The Montana Supreme Court has vacated a jury’s verdict from a 2021 civil trial related to a 2009 child abuse case in Great Falls and remanded the case back to district court for a new trial.

The case stems from a 2009 incident when the girlfriend of the child’s father picked up the crying infant and slammed her head against the side of the crib multiple times before throwing her back in the crib, causing blindness and other permanent disabilities, according to court documents.

Alicia Jo Hocter was sentenced in July 2010 to 30 years in prison after being found guilty of aggravated assault and criminal endangerment and is currently serving her sentence in the Montana Women’s Prison.

The victim, Seraphina Wilson, through her guardian, sued through the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services in 2013 for its failure to remove her from her father’s home prior to the injuries, as several complaints had been made regarding the child’s safety and DPHHS investigated, according to court documents.

Former Malmstrom airman sentenced for obtaining, selling child sexual abuse material

The case was transferred to Judge Elizabeth Best in 2018, who eventually determined as a matter of law that the DPHHS’ child abuse investigation was negligent and caused the child’s injuries.

After a two-day trial in November 2021, a Cascade County jury awarded the child $16,652,538 for “the loss of her future earning capacity, past personal care assistance, future life care costs, impairment of the capacity to pursue her established course of life, and mental and emotional suffering,” according to court documents.

In the Montana Supreme Court’s March 19 order, the court found that the district court was correct that the immunity provision in state law didn’t apply to the state, but “we conclude that the district court erred by ruling, as a matter of law, that the state was negligent and that Hocter’s assault on S.W. was foreseeable. Given the material factual disputes, these issues are best left to a jury. The district court abused its discretion by imposing a disproportionate sanction on the state for spoliation of evidence. We affirm in part, reverse the judgment, vacate the jury’s verdict, and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.”

Before Hocter had assaulted the child in February 2009, the state had received several reports regarding the child’s welfare.

Hawkbear appears in court to set trial schedule [2023]

In December 2008, a doctor reported that the child had been brought to the emergency room by her father, Jacob Arnott, and Hocter, according to court documents.

The child had multiple bruises on her belly and Arnott and Hocter couldn’t explain the bruising but told the doctor the child had been with her mother, Kendra Bernardi, for a supervised visit at the couple’s home the previous day.

The doctor reported the bruises were 24-48 hours old and were consistent with being pinched, but was unable to determine the cause but described Arnott as “cooperative and protective,” according to court documents.

DPHHS’ intake system flagged the doctor’s report as one that required investigation within 14 days and assigned an employee, who made an unannounced visit to Arnott and Hocter’s home the day after the report. While there she looked at the child, took photos of the bruising described the child as a “happy alert baby;” an described the home at “minimal standards,” encouraging them to clean, according to court documents.

Former GFPS teacher enters not guilty pleas to charges of sending, possessing explicit images of children [2023]

The couple told the DPHHS employee conflicting stories about when they noticed the bruising, but that they took the child to the hospital after they noticed. They said at one point during the mother’s visit, the supervisor left alone and the couple claimed to have heard the child crying, according to court documents.

The DPHHS employee arranged for a follow-up appointment that day with her pediatrician, who diagnosed the bruising as “non-accidental trauma,” but couldn’t determine the cause or estimated time when it occurred. The doctor ordered a bone scan for the following day and told the DPHHS employee that it revealed no additional trauma.

Two days after the initial report, the DPHHS employee interviewed Bernardi, who said she didn’t recall seeing bruises on the child’s stomach.

The DPHHS also interviewed the visit supervisor who largely confirmed Arnott and Hocter’s version of events, then she contacted the Great Falls Police Department, which sent a detective immediately to meet Hocter, Arnott and the child at the DPHHS employee’s office, according to court documents.

GFPS adopts annual safety plan [2023]

The GFPD interviewed Hocter and Arnott and took pictures of the child’s bruises, telling the DPHHS employee that he didn’t have sufficient probable cause to charge anyone at that time, according to court documents.

In January 2009, the state received an anonymous report of a strong marijuana odor coming from Arnott and Hocter’s apartment on two occasions and a child crying inside, but another DPHHS employee closed the report there was another active case involving the child, according to court documents.

The DPHHS employee conducted another home visit with Arnott and Hecter in January 2009, reporting that the child’s bruising was gone, the child “looked happy and healthy” and the home was “above minimal standards.”

DPHHS closed the case in January 2009, determining that the child “had not received serious, inflicted, physical harm, was not at risk of imminent harm, was safe in Arnott and Hocter’s home, and that no more follow-up was required,” according to court documents.

Three days later, a nurse at Benefis Health System, reported concerns to the state that Arnott had left the child unattended in her car seat in Hocter’s hospital room while Hocter was giving birth, but the state determined nothing that met the definition of child abuse or neglect was reported. DPHHS sent an employee to discuss the report with Arnott, but reported no concerns, according to court documents.

In their March 19 opinion, the Montana Supreme Court wrote that the district court concluded that the undisputed facts demonstrated the state acted with gross negligence in investigating and responding to the child’s case, reasoning that the state was grossly negligent by failing to remove the child after two medical opinions diagnosing the bruising as abuse, knowledge that the bruising had occurred in Arnott and Hocter’s home and DPHHS’ statutory authority to remove a child in danger.

The Montana Supreme Court found that the district court said the DPHHS employee had not interviewed Benardi, despite contrary evidence in the summary judgement record and concluded the district court “inappropriately weighed issues of material fact and failed to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state when it granted summary judgment on negligence. Drawing all inferences in its favor, the state produced evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment.”

DPHHS conducted a prompt investigation of the initial report of bruising with multiple visits, including interviews with Hocter, Arnott, Bernardi, among others, referrals to law enforcement and medical professionals and a final report. The record also includes deposition testimony reflecting the adequacy of DPHHS’ actions, according to the Montana Supreme Court’s opinion.

The Montana Supreme Court found that the state was likely not entitled to summary judgment and the question of negligence was better suited for a jury.