SAM M. EX REL. ELLIOTT v. Chafee
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79273
D.R.I.2011Background
- Ten minor DCYF custody plaintiffs sued Rhode Island state actors in a federal civil action seeking systemic child-welfare reform.
- The suit was brought by Next Friends on behalf of the children; the class is framed as all children in DCYF custody due to abuse/neglect.
- Initially, the district court dismissed for lack of standing; the First Circuit reversed and remanded to reinstate the complaint.
- As of May 6, 2011, eight of ten named plaintiffs had been adopted, leaving two in DCYF custody; several others were no longer part of the putative class.
- The amended complaint asserts six counts: constitutional rights to protection and safe placement, AACWA rights, procedural due process, and breach of State Plan contracts; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of five adopted plaintiffs | Mootness should not defeat a putative class; adoptive children may still be transitory class members. | Adopted children lack ongoing live controversy; their claims should be dismissed. | Plaintiffs Deanna H., Sam M., Tony M., Michael B., Caesar S. are moot and dismissed. |
| Whether Younger abstention applies | Younger abstention not warranted; claims target executive agency actions, not ongoing state proceedings. | Abstention warranted because relief would interfere with Family Court orders and processes. | Younger abstention denied for caseload, training, placement options; granted for adoption rates, placement reductions, foster-care timelines. |
| Rooker-Feldman doctrine applicability | Action seeks prospective relief against DCYF; no request to overturn Family Court judgments. | Plaintiffs are effectively challenging state-court orders. | Rooker-Feldman not applicable; no review of state judgments is sought. |
| Whether AACWA creates private rights enforceable under §1983 | Two AACWA provisions confer privately enforceable rights: case plans and foster-care maintenance. | AACWA rights are not privately enforceable; Suter fix not clear; statute language often non-enforceable. | Two AACWA provisions confer privately enforceable rights; §1983 claims survive for those provisions. |
| Breach of contract claim viability | State Plan contracts are enforceable by third-party beneficiaries under AACWA. | Private action under State Plan contracts is uncertain post-Suter and Blessing/Gonzaga. | Breach-of-contract claim not dismissed at this stage; tied to AACWA private-right analysis; some viability remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2002) (unambiguously conferred rights; focus on rights-creating language)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1997) (three Blessing factors for private rights under federal statutes)
- Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez, 585 F.3d 508 (1st Cir. 2009) (abstention doctrine requires careful balance of comity and jurisdiction)
- Rio Grande Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc. v. Rullan, 397 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2005) (Younger extension to civil/state proceedings; Middlesex factors)
- Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1982) (three-factor test for Younger abstention)
- Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1992) (private right under AACWA not created by several provisions; Suter fix context)
- Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504 (1st Cir. 1983) (private rights under AACWA provisions; 形成 precedent for private action)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state interest in welfare of the child)