Everhart v. CYFD
20-2078
| 10th Cir. | Jan 12, 2022Background
- In 2009–2010 the Everharts had three children; their six-year-old son (S.E. Boy) reported sexual abuse by his older brother (H.E. Boy) and disclosed exposure to pornography and alleged that parents photographed him nude. A police search of the home recovered a computer with numerous pornographic images, some identified as suspected child pornography.
- CYFD removed S.E. Boy and S.E. Girl, filed an abuse-and-neglect petition, obtained custody, and pursued a permanency plan that ultimately led to termination proceedings and an award of custody of S.E. Girl to an adoptive family after extended state-court litigation and appeals.
- The Everharts sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CYFD, CYFD supervisor Dana Becker, and caseworker Evgenia Valderaz claiming violations of the Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association and procedural due process; they also asserted a policy-based claim against CYFD.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying the Everharts’ motion for issue preclusion and granting summary judgment for defendants; the district court adopted the recommendations. The Everharts appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: the Everharts failed to preserve arguments on issue preclusion (including privity), waived objections on Valderaz, failed to advance facts showing constitutional violations by Becker or CYFD, and thus failed to overcome qualified immunity or to sustain a Monell-style policy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) — may state-court findings be given preclusive effect in § 1983 suit? | Everharts: state-court rulings resolve factual issues; preclusion is proper against CYFD and its employees (privity). | Defendants: state action was not final when motion filed; individual employees were not parties nor in privity with CYFD. | Denied: Everharts failed to preserve specific objections; state judgment timing and lack of privity (and no showing privity would apply to individual employees) support denial. |
| Familial-association claim under the Fourteenth Amendment | Everharts: CYFD/Becker unlawfully deprived them of parent-child relationship by removing/terminating custody. | Defendants: removal and termination were supported by substantial evidence of child-safety risks; Becker entitled to qualified immunity. | Granted for defendants: evidence of serious risk to children outweighs parental interest; no constitutional violation shown, and cases cited do not clearly establish violation — Becker entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Procedural-due-process claim | Everharts: CYFD/Becker denied adequate process in interfering with parental rights and in reunification procedures. | Defendants: state courts provided ample notice and hearings; no authority imposes additional supervisory duty to craft reunification plan. | Granted for defendants: plaintiffs received meaningful process through state proceedings and appeals; no due-process violation proven. |
| Monell / policy-based liability against CYFD | Everharts: CYFD has an unconstitutional policy/custom that caused the deprivation. | Defendants: municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation and policy as the moving force; no violation occurred. | Granted for CYFD: because plaintiffs failed to show any constitutional violation by employees, Monell claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Migra v. Warrant City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (federal courts give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect as state law provides)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to care, custody, and control of children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (familial-association claims must balance parental rights against child-safety interests)
- Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Social Servs., 191 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 1999) (due-process and familial-association principles in child-removal context; liability where official misrepresentations obtained removal order)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified-immunity framework requires clearly established law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment standard)
- Quinn v. Young, 780 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2015) (qualified immunity analysis: plaintiff must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established)