Alford v. Administration for Children's Services, 1:11-cv-01583

Background

Plaintiffs Patrick Alford, Sr. and his daughter J.A. sued the City of New York, ACS employees (Salemi, Rosado), St. Vincent’s Services and caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for removal/placement and foster-care quality failures.
A related case (Rodriguez / P.A.) was decided earlier; the cases were consolidated for discovery and some law-of-the-case issues carried over.
Magistrate Judge Gold recommended (Aug. 18, 2017) denying some defendants’ summary-judgment motions and granting others: procedural due process claims dismissed; substantive non-kinship placement claims and J.A.’s quality-of-care claim survived; Alford’s quality-of-care claim was recommended dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds; limited Monell survivability tied to a 20‑day practice.
Objections were filed by Alford and the City; the district court reviewed de novo and adopted most of Magistrate Judge Gold’s R&R with modifications.
The district court: denied Alford’s motion for summary judgment; granted summary judgment to defendants on procedural due process claims; denied summary judgment on substantive non-kinship placement claims; denied summary judgment on J.A.’s quality-of-care claim but granted it for Alford (qualified immunity); denied municipal summary judgment as to City on failure-to-change-to-kinship Monell claim (not limited to a 20‑day rule) and granted Monell claims in other respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process — was Alford denied notice/opportunity to be heard?	Alford contends his claim differs from Rodriguez’s and that he was denied process after removal.	Defendants argue the record shows Alford had notice and multiple opportunities to be heard.	Court: Defendants’ motions granted; Alford failed to identify denial of notice/hearing.
Personal involvement for §1983 claims against Salemi and Rosado	Plaintiffs say supervisors were involved or failed to remedy/monitor, creating triable issues.	Defendants contend lack of personal involvement precludes §1983 liability.	Court: Denied summary judgment for defendants as facts could show personal involvement.
Quality of care — did defendants fail to protect J.A./Alford’s claim?	Plaintiffs allege repeated abuse by foster child (P.A.) and gross negligence by ACS in monitoring/placement.	Defendants argue evidence insufficient to show constitutional deprivation.	Court: J.A.’s quality-of-care claim survives (triable issue); Alford’s analogous claim against officials dismissed on qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity for non-kinship placement claims	Plaintiffs: right to kinship placement/parental interest was clearly established; officials not immune.	Defendants: reasonable officials could disagree; raise qualified immunity.	Court: Denied qualified-immunity dismissal on non-kinship placement claims (material factual disputes); law-of-the-case supports survival.
Monell (municipal liability) — did City policies/practices cause failures to place with kin?	Plaintiffs cite City practice (including alleged 20‑day practice or policies withholding children) as basis for municipal liability.	City argues absence of actionable policy or proximate causation.	Court: Denied summary judgment as to City on failure-to-change-to-kinship claim (not limited to a single 20‑day theory); Monell claims otherwise dismissed.
State-law claims — governmental immunity defense raised late?	Plaintiffs press state claims.	City raised governmental immunity for first time in reply.	Court: Rejected late-raised immunity defense; defendants waived by failing to timely raise it.

Key Cases Cited

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process requirement: meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard)
Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1994) (personal involvement required for §1983 damages)
Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1986) (personal involvement is a question of fact impacting summary judgment)
Marisol A. by Forbes v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 662 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (children in foster care have substantive due-process right to protection from harm)
Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (objective-reasonableness qualified-immunity standard can present mixed questions of law and fact)
Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (children have parallel liberty interest in not being separated from parents)
Kia P. v. McIntyre, 235 F.3d 749 (2d Cir. 2000) (children’s liberty interest in emotional attachments to family)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2014) (qualified-immunity framework discussion)