Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Three individuals alleged that New Jersey child welfare caseworkers violated their constitutional rights during a series of investigations and child removals in 2017. The principal facts involved caseworkers entering the plaintiffs’ residence without a warrant and subsequently removing children from parental custody without court authorization. One plaintiff was the mother whose children were removed; another was the father of her youngest child and a resident of the home; the third was the grandfather. The plaintiffs argued that the warrantless entry and removals were not justified by imminent danger, and that their consent to certain “family plan agreements” was coerced.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated that dismissal in part and remanded. Upon remand, the District Court dismissed the claims again, this time based on qualified immunity—holding that the defendants were shielded from liability because the plaintiffs had not shown violation of clearly established constitutional rights. The District Court found the defendants’ actions reasonable given alleged concerns about child safety and home conditions. Subsequent motions to dismiss by sheriff defendants were also granted, and the plaintiffs appealed.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed most aspects of the District Court’s dismissal. However, it held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law regarding the warrantless home entry, as no imminent danger was apparent from the complaint. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of this Fourth Amendment claim against the caseworker who entered the home and remanded for further proceedings. All other claims, including those based on substantive and procedural due process, were affirmed as dismissed due to qualified immunity. View "O''Bryant v. Division of Child Protection and Permanency" on Justia Law

Three individuals alleged that New Jersey child protection caseworkers violated their constitutional rights during investigations into suspected child abuse. The caseworkers entered the plaintiffs’ home without a warrant, pressured them to sign family agreements under threat of child removal, and ultimately removed the children from parental custody without prior court authorization. The removal was based on concerns about one parent’s alleged past violence, home conditions, and another parent’s mental health history. The plaintiffs claimed these actions violated their Fourth Amendment rights and their substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint, finding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court relied on facts outside the complaint, including allegations from a child abuse report and statements from caseworkers, to support its ruling. The District Court also dismissed claims for money damages against the Division and its employees in their official capacities and found one plaintiff lacked standing. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, considering only the facts alleged in the complaint and not external materials.The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most claims, including the substantive and procedural due process claims, holding that the law was not clearly established to put the defendants on notice that their conduct violated constitutional rights. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim against the caseworker who entered the home without a warrant. The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law, and that qualified immunity did not shield the caseworker from liability on this claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Fourth Amendment claim. View "O'Bryant v. DCP&P" on Justia Law

Dominguez moved to Dutch Sint Maarten in 2007. Dominguez met Didon and moved into his Dutch Sint Maarten apartment in 2009. In 2010, A.D. was born; in 2011, Dominguez’s daughter from a previous relationship, J.D., joined them. Didon and Dominguez successfully petitioned the French consulate to change J.D.’s birth certificate to list Didon as her father. The family resided in Dutch Sint Maarten, Didon worked and the children attended school in French Saint Martin. In 2014, Dominguez took the children to New York for her sister’s wedding, showing Didon round-trip tickets. Dominguez did not return with the children. Didon pursued a custody action. A French court granted him full custody of both children in an ex parte order. Didon’s investigator located them in Pennsylvania. Didon filed a Hague Convention petition. Following an ex parte telephone hearing, the Pennsylvania district court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Dominguez, and to confiscate the passports of Dominguez, A.D., and J.D. After hearings at which both parties presented evidence, the court granted Didon’s petition. The Third Circuit vacated. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction allows a parent to petition for the return of a child when that child has been removed or retained from her “habitual residence” country in violation of the parent’s custody rights in that country. The Hague Convention is recognized by French Saint Martin but is not recognized by Dutch Sint Maarten. Rejecting an argument that a child could have two concurrent “habitual residence” countries, the court concluded that the children were habitual residents only of the country in which they “lived”—Dutch Sint Maarten. View "Didon v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Mammaro filed a civil rights suit, claiming that the temporary removal of her child from her custody by the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency was a violation of her substantive due process right as a parent. The removal, following a domestic violence incident between Mammaro and her husband, was based on allegations of neglect by Mammaro’s husband and brother-in-law, supplemented by two positive drug tests of Mammaro, and Mammaro’s decision to take the child from supervised housing, The district court held that several individual caseworkers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Third Circuit reversed, finding there was no clearly established law, so that a reasonable caseworker would have understood that temporarily removing a child in these circumstances would violate substantive due process. View "Mammaro v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency" on Justia Law