatened Plaintiff that if Plaintiff, M.S.H., or M.H. testified against Charles in his

criminal case, Williams would return M.H. and S.H. to foster care and Charles would get M.H.

and S.H.’s custody once he was on probation.

159. Each time M.H. was forced to see Williams (after July, 2017 Williams came to

38
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 41 of 70 PageID #: 768

M.H.’s school weekly), Williams threatened M.H. that if Plaintiff, M.S.H., or M.H. testified in

Charles’s criminal case, Williams would return M.H. and S.H. to foster care. On several

occasions, Williams also threatened to place M.H. into “juvie” if M.H. testified against her

father. Williams told M.H. that her dad “wouldn’t go to jail.” Williams consistently ordered

M.H. to keep Williams’ conversations confidential from her mother and sister M.S.H. in order to

avoid foster care.

160. On January 29, 2018 Williams sent the following email to the DFS:

Custody case ongoing. Girls came in to meet with me and made some very
concerning allegations about mother, the very least of which was that
neither of them had ever finished a full year of schooling while being
homeschooled. Temporary Custody hearing held in which mother, in spite
of multiple conversations between her and I putting mom on notice that I
was concerned about the schooling issue, could still not inform the court
of even ONE detail of the girls’ lesson plans in their homeschooling. Girls
placed with grandmother (my recommendation was based not just on the
educational neglect, but also on the other allegations made by the girls
about mom). Juvenile was STILL not involved at this time, and there were
no plans to get them involved. Eventually, however, M.H. began cutting
and ended up hospitalized. I was advised by the social worker at the
hospital that they had grave concerns about mother’s handling of the
situation. Mother was intrusive, obstructive, and threatened to take M.H.
out of the facility AMA even though she was no longer the legal custodian
at that time (grandmother was). Then and ONLY then is when I was
concerned enough to involve the juvenile office. So to say the girls were
removed because of “educational neglect that didn’t pan out” is simply
incorrect.

If we are going to keep these kids in mom’s home and walk away from
these girls, I want an updated psych eval to confirm that there is no reason
to pursue this. I don’t want to walk away without following up on that and
something awful happen to these kids, because I don’t want to have to
explain why we asked for it, let it stall out, and never followed up on it
when it might have prevented something awful. I understand that none of
you have the benefit of knowing exactly what these girls reported to me
when I first became involved in this case, and it seems to you like I’m on
some sort of crusade here, but the things they reported to me were MORE
than educational neglect. That is simply one of the many things they
reported. None of the allegations were hotline-able, but were concerning,
nonetheless. They ranged from flat out manipulation by mother and

39
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 42 of 70 PageID #: 769

M.S.H., emotional abuse by mother and M.S.H., not having enough

food in the home, and being severely punished for making disclosures
about things that had gone on in the home in the past. As a means to
protect the girls, I chose to focus a great deal on the educational neglect,
because that particular allegation couldn’t be held against the girls by
mom or anyone else – it kept a little bit of the heat off the girls by
focusing on that. Though the girls later said dad “made” them say those
things, the one thing they never did come back to me and say is that the
things they said were untrue. They never said the stuff they reported didn’t
happen. [Emphasis added.]

(A copy of the January 29, 2018 Williams email is attached as Exhibit 35.)

161. None of these statements were true. As shown by M.H.’s testing and school

records there was no “educational neglect.” Nor did Plaintiff or M.S.H. manipulate M.H. to

report Charles’ wrongdoing and abuse of M.H. The medical records from DePaul Hospital do

not state that Plaintiff threatened to take M.H. from DePaul Hospital. The hospital staff, not

Williams, refused to release M.H. to Grandmother Haynes or Charles. As DFS reported, S.H.

and M.H. felt safe at Plaintiff’s home where they were doing well. They had been living with

Plaintiff over six months when Williams wrote this email. No DFS reports since their return to

Plaintiff’s home substantiated what Williams wrote.

162. Dr. Jerry Marks concluded that there was no need to conduct a psychological

evaluation of Plaintiff because Plaintiff presented no issues or concerns with child abuse or

neglect. The DFS agreed with Dr. Marks.

163. On February 6, 2018 Dr. Bost noted that M.H. was stressed because “the GAL has

put her [M.H.] in harm’s way having her [M.H.] in dad’s care in 2017.” (A copy of Dr. Bost’s

February 6, 2018 medical record is attached as Exhibit 36.)

164. On March 30, 2018, Dr. Marks wrote to the DFS and the Juvenile Court:

She [M.H.] reports to me that the GAL has been coming to see her at
school. She tells me that it seems odd to her as she did not see this much
of her [the GAL] when she was placed in foster care. She also tells me that

40
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 43 of 70 PageID #: 770

the GAL has brought two rounds of gifts to her school from her paternal
grandmother and from her Dad. She is not sure what that is about, but she
finds it unusual. She also reports that the GAL has been asking her about
her Mother's psychological testing. I find this to be more than unusual.
Perhaps this is just me being cynical, but it seems to me that she [the
GAL] is using her access to M.H. to put pressure on her about the
upcoming trial of her Father related to the sexual abuse of her sister
M.S.H. It seems that I am the one who keeps reporting to you the
irregularities of the process. I do not think it would be a jump in logic to
say that the gifts are a way to send M.S.H. a message about her
testimony in the case. I also think it is a way to put pressure on M.H.
that she could be going back into foster care if she testifies against her
Father. [Emphasis added.]

(A copy of Dr. Marks’ March 30, 2018 letter is attached as Exhibit 37.)

165. On May 22, 2018, Dr. Marks wrote a letter to the Assistant Attorney General for

the State of Missouri assigned to investigate Charles’ sexual abuse of M.S.H. (A copy of Dr.

Marks’ May 22, 2018 letter is attached as Exhibit 38.) In his letter Dr. Marks raised his

concerns about M.H.’s safety when with Grandmother Haynes and Charles. In Dr. Marks’

opinion, the Divorce Court mishandled Plaintiff’s divorce case and Williams was “tampering”

with M.H.’s prospective testimony at Charles’ criminal trial. Dr. Marks stated:

The Court initially placed both M.H. and S.H. with the Paternal
Grandmother. The record indicates that her Father had unsupervised
access to her during that entire period. M.H. was hospitalized twice after
that placement was terminated. I have spoken to her Foster Mother in the
last placement who has shared with me her notes of what she says M.H.
told her about her sexual abuse. Third, the psychological report has two
tells, a) the examiner states that M.H. is withholding information and b)
that when she was disciplined her Father would sit with her to help her
deal with what the consequences of her behavior. Her Mother was left to
be the "bad person". I believe that M.H. may soon disclose because her
secret will get too hard to carry and she will need to talk about it with
someone. I would like that person to be me as I believe that she can be
properly protected. [Emphasis added.]

Dr. Marks further stated:

My biggest concern with this case process is that it has been going on too
long and the alleged perpetrator has been out on bond. It is my experience

41
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 44 of 70 PageID #: 771

that many perpetrators will have multiple victims before they are actually
apprehended. I believe the research will support that the average
perpetrator will have as many as 60 victims before apprehension. I once
consulted on a case with two police officers who had 106 victims before
they were apprehended.

My second concern is the defense strategy as it appears to be to discredit

the Mother and keep the pressure on the family to prevent M.H. from
disclosing her abuse. Apparently winning is more important that
protecting the kids. If it is just about keeping the father out of prison,
then how did so many people decide to compromise their own integrity,
and did they really think that no one would notice? [Emphasis added].
(See Exhibit 38.)

166. On June 27, 2018, the Juvenile Court in cases 17RI-JU00011 (S.H.) and 17RI-

JU00012 8 (M.H.) terminated its jurisdiction and awarded physical and legal custody of M.H. and

S.H. to Plaintiff. (A copy of the June 27, 2018 Court Orders and the DFS request to close the

case is attached as Exhibit 39.) The DFS concluded “Children’s Division believes it is in the

best interests of M.H. and S.H. to remain in the physical custody of Cindy Haynes and return

to the legal custody of Cindy Haynes on June 27, 2018.” [Emphasis added.] In support of its

decision, the relevant sections of the DFS request state:

The family is thriving in all areas of the Five Domains of Wellbeing.

Social Connectedness
- The family has built a strong support group and surrounded themselves
with positive, encouraging people. They regularly see Dr. Jerry Marks in
Washington, MO for counseling, M.H. and S.H. love going to school and have
a good relationship with their teacher and principal, former foster parents –
John and Cassie Rideout – still have contact with the family and spend time
with M.H. and S.H. and the family has extended family support.
(All contrary to Williams’ statements in her January 29, 2018 email to DFS.)
Safety
- CD and JO have been in the home with the family every month since July
2017 and have had no reported concerns regarding safety. Cindy has followed
through in keeping Charles Haynes away from the home and the children,
multiple counselors –Cindy Moses, Scott Foster, and Jerry Marks- have

8
Plaintiff asks the Court to take a judicial notice of the complete record of the juvenile
proceedings 17RI-JU00011 and 17RI-JU00012 which were pending in Ripley County, Missouri.
42
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 45 of 70 PageID #: 772

reported they have no safety concerns with the emotional, physical, or

mental stability of Cindy having custody of M.H. and S.H. [Emphasis
added.]
- M.H. has not had episodes of self-harm: cutting or hospitalization for
mental instability since March 2017.
(All contrary to Williams’ statements in her January 29, 2018 email to DFS.)

Meaningful access to relevant resources

- Cindy is able to meet the needs of the family. They travel to Washington,
MO monthly for counseling with Dr. Jerry Marks, the family sees Dr. Bost,
PCP, as needed, M.H. had a psychological evaluation completed, there is a
surplus of food in the home and the family owns their home with no intentions
of moving. When M.H. needed an attorney for the Juvenile Summons Plaintiff
hired one.
(All contrary to Williams’ statements in her January 29, 2018 email to DFS.)

Stability
- The family is not nomadic; they own their home – utilities are on, and bills
are paid, M.H. and S.H. have regular attendance at school, they attend
monthly counseling session, extended friends and family are available for
support (when the family is not home there are people who watch the home
for safety), M.H. was on medication for depression and sleep and no longer
requires them because she uses coping mechanisms learned through
counseling. The relationship between Plaintiff and children is consistent and
there were no concerns reported during visits or THP.
(All contrary to Williams’ statements in her January 29, 2018 email to DFS.)

Mastery
- Cindy has shown self-efficacy in her ability to success in accomplishing
specific tasks even when she does not see the relevance to the case (i.e.,
parenting classes). M.H. has been using coping skills of talking to supports,
walking and reading to prevent further time in psychiatric hospitals or having
the urge to cut/smoke marijuana. S.H. and M.H. are academically ahead of
peers their age.
(All contrary to Williams’ statements in her January 29, 2018 email to DFS.)

Children’s Division Assessment / Recommendation:

Children’s Division believes it is in the best interest of M.H. and S.H. to
remain in the physical custody of Cindy Haynes and return to the legal
custody of Cindy Haynes on June 27, 2018. [Emphasis added.]
(All contrary to Williams’ statements in her January 29, 2018 email to DFS.)
(See Exhibit 39.)

167. On September 4, 2018, Charles pleaded guilty to a Class C Felony, Statutory

Sodomy of a Minor in the Second Degree under R.S. Mo. §566.064 for sexually abusing M.S.H.

43
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 46 of 70 PageID #: 773

At that hearing Charles stated:

THE COURT: Sir, how do you plead to the Class C felony of statutory
sodomy in the Second Degree, guilty or not guilty?

DEFENDANT: Guilty.

THE COURT: Do you further understand that by pleading guilty you are
making an incriminating statement with regard to the charge
and the presumption that you are innocent and the requirement
that a jury be convinced of your guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt are lost to you?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: You understand that by pleading guilty you waive your right to
trial and admit the essential elements of the charge against you in
count four?
DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Have any threats or promises been made to you to induce you
to enter your plea of guilty?

DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Sir, what is the range of punishment on this class c felony?

DEFENDANT: Seven years. I think.

THE COURT: It’s up to seven years in prison, did you understand that before
you entered your guilty plea?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are in fact guilty and
admit that you committed the offense charged?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Tell me in your own words what you did?

DEFENDANT: I had M.S.H. perform oral sex on me in Ripley County.

THE COURT: The prosecuting attorney alleges that on or about between late
November or early December of 2013, in Ripley County,
Missouri, you had deviate sexual intercourse with M.H., whose
date of birth is January 15, 1999, and at that time M.H. was
44
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 47 of 70 PageID #: 774

less than 17 years old and you were 21 years of age or older. Is
that what you did?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

(A copy of the transcript of Charles’ guilty plea testimony of September 4, 2018 is attached as

Exhibit 40.)

168. On November 23, 2018, M.H. told Plaintiff and M.S.H. that Williams threatened

her again that if M.S.H., Plaintiff or M.H. testified against Charles at this upcoming sentencing

hearing, Williams would return M.H. and S.H. to foster care. Williams told M.H. that Williams

would be asking the Court to put her father on probation at his sentencing hearing on November

26, 2018.

169. On November 23, 2018, M.H. told Plaintiff and M.S.H., “I am scared of going

back to foster care.” “I’m going to kill myself first before I go back to foster care.” “I can’t deal

with dad anymore, if he is free on probation.” Plaintiff told M.H. that she would fight for M.H.’s

custody. She would protect M.H. from Charles and that Plaintiff would seek again Williams’

disqualification from the divorce case.

170. On November 24, 2018, M.H. hung herself.

171. Because of M.H.’s death, Charles’s sentencing set for November 26, 2018, was

rescheduled to December 12, 2018.

172. On December 12, 2018, Williams testified at Charles’s sentencing seeking that he

should be placed on probation instead of being incarcerated. According to Williams “both of

these children (M.H. and S.H.) were highly sexualized for their age.” (A copy of the transcript

of Williams’ December 12, 2018 testimony at Charles’ sentencing is attached as Exhibit 41; pg.

35, ln. 22 to pg. 36, ln. 8.) Williams was GAL in the Divorce and Juvenile cases as well as

M.H.’s personal attorney when she testified on behalf of Charles.

45
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 48 of 70 PageID #: 775

173. At the same hearing, Williams testified that Plaintiff asked her to speak with

M.S.H., but Williams declined to speak with M.S.H. because Williams did not want to

“jeopardize” her ability to testify for Charles at his criminal trial. (See Exhibit 41; pg. 26, ln. 8-

19.)

174. Williams testified that M.H. and S.H. told her that they did not want to be around

Charles and Grandmother Haynes because they “abused M.H. and S.H. verbally and

emotionally.” Williams testified that “it was not a concern for me because of the level of

influence exerted by mother and M.S.H. on the children.” (See Exhibit 41; pg. 29, ln. 23 to pg.

30, ln. 23.) Williams painted Plaintiff and M.S.H. as villains who helped convict Charles (even

though Charles pled guilty to sexually abusing M.S.H.) and convinced M.H. and S.H. not to want

to be with Charles. In reality, no other person’s testimony convicted Charles. Only Charles’

testimony did.

175. Williams was not concerned that Charles threatened to kill M.S.H. and bury her

and her mother. Williams was not concerned that Charles admitted that he sodomized and had

sex with his minor stepdaughter, M.S.H.

176. The recording of Charles admitting sexual abuse of M.S.H. and his threats to kill

M.S.H. and Plaintiff were in the custody of the Doniphan Police Department and Criminal Court

in Cases State v. Charles Haynes, Cause No. 13RI-CR00907 and 13RI-CR00907-01. (See

Exhibit 7.) Williams threatened Plaintiff to return S.H. and M.H. into foster care if Plaintiff

disclosed Charles’ admissions and threats to the Divorce Court. Williams still maintained that

M.S.H. was a villain who fabricated the abuse even after Charles admitted his guilt.

177. Grandmother Haynes testified that Charles was a wonderful son, who took care of

all her needs and helped her with everything and that he was a role model parent.

46
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 49 of 70 PageID #: 776

178. On December 18, 2018 Plaintiff and M.S.H. did not testify at Charles’s

sentencing. Both were afraid that Williams would take steps to have S.H. returned to foster care

as Williams threatened many times.

179. Despite Williams’ testimony seeking Charles’s probation, on December 12, 2018,

Charles was sentenced to serve a seven (7) year term of imprisonment for sodomizing his minor

stepdaughter, M.S.H. (A copy of Charles’ sentence in his criminal case dated December 12,

2018 is attached as Exhibit 42.)

180. On March 17, 2020 Dr. Marks reported to Plaintiff’s attorney that:

S.H. had an older biological sister M.H. who perished by suicide. It

remains my belief that M.H. was sexually abused by her father over a
period of time but specifically while she was in the custody of the
Division living at her paternal grandmother's home. M.H. was also a
patient under my care, and I have included the reports that I provided to
the Division as well as a letter that I wrote for the Special Counsel who
was appointed by the Attorney general of MO.

It is my understanding that the GAL who was appointed to the cases of

both S.H. and M.H. testified at trial on behalf of Mr. Haynes. This
testimony, if it occurred, is in my opinion more than just a conflict of
interest and may rise to the level of professional misconduct. Since the
entire process of the criminal case was suspicious and may have been the
cause of M.H.'s death by suicide; I want to recommend that S.H. have no
contact with her biological father, Mr. Haynes until she is at least 18 years
of age. I would further recommend that contact with Mr. Haynes would
only be initiated by S.H. when she believes that she is strong enough to
handle whatever manipulation he may try to use to get her to believe that
he is innocent of the charges.

(A copy of Dr. Marks’ March 17, 2020 letter is attached as Exhibit 43. Plaintiff provided this

letter to Williams.)

181. From the time of his appointment until M.H.’s death, therapist Marks was of the

opinion that M.H. should have no contact with her father. From the time of his appointment until

S.H. turns 18, Dr. Marks expressed his opinion that S.H. should have no contact with her father.

47
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 50 of 70 PageID #: 777

Williams did not report Dr. Marks’ opinions to the Divorce Court and did not protect M.H.

Plaintiff tried to set up a hearing with the Divorce Court for which Williams and Charles’

attorney persistently requested continuances which were granted. At that time, Plaintiff, was not

represented by an attorney and she was not successful in delivering Dr. Marks’ message to the

Divorce Court.

182. From the date of her first involvement in the case on May 6, 2016 until M.H.’s

death on November 24, 2018, Williams repeatedly threatened M.H. with her and her sister’s

placement in foster care if M.H., Plaintiff or M.S.H. testified against her father at his criminal

trial or at his sentencing. M.H. reported these threats to her doctors, Plaintiff and her stepsisters,

M.S.H., and Mindy. (A copy of several of these messages M.H. texted of Williams’ threats is

attached as Exhibit 44.)

183. Such threats were not within the scope of Williams’ duties as a GAL. They

also violated her duties as an attorney for S.H. and M.H.

184. Williams instructed S.H. and M.H. not to discuss Williams’ conversations with

the girls with anyone, especially with Plaintiff, their mother. Williams threatened S.H. and M.H.

that Williams would place S.H. and M.H. in foster care if they shared with anyone, especially

with their mother, their conversations with Williams. Williams’ constant threats were not within

the scope of her duties as a GAL. They also violated her duties as an attorney for S.H. and M.H.

185. On April 29, 2021, Williams withdrew from the divorce case. In her Motion to

Withdraw, Williams stated that “she believed that all of the underlying custody matters were

resolved due to Petitioner’s [Charles’] incarceration.” [Emphasis added.]

186. Throughout her involvement in the Haynes divorce, Williams consistently and

persistently attempted to keep Charles out of jail and/or on probation and to reunite M.H. with

48
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 51 of 70 PageID #: 778

her abuser, her father, through custody, visitation, and joint therapy instead of protecting M.H. as

the law required.

187. On July 27, 2021 Dr. Jerry Marks wrote a letter addressed to the Divorce Court in

Doniphan, Missouri. The letter stated:

Cynthia’s care and protection of the girls never raised any concerns in
my mind. The girls were overachieving at school leading me to
wonder how the DIVISION ever took custody of the girls in the first
place. There have been so many politically motivated decisions made
in this case, that made me wonder many times that the best interests of
the children [in this case] were not protected, but plainly thwarted.
These children were exposed to danger which led to tragedy. I am
disturbed that the officers of the Court, including attorneys and
several agencies of the Court were used to further their agenda in
protecting a child molester; and disregarded the felonious nature of
childhood sexual abuse which took place in this family and in this
case.

I would not support the appointment of another GAL as the

Court and the GAL [in this case] had demonstrated that any of
their actions are not in the best interests of the children [and not
in the best interests of S.H.]. [Emphasis in the original.]

(A copy of Dr. Marks’ July 27, 2021 letter is attached as Exhibit 45.)

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – WRONGFUL DEATH – ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF GAL DUTIES

(DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND SPAIN, MILLER)

188. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in the paragraphs stated

above as if fully set forth herein.

189. Plaintiff is the mother of M.H., and is in the class of individuals authorized to

pursue wrongful death claims against all of the named Defendants pursuant to R.S. Mo.

§537.080.

190. As a court appointed GAL, Williams’ duty was to advocate for the best interests

49
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 52 of 70 PageID #: 779

of M.H. by providing the Divorce Court relevant information bearing on M.H.’s interests

untainted by the parochial interests of M.H.’s father. Guier v. Guier, 918 S.W.2d 940, 950 (Mo.

App. W.D. 1996); In re Marriage of Patroske, 888 S.W.2d 374, 384-85 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994).

191. Williams had a duty to comply with R.S. Mo. §452.423.3 (1)-(2) 9 and Missouri

case law requiring her to investigate and to report to the Divorce Court M.H.’s safety concerns,

wishes, attachments and attitudes, all of which were paramount. Keling, 155 S.W.3d at 834

supra.

192. Williams had a duty to comply with R.S. Mo. §210.115 requiring her to hotline

allegations of sexual abuse of M.H. by her father to the police and the Department of Family

Services (DFS) and to hotline Grandmother Haynes’ failure to protect M.H. while M.H. was in

Grandmother Haynes’ custody. A reasonable GAL acting under the same or similar

circumstances would have hotlined M.H. being abused.

193. Williams had a duty to comply with the MRPR which have the force and effect of

judicial decisions. McVeigh, 401 S.W.3d at 287, supra. Williams had a duty to act within the

scope of the GAL duties (Rule 4-1.2) to protect M.H. from harm by taking all necessary

protective actions (Rule 4-1.14 10) because M.H. was a minor.

9
The guardian ad litem shall:
(1) Be the legal representative of the child [child’s best interests] at the hearing, and
may examine, cross-examine, subpoena witnesses, and offer testimony;
(2) Prior to the hearing, conduct all necessary interviews with persons having contact
with or knowledge of the child in order to ascertain the child’s wishes, feelings, attachments, and
attitudes. If appropriate, the child should be interviewed;
(3) Request the juvenile officer to cause a petition to be filed in the juvenile division of
the circuit court if the guardian ad litem believes the child alleged to be abused or neglected is in
danger.
10
The MRPR 4-1.14 states:
(a) When a client's capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with
a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental impairment, or for
some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal
50
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 53 of 70 PageID #: 780

194. Williams had a duty to comply with the Missouri Supreme Court GAL Standards

which required Williams to be guided by the best interests of M.H. and demanded Williams to

exercise independent judgment on behalf of M.H. (Standard 3); to diligently and faithfully

advocate a position in the best interests of M.H. (Standard 4); to communicate with M.H.

regularly (Standard 5); to investigate and review all necessary information pertaining to M.H.’s

best interests and not rely on information provided by third parties (Standard 6); to maintain

confidentiality of information (Standard 7); to advocate for timely hearings and compliance with

the law and court orders (Standard 8); to explain to M.H. the purpose of each court proceeding

(Standard 9); to present evidence, file pleadings, and call witnesses when appropriate to ensure

all information relevant to M.H.’s best interests is presented to the court for consideration

(Standard 11); and to present the evidence and recommendations to the Divorce Court consistent

with M.H.’s best interests (Standard 13).

195. At all times pertinent hereto, Williams violated her duties and acted outside the

scope of her duties as a GAL in the Haynes divorce in one or more of the following respects:

a. Threatening M.H. that if her mother, her stepsister, and/or M.H. testified
against Charles in his pending sexual abuse criminal case, M.H. and S.H.
would be returned to foster care;

b. Threatening to cut M.H. and S.H.’s visitation time with Plaintiff, if M.H.,
Mellissa, or Plaintiff testified against Charles in his criminal case;

c. Threatening M.H. that if her mother, stepsister, and/or M.H. testified

against Charles at his sentencing, M.H. and S.H. would be returned to
foster care;

client-lawyer relationship with the client.

(b) When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity; is at
risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken; and cannot
adequately act in the client's own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably necessary
protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to
take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a
next friend, guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.
51
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 54 of 70 PageID #: 781

d. Placing M.H. in a double bind by threatening that if she, her stepsister

and/or her mother testified against Charles at his criminal trial, M.H.
would be placed in foster care, but if she did not testify against her father,
and her father was released or placed on probation as Williams advocated,
that M.H. would be placed in her father’s custody or required to spend
time with her father, who had sexually abused M.H.;

e. Testifying at Charles’ sentencing favorably to Charles seeking to have

Charles placed on probation;

f. Testifying at Charles’ sentencing hearing that Charles was not at fault

because M.H. and S.H. were “highly sexualized;”

g. Failing to realize that her perception that S.H. and M.H. were “highly
sexualized” was the direct result of sexual abuse by their father;

h. Failing to protect M.H. from sexual abuse at Grandmother Haynes’ house;

i. Failing to report to the Divorce and Juvenile Courts that M.H. was
sexually, physically, and emotionally abused by Charles;

j. Failing to hotline sexual, physical, and emotional abuse M.H. suffered in

the custody of Grandmother Haynes as was required by R.S. Mo.
§210.115;

k. Willfully insisting on M.H.’s interaction with her father and Grandmother

Haynes knowing that both of them abused or allowed the abuse of M.H.
sexually, emotionally, and/or physically;

l. Advocating for M.H.’s reunification with her sexual abuser;

m. Threatening M.H. that if she did not reunify with Charles, M.H. would be
placed back in foster care or, worse, in the custody of Charles, her sexual
abuser;

n. Not reporting to the Divorce and Juvenile Courts M.H.’s physical and
mental condition;

o. Failing to seek appropriate healthcare personnel to help M.H. combat

depression, PTSD, and sexual abuse trauma;

p. Promoting false allegations of “educational neglect even while M.H. and

S.H. were excelling at school;” and

52
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 55 of 70 PageID #: 782

q. Failing to protect M.H. from false allegations of educational neglect,

Taylor v. Taylor, 60 S.W.3d 652 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).

196. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller outside the

scope of Williams’ duties as a GAL, caused or contributed to cause M.H. to suffer sexual abuse,

severe and excruciating emotional pain, loss of dignity, and deterioration of her mental health

which resulted in her suicide, her wrongful death.

197. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller caused or

contributed to cause M.H. taking her life on November 24, 2018.

198. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller caused or

contributed to cause Plaintiff suffering the following damages:

a. Past, present and future loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of her
daughter M.H.;

b. M.H. suffering excruciating pain and anguish which also traumatized and hurt
Plaintiff for the past six years and into the future;

c. Reasonable and necessary expenses for funeral and related charges; and

d. Future earnings, wealth, and/or support from M.H.

199. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

200. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller for

causing aggravating circumstances leading to M.H.’s death as authorized by R.S.Mo. §537.090.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages and aggravating circumstances damages

against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller as set forth above in fair and reasonable amounts

allowed by the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute each in excess of One Hundred Thousand

($100,000.00) to be determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and such costs and other and further

53
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 56 of 70 PageID #: 783

relief to which Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

COUNT II – WRONGFUL DEATH – LEGAL MALPRACTICE

(DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND SPAIN, MILLER)

201. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs stated above

as if fully set forth herein.

202. Williams became M.H.’s personal attorney on January 30, 2017 in the Haynes’

divorce. In this role, Williams owed M.H. the duty to exercise the skill and learning ordinarily

exercised by attorneys under the same or similar circumstances. Johnson v. Sandler, Balkin,

Hellman & Weinstein, 958 S.W.2d 42, 52 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Steward v. Goetz, 945 S.W.2d

520, 531 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997).

203. Williams also owed M.H. the duty of care as was established by the Divorce

Court Order making Williams M.H.’s private attorney.

204. Williams departed from the established standards of her profession when

representing M.H. in the Haynes divorce and juvenile proceedings by failing to exercise the

required degree of skill and learning ordinarily exercised by attorneys representing minors in

family court and juvenile court proceedings under the same or similar circumstances by the

members of legal profession in one or more of the following ways:

a. Threatening M.H. that she would place M.H. and her sister in foster care, if
M.H., M.S.H., or Plaintiff testified against Charles in his criminal case;

b. Threatening M.H. that she would cut M.H. and S.H.’s visitation time with
Plaintiff, if M.H., M.S.H., or Plaintiff testified against Charles in his criminal
case;

c. Threatening M.H. that she would place M.H. and S.H. back into foster care if
M.H., M.S.H., or Plaintiff testified against Charles at his sentencing hearing;

d. Threatening M.H. that she would return M.H. and S.H. to foster care if M.H.

54
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 57 of 70 PageID #: 784

told Plaintiff about Williams’ threats and M.H.’s conversations with Williams;

e. Promoting false allegations of educational neglect by Plaintiff;

f. Ignoring M.H.’s wishes not to have any contact with Charles and
Grandmother Haynes;

g. Ignoring the recommendations of M.H.’s health care providers and DFS

personnel that M.H. should be returned into the custody of Plaintiff and not
have any contact with Charles;

h. Misrepresenting to the Divorce Court that Plaintiff consented to M.H. and

S.H.’s foster care placement in February 2017;

i. Refusing and failing to communicate with M.H.;

j. Refusing to protect M.H. from bullying at the Doniphan Public School;

k. Disclosing M.H.’s confidential communications that she was afraid of Charles

to Charles and Grandmother Haynes;

l. Instructing DePaul Hospital to deny Plaintiff access to M.H. when she was
hospitalized to treat M.H.’s self-mutilating behavior without having authority
to do so; and

m. Committing such other breaches of professional duties of care as will be

shown by discovery in this case.

205. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller as personal

attorneys for M.H., caused or contributed to cause M.H. to suffer sexual abuse, severe and

excruciating emotional pain, loss of dignity, and deterioration of her mental health which

resulted in her suicide.

206. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller caused or

contributed to cause M.H. taking her life on November 24, 2018.

207. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Williams and Spain, Miller caused or

contributed to cause Plaintiff to suffer the following damages:

a. Loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of her daughter M.H.;

55
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 58 of 70 PageID #: 785

b. M.H. suffering excruciating pain and anguish which Plaintiff witnessed and so
which also traumatized and hurt Plaintiff for the past six years and into the
present and future;

c. Reasonable and necessary expenses for funeral and related charges; and

d. Future earnings, wealth, and/or support from M.H.

208. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

209. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller for

causing aggravating circumstances leading to M.H.’s death as authorized by R.S Mo.§537.090.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages and aggravating circumstances damages

against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller as set forth above in fair and reasonable amounts

allowed by the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute each in excess of One Hundred Thousand

($100,000.00) to be determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and costs and such other and further

relief to which Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

COUNT III - WRONGFUL DEATH - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

(DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND SPAIN, MILLER)

210. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs stated above

as if fully set forth herein.

211. By becoming M.H.’s personal attorney in the Haynes divorce, Williams and

Spain, Miller acknowledged their obligation to comply with their fiduciary duties to M.H.

212. As M.H.’s attorney, Williams and Spain, Miller owed M.H. an unconditional duty

of fidelity, loyalty, and integrity when representing M.H.

213. By virtue of Williams’ entry of appearance as M.H.’s personal attorney, a trust

and a fiduciary relationship existed between M.H. and Williams. Williams accepted the trust and

56
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 59 of 70 PageID #: 786

fiduciary duties with respect to M.H.’s representation as M.H.’s personal attorney.

214. The MRPR provide standards for determining the duties that attorneys owe their

clients. McRentals, Inc. v. Barber, 62 S.W.3d 684, 697 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001); Beare v.

Yarbrough, 941 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). In McRentals, Inc., the court referred

to the ethical rules for guidance in determining the fiduciary duty owed to a client by an attorney.

McRentals, Inc., 62 S.W.3d at 697. In Beare, the court considered the ethical rules in

determining whether an attorney was engaged in a conflict of interest. Beare, 941 S.W.2d at

556.

215. Williams and Spain, Miller breached their fiduciary duties owed M.H. in one or

more of the following respects:

a. By failing to withdraw from their representation of M.H. in the Haynes’

divorce when faced with conflicts of interest in serving as a GAL in
Juvenile and Divorce cases, as well as serving as M.H.’s personal
attorney, all while advocating for Charles and his interests;

b. By placing Charles’ interests above M.H.’s interests and her safety by

advocating for Charles to have custody and visitation with M.H. and/or to
be reunited with M.H.;

c. By advocating for M.H. to be placed with Grandmother Haynes and for

Grandmother Haynes to supervise Charles’ time with M.H. knowing that
Grandmother Haynes was unable to do competently so;

d. Testifying at Charles’ sentencing proceedings seeking Charles’ probation

instead of incarceration after Charles pleaded guilty to sexual deviant
sodomy of M.H.’s stepsister, M.S.H.;

e. Threatening M.H. that she [Williams] would return M.H. and S.H. to
foster care if Plaintiff, M.S.H. or M.H. testified at Charles’ criminal
proceeding and later at his sentencing hearing.

f. Failing to advise M.H. and Plaintiff to seek an ethics opinion and to seek
an informed written consent from M.H. and Plaintiff with respect to
Williams’ conflicting representation of M.H. in Williams’ role as her GAL
and in her role as M.H.’s personal attorney;

57
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 60 of 70 PageID #: 787

g. Disclosing to Grandmother Haynes and Charles M.H.’s confidential

conversations with Williams pertaining to M.H.’s concerns about her
safety;

h. Not reporting to the Divorce Court that Charles sexually abused M.H. and
that Grandmother Haynes failed to supervise Charles as the Divorce Court
ordered;

i. Collecting compensation from Charles and Grandmother Haynes in

violation of MRPR 4-1.8(f) 11 which interfered with Williams’ independent
professional judgment and with Williams’ and M.H.’s client-lawyer
relationship;

j. Protecting Charles and Grandmother Haynes and shielding them from any
responsibility for the harm they caused M.H.;

k. Implying to the court in Charles’ criminal proceedings that it was M.H.’s

and S.H.’s fault that Charles was convicted because of Williams’ own
personal opinion that M.H. and S.H. were “too sexualized for their age;”
and

l. For failing to realize that the reason she believed M.H. and S.H. were “too
sexualized for their age” was because M.H. had been sexually abused by
their father according to M.H.’s own pediatrician and therapist.

216. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller in conflict

with their duties as M.H.s’ personal attorneys caused or contributed to cause M.H. to suffer

sexual abuse, severe and excruciating emotional pain, loss of dignity, and deterioration of her

mental health which resulted in her suicide.

217. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller in conflict

with their duties as M.H.s’ personal attorneys caused or contributed to cause M.H. taking her life

on November 24, 2018.

11
A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than
the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional
judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating
to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 4-1.6.

58
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 61 of 70 PageID #: 788

218. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Williams and Spain, Miller in conflict

with their duties as M.H.s’ personal attorneys caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff suffering

the following damages:

a. Past, present and future loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of
her daughter M.H.;

b. M.H. suffering excruciating pain and anguish, which Plaintiff witnessed

and so which also traumatized and hurt Plaintiff for the past six years and
into the present and future;

c. Reasonable and necessary expenses for funeral and related charges; and

d. Future earnings, wealth, and/or support from M.H.

219. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

220. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller for

causing aggravating circumstances leading to M.H.’s death as authorized by R.S. Mo. §537.090.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages and aggravating circumstances damages

against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller as set forth above in fair and reasonable amounts

allowed by the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute each in excess of One Hundred Thousand

($100,000.00) to be determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and costs and such other and further

relief to which Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

COUNT IV – PERSONAL CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF - ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE

OF GAL DUTIES
(DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND SPAIN, MILLER)

221. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs stated above

as if fully set forth herein.

222. Williams owed a duty of care to Plaintiff. In re Krigel, 480 S.W.3d 294, 299

59
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 62 of 70 PageID #: 789

(Mo. 2016). 12

223. Williams was prohibited from making a false statement of material fact or law to

the Divorce Court, the DFS and the Juvenile Courts. In re Krigel, 480 S.W.3d at 299.

224. Williams was prohibited from using litigation tactics during the Haynes’ divorce

that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Plaintiff. In re Krigel,

480 S.W.3d at 299.

225. Williams was prohibited from engaging in professional misconduct that was

prejudicial to the administration of justice and to Plaintiff. In re Krigel, 480 S.W.3d at 299.

226. Williams had a duty to comply with the MRPR and the Supreme Court GAL

Standards in her dealings with Plaintiff and in performing her GAL duties in the Haynes divorce.

In re Krigel, 480 S.W.3d at 299.

227. At all times pertinent hereto, Williams acted outside the scope of her duties as a

GAL in the Haynes divorce in one or more of the following respects:

a. Promoting false allegations of “educational neglect” against Plaintiff;

b. Seeking placement of S.H. and M.H. into foster care based on false
allegations of “educational neglect” against Plaintiff;

c. Threatening Plaintiff and M.H. that she would reduce Plaintiff’s visitation
time with S.H. and M.H. while they were in foster care if Plaintiff or
M.S.H. testified against Charles in his criminal case;

d. Threatening Plaintiff that she would return S.H. and M.H. to foster care if
Plaintiff or M.S.H. testified against Charles in his criminal case and/or at
his sentencing hearing;

12
An attorney owes a duty to persons not her clients in certain circumstances. Donahue v.
Shughart, Thomson & Kiroy, PC, 900 S.W.2d 624, 629 (Mo. banc 1995) (attorneys owe
fiduciary duties to a third party, where the third party was to benefit from the attorney’s
services); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 819 S.W.2d 406, 410 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (an attorney is liable
to third parties if the attorney is guilty of fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious act); Deutsch v.
Wolf, 994 S.W.2d 561, 571 (Mo. 1999) (the accountant for the trust owed a fiduciary duty to the
trust beneficiaries).
60
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 63 of 70 PageID #: 790

e. Threatening M.H. to reduce her visitation time with Plaintiff if M.H.

testified that Charles had sexually abused her;

f. Threatening M.H. to be returned to foster care if M.H. testified that

Charles had sexually abused her;

g. Instructing DePaul Hospital personnel not to allow Plaintiff to visit M.H.

while M.H. was hospitalized for self-mutilating behavior because of
Charles’ sexual abuse;

h. Repeatedly advocating for S.H. and M.H. to be reunified with Charles and
Grandmother Haynes knowing that neither of them protected S.H. and
M.H. as the Divorce Court required;

i. Not reporting to the Divorce and Juvenile Courts that Charles sexually
abused M.H.;

l. Testifying at Charles’ sentencing hearing favorably to Charles implying

that Charles was convicted because of M.H. and S.H.’s fault of “being
highly sexualized;”

m. For failing to realize that the reason she perceived M.H. and S.H. of
“being highly sexualized” was because M.H. had been sexually abused by
their father, according to M.H.’s own pediatrician; and

n. Ignoring the written findings of M.H.’s own pediatrician that M.H. had
been sexually abused by her father.

228. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller enumerated

above caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff to suffer severe and excruciating emotional pain,

loss of enjoyment of life, and deterioration of Plaintiff’s mental health.

229. The acts and omissions of Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller caused or

contributed to cause Plaintiff to suffer the following damages:

a. Loss of love, affection, care and companionship of her daughters S.H. and
M.H. while they were placed in foster care;

b. Past, present and future loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of
her daughter M.H.;

c. Painful and stressful litigation for the past six years;

61
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 64 of 70 PageID #: 791

d. Significant medical expenses; and

e. Significant legal fees and court expenses.

230. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

231. Plaintiff reserves her right to seek leave of the Court to pursue punitive damages

at a later date as prescribed by R.S. Mo. §510.261 and to seek other and further relief as this

Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller

in fair and reasonable amounts allowed by law each in excess of One Hundred Thousand

($100,000.00) to be determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and costs and other and further relief

to which Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

COUNT V – WRONGFUL DEATH – NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

(DEFENDANT SPAIN, MILLER)

232. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs stated above

as if fully set forth herein.

233. Spain, Miller had a duty to hire individuals who were qualified to perform the

duties set forth above and who did not present a danger to M.H.

234. Spain, Miller had a duty to properly supervise Williams who was responsible for

representing M.H. in the Haynes’ divorce and who was not a partner, member and/or principal in

Spain, Miller, but was a relatively recent law school graduate when she represented M.H.

235. Spain, Miller failed in their duties to supervise Williams who failed and/or

refused to properly represent M.H. as her personal client and who acted outside the scope of her

authority as a GAL.

62
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 65 of 70 PageID #: 792

236. Spain, Miller failed in their duties to supervise Williams’ legal work in all regards

herein, in that they did not recognize a conflict of interest in Williams’ representation of M.H.’s

best interests as GAL, M.H.’s personal interests as M.H.’s attorney and Charles’ interests, which

adversely impacted M.H.’s safety and led M.H. to her suicide.

237. The acts and/or omissions of Defendant Spain, Miller caused or contributed to

cause M.H. taking her life on November 24, 2018.

238. The acts and/or omissions of Defendant Spain, Miller caused or contributed to

cause Plaintiff suffering the following damages:

a. Past, present and future loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of
her daughter M.H.;

b. M.H. suffering excruciating pain and anguish which Plaintiff witnessed

and which also traumatized Plaintiff and hurt Plaintiff for the past six
years and into the present and future; and

c. Reasonable and necessary expenses for funeral and related charges; and

d. Future earnings, wealth, and/or support from M.H.

239. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

240. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendant Spain, Miller for causing

aggravating circumstances leading to M.H.’s death as authorized by R.S.Mo. §537.090.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages and aggravating circumstances damages

against Defendants Williams and Spain, Miller as set forth above in fair and reasonable amounts

allowed by the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute each in excess of One Hundred Thousand

($100,000.00) to be determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and costs and such other and further

relief to which Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

63
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 66 of 70 PageID #: 793

COUNT VI WRONGFUL DEATH – NEGLIGENCE

(DEFENDANT GRANDMOTHER HAYNES)

241. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs stated above

as if fully set forth herein.

242. By intervening in the Haynes’ divorce and petitioning for S.H. and M.H.’s

custody, Grandmother Haynes implied and/or acknowledged that she was physically and

mentally capable to take care of M.H. and guaranteeing her safety.

243. By accepting physical and legal custody of M.H., Grandmother Haynes testified

at the Divorce Court hearing on December 7, 2016 that “her neck was on the line” in protecting

the safety and wellbeing of M.H.

244. Grandmother Haynes promised the Divorce Court she would comply with the

December 22, 2016 Divorce Court Order and accepted the responsibility for M.H.’s safety.

Grandmother Haynes promised to the Divorce Court and to Plaintiff that Charles would not have

unsupervised access to M.H. while in her custody.

245. Based on Grandmother Haynes’ promises of her responsibilities, the Divorce

Court placed M.H. in Grandmother Haynes’ physical and legal custody.

246. Grandmother Haynes owed M.H. a duty to protect her from sexual and/or other

abuse by Charles.

247. Grandmother Haynes failed to protect M.H. and was thereby negligent in one or

more of the following ways:

a. Concealing from the Divorce Court her physical conditions including

congestive heart failure and arthritis pain which demanded prescription
painkillers and her need for insomnia medication;

b. Concealing from the Divorce Court her eyesight and hearing decline;

c. Failing to supervise Charles’ visits with his daughters;

64
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 67 of 70 PageID #: 794

a. Granting Charles unsupervised and unfettered access to M.H. during the

day and/or at night allowing Charles to sexually abuse M.H. while M.H.
was in her custody;

e. Failing to report Charles’ sexual abuse of M.H. to the police and the
Divorce Court;

f. Failing to seek immediate medical help and support for M.H.; and

g. Demanding reunification of Charles and M.H. knowing that this

reunification would traumatize and/or cause M.H. pain.

248. Grandmother Haynes knew and/or should have known that the above-described

actions would expose M.H. to injury, mental health decline and suicide. I.e., M.H.’s injuries,

mental health decline and suicide were all foreseeable results of Grandma Haynes’ actions and

inactions.

249. The acts and/or omissions of Grandmother Haynes caused and/or contributed to

cause M.H. to suffer sexual abuse, severe and excruciating emotional pain, loss of dignity, and

deterioration of her mental health which resulted in her suicide.

250. The acts and omissions of Defendant Grandmother Haynes caused and/or

contributed to cause Plaintiff to suffer the following damages:

a. Past, present and future loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of
her daughter M.H.;

b. M.H. suffering excruciating pain and anguish which Plaintiff witnessed

and so which also traumatized Plaintiff and hurt Plaintiff for the past six
years and into the present and future;

c. Reasonable and necessary expenses for funeral and related charges; and

d. Future earnings, wealth, and/or support from M.H.

251. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

65
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 68 of 70 PageID #: 795

252. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendant Grandmother Haynes for causing

aggravating circumstances leading to M.H.’s death as authorized by R.S. Mo. §537.090.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages and aggravating circumstances damages

against Defendant Grandmother Haynes as set forth above in fair and reasonable amounts

allowed by the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute each in excess of One Hundred Thousand

($100,000.00) to be determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and costs and such other and further

relief to which Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

COUNT VII - WRONGFUL DEATH - SEXUAL ASSAULT & BATTERY

(DEFENDANT CHARLES HAYNES)

253. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs stated above

as if fully set forth herein.

254. Charles, an adult in his fifties, who after physically and mentally manipulating

M.H., began sexually assaulting her. Plaintiff reasonably believes that in addition to the acts of

sodomy, Charles also raped M.H.

255. At all times of Charles’ sexual assaults, M.H. was under the age of consent.

256. Charles knowingly and willfully acted in a manner that created a substantial risk

to the body, physical health, and mental health of M.H., a child, by repeatedly sexually abusing,

sexually assaulting and/or sexually battering M.H.

257. Charles knew that the above-described actions would expose M.H. to injury, to

mental anguish, to the decline in her mental health and suicide.

258. Charles acted with conscious disregard to M.H.’s safety, life, and her rights.

259. Charles’ conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, done with evil motive and

criminal intent.

66
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 69 of 70 PageID #: 796

260. Charles’ intentional sexual assault and/or battery of M.H. caused or contributed to

cause the loss, injuries, and damages suffered by M.H.

261. These sexual assaults and/or batteries caused and/or contributed to cause M.H. to

suffer sexual abuse, severe and excruciating emotional pain, loss of dignity, and deterioration of

her mental health which resulted in her suicide.

262. The sexual assaults and/or batteries by Defendant Charles caused and/or

contributed to cause M.H. taking her life on November 24, 2018.

263. The acts and/or omissions of Defendant Charles Haynes caused and/or

contributed to cause Plaintiff suffering the following damages:

a. Past, present and future loss of love, affection, care, and companionship of
her daughter M.H.;

b. M.H. suffering excruciating pain and anguish which Plaintiff witnessed

and so which also traumatized Plaintiff and hurt Plaintiff for the past six
years and into the present and future;

c. Reasonable and necessary expenses for funeral and related charges; and

d. Future earnings, wealth, and/or support from M.H.

264. Plaintiff’s suffering and damages are continuing and ongoing and will continue

into the future.

265. Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Defendant Charles Haynes for causing

aggravating circumstances leading to M.H.’s death as authorized by R.S. Mo. §537.090.

266. Because of his actions, Defendant Charles Haynes is not entitled to any share of

damages awarded for the wrongful death of M.H.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks actual damages and aggravating circumstances damages

against Defendant Charles Haynes in fair and reasonable amounts allowed by the Missouri

Wrongful Death Statute each in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) to be

67
Case: 1:21-cv-00160-SNLJ Doc. #: 6 Filed: 11/12/21 Page: 70 of 70 PageID #: 797

determined by a jury, plus attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief to which

Plaintiff is entitled as determined by this Court.

JURY DEMAND

267. Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims set forth above.

/s/ Laurence D. Mass

Laurence D. Mass, Esq. Bar # 30977 Mo.
230 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1200
Saint Louis, Missouri 63105
Phone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 20
Fax: (314) 862-0605
e-mail: laurencedmass@att.net

/s/ Evita Tolu

Evita Tolu, Esq. Bar # 49878 Mo.
1 Crabapple Court
Saint Louis, Missouri 63132
Cell: (314) 323-6033
Fax: (314) 207-0086
e-mail: evitatolu@outlook.com

Attorneys for Cynthia K. Haynes

68