Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Jeffrey Johnson, by a through his aunt and next friend, Sue Thompson, appeals from the Mobile Circuit Court's dismissal of his action against Jim Reddoch, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health ("ADMH"), Beatrice McLean, in her official capacity as director of Searcy Hospital, and McLean and fictitiously named defendants 1 through 8 in their individual capacities. Johnson also appealed the circuit court's quashing of a subpoena served on ADMH seeking records pertaining to Johnson. Johnson was a 40-year-old patient at Searcy who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. According to the complaint, Johnson's condition was so severe that Johnson was "required to be under constant 2-on-1 supervision by [ADMH] employees at Searcy Hospital." This supervision was supposed to be in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In 2012, Johnson was severely beaten in his ward at Searcy. He collapsed and he was taken to University of South Alabama Hospital. Medical testing showed that, as a result of the beating, he suffered severe and life-threatening injuries, including internal bleeding, severe bruising to his face and body, a fractured nose, and several broken ribs. Johnson alleged Searcy's mental-health workers failed to keep him under the required constant supervision and failed to immediately report his injuries. After review of his complaint, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The circuit court correctly dismissed Johnson's claims against Reddoch and McLean in their official capacities. The circuit court erred in dismissing Johnson's claims against McLean and the fictitiously named defendants in their individual capacities. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of Johnson's subpoena for discovery served on ADMH. View "Johnson v. Reddoch" on Justia Law

M.J. and C.C. appealed orders entered following the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in the juvenile dependency case of their minor children, thirteen-year-old D.C., ten-year-old Ce.C., and nine-year-old F.C. In early 2015, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency petitioned the juvenile court on behalf of the children following allegations of sexual abuse in the household. The minors lived with M.J. and C.C., an unmarried couple who had adopted them after a previous dependency case involving the minors. The Agency alleged C.C. had sexually abused D.C., including by having sexual intercourse with her and forcing her to orally copulate him. The Agency further alleged M.J. had allowed C.C. back into the family home following D.C.'s disclosure of abuse, despite Agency intervention and an Agency safety plan. The Agency concluded D.C. had been sexually abused, or there was a substantial risk D.C. would be sexually abused, and there was a substantial risk that Ce.C. and F.C. would be abused or neglected. M.J. argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's dispositional order removing the minors from her custody, and the court erred by not complying with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). C.C. argued the evidence was insufficient to support the court's jurisdictional findings; the court erred by approving provisions in his case plan requiring him to admit to sexual abuse of D.C.; and the court erred by limiting his educational rights over Ce.C. and F.C. C.C. also joins in M.J.'s contentions. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court erred by finding ICWA inapplicable to this case without providing notice to the tribes in which C.C. claimed potential membership. The Court therefore vacated the court's ICWA finding and remanded with directions to provide such notice. In all other respects, the Court disagreed with M.J. and C.C.'s contentions and affirmed. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were three female same-sex married couples and their children. One spouse in each married couple gave birth to a child, but the Arkansas Department of Health declined to issue a birth certificate with both spouses listed as parents. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that Defendant, the Director of the Department, violated their constitutional rights and that certain statutory provisions were unconstitutional. After a hearing, the circuit court announced its intention to order the Department to amend the birth certificates of the child-plaintiffs. Before the written order was entered, Defendant requested a stay pending appeal. The circuit court denied Defendant’s request, ordered Defendant to issue amended birth certificates to Plaintiffs, and struck portions of a statute and made substantial additions to a provision of the Arkansas Code. The Supreme Court (1) denied the petition for emergency stay as to the portions of the order and memorandum opinion ordering Defendant to provide amended birth certificates to Plaintiffs, as Defendant did not challenge this portion of the order; but (2) granted the petition as to the remainder of the order and memorandum opinion, holding that it was best to preserve the status quo ante with regard to the statutory provisions while the Court considered the circuit court’s ruling. View "Smith v. Pavan" on Justia Law

In May 2013, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency filed an Order to Show Cause for Care and Supervision of T.E. (Tommy), the six-year-old son of K.N.(mother) and K.E.(father). The Family Part investigated allegations of domestic violence and drug use in Tommy's home and awarded temporary custody of Tommy to the Division. The Division temporarily placed Tommy in the home of his maternal grandmother, where he had been residing for several months, and conducted an on-site evaluation of the home. A later evaluation revealed that Tommy's maternal step-grandfather had been the subject of a domestic-violence complaint, which was dismissed. The Division substantiated the domestic violence claim and determined that the maternal grandparents home could not be licensed under the Resource Family Parent Licensing Act. As a result, the Division removed Tommy from his maternal grandparents' home and placed him with his maternal great aunt who was eligible to be licensed as a resource family parent and receive financial assistance under the Act. At the permanency hearings that followed Tommy s placement with his maternal great aunt, the Law Guardian argued that Tommy should be returned to the home of his maternal grandparents because Tommy was developing attachment issues and experiencing personality changes. The Division maintained that Tommy could not be returned to the home because the maternal step-grandfather had been the subject of a domestic violence complaint that was substantiated by the Division. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Family Part judge ordered the Division to return Tommy to the home of his maternal grandparents and to provide them with the financial assistance available to a resource family parent licensed under the Act. The Division filed an emergent appeal to stay the Family Part s order. The Appellate Division held that the Family Part had the authority to place Tommy with his maternal grandparents, but remanded the matter for further consideration of all relevant statutory and regulatory factors to determine the suitability of the placement. The Supreme Court affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division opinion, that the Family Part judge had the authority to determine that the child s best interests were served by his continued placement with a relative not licensed as a resource family parent under the Act, and that the Family Part judge did not have the authority to compel the Division to pay financial assistance under the Act to a relative not licensed as a resource family parent. However, because the Division returned Tommy to the care and custody of his mother, the Court dismissed as moot the Appellate Division's remand to the Family Part to consider factors relevant to a placement review, including the claim of prior domestic violence involving the maternal step-grandfather. View "New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. K.N." on Justia Law

Diane and Otis Bass had three children: Brittany, Hanna, and Alex. All three children were special needs, but Hanna and Alex were also autistic. Otis worked outside the home, and Diane cared for the children. Due to their forms of autism and their other cognitive issues, both Hanna and Alex were prescribed Clonidine to help them sleep at night, in addition to other medications. A compounding pharmacy filled the Clonidine prescription. In April 2008, the prescription was inadvertently mixed at one thousand times the recommended concentration. Diane administered the wrongly compounded Clonidine to Hanna and later to Alex. Both children had serious reactions that required hospitalization. DSS received a report that two special needs children were in the hospital due to "possible poisoning by parents." The agency assigned an overall danger rating of "medium" to the case. A caseworker assigned to the case recommended the children be removed from the Bass home and placed with Diane's sister, Linda. Linda would later learn that the compounding pharmacy improperly filled the Clonidine prescription. Linda notified DSS, and the agency subsequently concluded that the medication was the cause of the children's hospitalization. This revelation led to the eventual return of the children to Diane and Otis. However, DSS continued to make announced and unannounced visits at the Bass home through the end of 2008 and refused to remove its finding that Diane and Otis "harmed their children" from the agency's file on Petitioners. Petitioners filed a lawsuit against DSS, the compounding pharmacy, and the pharmacist, alleging negligence and gross negligence, and seeking actual and punitive damages. After settling with the pharmacy and the pharmacist, Petitioners served DSS with an amended complaint alleging causes of action for gross negligence, defamation, and outrage, and sought actual damages. DSS moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of Petitioners' case, and again at the conclusion of all of the evidence. The trial judge denied both motions. At the conclusion of the evidence, Petitioners withdrew their defamation cause of action, and moved for a directed verdict regarding DSS's defenses of discretionary immunity and negligence of a third party. The trial judge granted Petitioners' motions for directed verdict as to those defenses. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for Petitioners, and awarded them $4 million in damages. DSS subsequently filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), for new trial absolute, and to reduce the verdict. The trial court issued an order denying DSS's post-trial motions. However, the trial court granted DSS's motion to reduce the verdict. The court of appeals reversed the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, finding the trial court did not err in its decision. View "Bass v. SCDSS" on Justia Law

Rowan B., Sr.(father) and Risa F. were the divorced parents of three children: Agnes, Rowan Jr. (Junior), and Saul. After Rowan and Risa divorced, Rowan received custody of their three children as well as custody of Risa’s two older daughters, Aeryn and Reagan. In 2012 Aeryn reported to the police and the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) that she and Reagan had been physically and sexually abused by Rowan over an extended time period. Aeryn also expressed her concern that Rowan was sexually abusing Agnes. OCS filed an emergency custody petition and removed the minor children (Agnes, Junior, and Saul) in June 2012. The children were adjudicated children in need of aid based on findings that the father had sexually and physically abused his daughters. In a criminal proceeding the father was convicted on 29 counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and one count of incest. The father sought a delay of the termination proceedings pending appeal of his criminal convictions, but the superior court denied this request. Rowan appealed the ultimate outcome: termination of his parental rights to his three biological children. He argued that the superior court abused its discretion by denying a continued. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the children’s interest in permanency weighed heavily against delaying the termination proceedings for years while the father pursues his criminal appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rowan B. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

This case centered on A.O., a minor who was 12 years old at the time of detention, and her mother, who suffered from bi-polar disorder and exhibited paranoid and aggressive tendencies. The court found jurisdiction over A.O. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removed her from mother’s care. At the six-month review hearing, the court found that returning A.O. to mother would be detrimental to A.O. and that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) had provided adequate reunification services. At the twelve-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services and ordered that A.O. be placed in a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement. Mother appealed the orders from the six- and twelve-month review hearings, and, citing the court’s failure to advise her of her right to appeal after the disposition hearing, she also appealed the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed jurisdiction and disposition but reversed the court’s findings at the six- and twelve-month review hearings that DPSS had provided reasonable reunification services. View "In re A.O." on Justia Law

Six days after F.A. (F.) was born exposed to methamphetamine, she was placed with Mr. and Mrs. S., foster parents who hoped to adopt her. Unfortunately, when F. was almost seven weeks old, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) removed F. from the S.s’ care, mistakenly believing exigent circumstances required the removal, and immediately placed the baby with Mr. and Mrs. M., who were also foster parents who hoped to adopt her. When SSA realized its mistake and decided to re-place F. with the S.s, the M.s filed a grievance, which kept F. in the M.s’ home during the grievance process. The S.s and the M.s filed competing Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions. The court ordered SSA not to remove F. from the M.s’ home pending the court’s decision on the competing petitions, and granted visitation rights to the S.s. After many continuances, the court found both couples would be excellent adoptive parents, but granted the M.s’ petition and denied the S.s’ petition, finding the M.s had a “slight edge” because the M.s had an approved adoptive home study and because the baby had flourished under the M.s’ care for the last 100 days. On appeal, the S.s contended: (1) this appeal should have been treated as a writ petition; (2) SSA should have returned F. to the S.s before the M.s could file a grievance; (3) the court abused its discretion by granting so many continuances; (4) the court exceeded its authority by overriding SSA’s decision to return F. to the S.s, rather than reviewing SSA’s choice for an abuse of discretion; and (5) this case was not moot because it presented an issue of continuing public importance which is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and therefore the Court of Appeal should offer guidance to prevent future heartbreak to foster parents from whom a child is wrongly removed. After review, the Court of Appeal found no merit as to the S.s’ first four contentions, but concluded that what happened to the S.s was wrong, and potentially could have been prevented had regulations and policies been in place allowing the foster parents to promptly challenge the grounds for removal before SSA placed the child with another couple. The Court nevertheless concluded the court did not abuse its discretion under the difficult circumstances presented, and accordingly affirm the court’s orders. View "In re F.A." on Justia Law

Christine L. appealed a placement order in the juvenile dependency case of her minor children Liam L., M.L., and Angel L. The order placed the minors with their presumed father and noncustodial parent, J.L. Christine argued the evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding that the minors' placement with J.L. would not be detrimental under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, subdivision (a). By its terms, and under the California Supreme Court's decision in "In re Zacharia D."(6 Cal.4th 435, (1993)), that statute applied only when the minor was first removed from the custodial parent, generally at the time of the disposition hearing. "Under the current statutory scheme, a noncustodial parent who requests placement or custody for the first time after disposition must file a modification petition under section 388 to make such a request. [. . .] given the underlying presumption in California's dependency scheme that a minor should be placed with a noncustodial parent, absent a finding of detriment, such a placement is inherently in the minors' best interests. A noncustodial parent under these circumstances who files a section 388 petition is therefore entitled to custody unless the party opposing placement establishes that placement with the noncustodial parent would be detrimental to the minors' safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being." The Court of Appeal concluded that J.L.'s failure to file a section 388 petition was harmless because the issue of placement with J.L. was before the court with the consent of all parties. The Court further concluded that the juvenile court's finding that the minors' placement with J.L. would not be detrimental was supported by substantial evidence. The Court therefore affirmed the juvenile court's placement order. View "In re Liam L." on Justia Law

"Adam" was born in early 2015 addicted to narcotics. Adam was eventually released to his parents, David Hunt and Carey Land. A few months later, Adam was found unconscious and unresponsive. He was transported to the hospital. The parents offered no explanation as to why Adam had been found unresponsive or unconscious. Though they were home when emergency personnel arrived, neither parent accompanied the child to the hospital. Due to the seriousness of the child's condition, he was transported to a trauma center. Medical personnel determined the child had sustained multiple trauma caused by "unexplained abusive trauma." In addition to multiple fractures, Adam's other diagnoses included chronic bilateral subdural hematomas, destruction of brain tissue, seizures, respiratory failure, malnourishment and splitting of the layers of the retina in his left eye. Emergency custody would ultimately be awarded to the Department of Family Services. This expedited proceeding was the parents' appeal of a Family Court decision granting the attorney guardian ad litem's motion to instruct Adam's medical providers to de-escalate intervention and place a do-not re-intubate order and a do-not-resuscitate order and a "comfort measures" order on Adam's medical chart. The appeal presented four issues for the Delaware Supreme Court's review: (1) whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to de-escalate medical care, a no re-intubate order and do not resuscitate order on the minor's chart; (2) whether the Family Court had authority to allow such orders when the parental rights have not been terminated; (3) whether the Family Court violated the parents' procedural due process rights by not providing the parents adequate notice and process prior to issuing the orders; and (4) were the parents' due process rights violated without receiving evidence from an independent medical expert. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Family Court's decision, and affirmed. View "Hunt v. DFS & Office of the Child Advocate" on Justia Law