B.S. Ex Rel. T.S. v. Somerset County
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 443
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Mother is the natural mother with primary custody of Daughter MN; custody later transferred to Father EN pursuant to a state-court order following an ex parte process by County officials.
- Somerset County Children and Youth Services, along with two employees (Eller and Barth), allegedly violated Mother’s procedural and substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Dr. Lindblad diagnosed MN with failure to thrive and later raised concerns including Munchausen by proxy, prompting ChildLine reports and ex parte court actions to remove MN from Mother’s custody.
- Eller prepared a May 5, 2006 summary and court order seeking to restrict Mother’s contact and transfer custody to Father; Judge Cascio granted the order ex parte.
- MN was removed from Mother’s home and initially placed with Father; a 72-hour post-removal hearing requirement under CPSL was discussed but not followed because custody was transferred to another parent rather than state custody.
- Post-removal investigations showed weight fluctuations; Eller’s June 19, 2006 CPS investigation report concluded neglect by Mother, leading to continued supervised visitation; habeas corpus proceedings followed in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eller and Barth have absolute immunity for procedural due process claims | Mother | Eller/Barth | Yes, absolute immunity applies |
| Whether the County can be liable for procedural due process due to failure to provide a prompt post-removal hearing | Mother | County | County liable; remand for damages |
| Whether the County can be liable for substantive due process claims | Mother | County | No substantive due process liability for County or its actions |
| Whether Eller’s June 23 ex parte meeting is protected by immunity | Mother | Eller | Majority: no absolute immunity; remand for nominal damages; concurrence disagrees |
Key Cases Cited
- Ernst v. Child & Youth Services of Chester County, 108 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1997) (extends absolute immunity to state child welfare workers prosecuting dependency proceedings)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (prosecutorial function immunity; preparation for trial can be protected)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutorial/public officials immunity; safeguards of judicial process)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Miller v. City of Philadelphia, 174 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 1999) (substantive due process in child welfare context; conscience-shocking standard)
- In re M.L., 562 Pa. 646, 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000) (Pennsylvania dependency vs custody distinction; impact on post-deprivation process)
- Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990) (Monell-like analysis for municipal policy or custom; liability standard)