Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A mother ("Theresa L.") appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two youngest children. The children, teenagers at the time of the termination hearing, testified that they did not want her rights to be terminated. The trial court decided that the children were in need of aid because of mental injury and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The mother argued on appeal that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) did not meet its burden of proving mental injury and that the trial court clearly erred in deciding that termination was in the children’s best interests because of their ages, their stated wishes, and their lack of a permanent placement. The Supreme Court issued an order reversing the trial court’s decision because OCS presented insufficient evidence that the children suffered a mental injury. This opinion explained the Court's reasoning. View "Theresa L., v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs." on Justia Law

Shortly after his birth in 2003, the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) placed a dependent child named J.J. with appellant Rita Marshall. Marshall cared for J.J. for two and a half years and began the process of adopting him. However, in June 2006, the Agency commenced proceedings that led to J.J.'s removal from Marshall's care and his placement in another home for adoption. Marshall filed this action against the County of San Diego and several County social workers who were involved in the proceedings that led to J.J.'s removal. In the causes of action relevant to this appeal, Marshall brought two claims pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1983 claiming her right to due process in removing J.J. without providing her adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and in making deliberately false statements to the trial court that led to the removal. Marshall also brought a section 1983 claim against the County, alleging that the social workers violated her constitutional rights pursuant to a County custom or policy. The trial court concluded that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Marshall's claims against them because there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the social workers had violated Marshall's "clearly established" constitutional rights. The court also concluded that the County was entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Marshall's section 1983 claim. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Marshall had a clearly established constitutional right not to have J.J.'s placement terminated based on a social worker's statement that was either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for its truth. However, the Court concluded further that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Marshall's claims premised on this theory of liability because there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that that J.J.'s placement with Marshall was terminated based on statements that were either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for their truth. The Court rejected the remainder of Marshall's other claims, and affirmed the judgment. View "Marshall v. Co. of San Diego" on Justia Law

Mark Colafranceschi brought this action for defamation and professional malpractice against Shawn Briley and Ashley Robinson after a magistrate court appointed Robinson to perform child custody evaluations in two separate cases in which Colafranceschi was a party. Colafranceschi was the plaintiff in two actions against the mothers of his children. Robinson was a licensed masters social worker. Briley was a licensed clinical social worker and was Robinson’s supervisor. In both reports in the two cases, Robinson's evaluations (as Colafranceschi's claim suggested) "did not cast him in a positive light." The district court dismissed the action, finding that quasi-judicial immunity barred Colafranceschi’s claims. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Colafranceschi v. Briley" on Justia Law

A licensed social worker informed the Department of Public Health and Human Services that Mother was psychologically abusing her two girls. After investigating the report, the Department removed the girls from Mother’s custody and placed them into foster care. The Department later returned the girls to Mother’s care. Mother sued the State, alleging that the Department failed adequately to investigate the social worker’s report before removing her children from her care, and as a result, she was wrongfully charged with and arrested for criminal contempt in Wisconsin, was denied custody and visitation with her children, and suffered emotional distress. The State moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was statutorily immune from suit. The district court denied the motion The district court later summary judgment for the State, concluding that the State qualified for statutory immunity. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s earlier decision and order and affirmed the district court’s later judgment in favor of the State, holding that the State was entitled as a matter of law to statutory immunity from Mother’s claims because Mother failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to support her claim that the State employees involved in the investigation were grossly negligent or knowingly provided false information. View "Weber v. State" on Justia Law

Patricia Jones (Patricia) and Danny Akers (Danny) divorced. Thereafter, Judy Vannoy Akers (Judy) and Danny married. After Danny died, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Board (Board) awarded Judy disability retirements. Patricia argued that she was entitled to Danny’s West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) retirement benefits based on the provision for those benefits in her divorce decree. The Board denied benefits on the grounds that there was not an enforceable qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in effect at the time when the survivor benefits were issued to Judy. Both Patricia and Judy challenged the Board’s rulings. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court reversed after invoking its equitable powers to permit the posthumous entry of a QDRO that provided for distribution of Patricia’s equitable interest in the portion of Danny’s retirement assets recognized as marital property, holding (1) the Board erred in granting posthumous disability benefits to Judy rather than preretirement benefits; and (2) Patricia was entitled to seek Danny’s PERS benefits. View "Jones v. W. Va. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

In 2013, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father to his son. After a trial held in 2014, the trial justice concluded that Father was unfit to parent his son. A final decree was subsequently entered terminating Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice was not clearly wrong, nor did she overlook or misconceive material evidence, in finding that DCYF had proven that Father was unfit to parent his son; and (2) the trial justice did not err in finding that DCYF had made reasonable efforts at reunification between Father and his son. View "In re Max M." on Justia Law

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR) filed a petition in the circuit court initiating the underlying abuse and neglect case. The petition alleged that Respondent Stepfather sexually abused K.P. and that Respondent Mother failed to protect K.P. from Stepfather and committed acts of emotional abuse against K.P. The DHHR removed all minor children from the home. After a multi-day adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court dismissed the abuse and neglect petition, concluding that DHHR had not met its burden of proving that K.P. was abused by either respondent and that Stepfather’s refusal to testify and rebut the abuse charges could not be used as evidence against him. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Respondents were abusing parents with regard to K.P., and therefore, the health and welfare of the other children in the home was also at risk; and (2) accordingly, the circuit court erred by refusing to adjudicate all the minor children as abused children. View "In re K.P." on Justia Law

The Commissioner of Children and Families filed a neglect petition seeking an order of temporary custody of Cassandra C., a minor, after medical providers reported that Cassandra and her mother were refusing to obtain appropriate medical treatment for Cassandra, who had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The trial court granted the order and placed Cassandra in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Families, directing Respondents to cooperate with Cassandra’s medical care providers. Thereafter, Cassandra started chemotherapy but ran away before the treatment could be completed. The Commissioner moved to reopen the evidence to consider evidence regarding whether Cassandra was competent to make life-death decisions regarding her medical care. After a hearing, the trial judge ordered that Cassandra remain in the custody of the Department and authorized the Department to make all medical decisions for her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge’s finding that Cassandra was not competent to make her own medical decisions at the time of the underlying events was not clearly erroneous; (2) this was not a proper case in which to decide whether to adopt the mature minor doctrine, which allows a sufficiently mature minor to refuse medical treatment; and (3) Respondents’ constitutional rights were not violated. View "In re Cassandra C." on Justia Law

In February 2004, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) determined that petitioner K.R. placed her son T.F. at risk of harm, and it included her name on the Child Protection Registry. This determination followed a reported 2003 overdose on a controlled substance. In 2011, an independent administrative reviewer accepted the substantiation, and the Human Services Board upheld this decision. In its review, the Board found the social worker's testimony credible in setting out DCF's history with petitioner, DCF's concerns about petitioner's drug use, and the reasons for the substantiation. The social worker also kept contemporaneous case notes detailing the history of her interactions with petitioner, which the Board found corroborated her testimony. Petitioner argued to the Board that DCF failed to meet its burden of proof. She asserted that any information regarding her interactions with DCF after the 2003 overdose were irrelevant pursuant to Vermont case law. She stated that she did not place T.F. at risk of harm because he was not in her care on the day that she overdosed. Petitioner argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that that the hearing officer impermissibly found that "the Board can take notice of information documenting the effects on those using Oxycontin including impaired judgment," and that those effects "can compromise a person's ability to parent resulting in placing a child at risk of harm." She contended that the mere use of illegally obtained regulated drugs could be a per se ground for substantiation. The only order on appeal was that issued by the Board, and the Board expressly declined to adopt the finding that petitioner challenged on appeal before the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court found the Board's findings did not support its decision: without any evidence that T.F. was actually at risk, petitioner could not be found to have failed to mitigate a risk to her child by failing to comply with DCF's recommendations. Th View "In re K.R." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the evidentiary standard of proof that applies in an initial license application proceeding under Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act. In 2011, a family day care licensed under Fla. Stat. 402.313 submitted an initial application for a large family child care home license under Fla. Stat. 402.3131. An administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) grant a provisional large family child care license. DCF rejected the ALJ’s recommendation and denied the day care’s application for a large family child care home license. In so doing, DCF rejected the ALJ’s conclusion of law that the clear and convincing evidence standard applied to the denial of the day care’s initial license application, instead concluding that it needed only to produce competent substantial evidence of its stated reasons for denying the application. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for DCF to enter a final order adopting the ALJ’s recommendation, concluding that the clear and convincing evidence standard applied. The Court quashed the Second District’s decision, holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in this initial license application proceeding. View "Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Davis Family Daycare Home" on Justia Law