Nicholson v. Williams
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4820, 203 F. Supp. 2d 153, 2002 WL 448452 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state agency's policy of removing children from a mother and charging her with neglect solely because she has been a victim of domestic violence violates the mother's and child's substantive and procedural due process rights to family integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Sharwline Nicholson was viciously beaten by her children's father, Mr. Barnett, requiring her to be hospitalized for a broken arm, fractured ribs, and head injuries.
- While hospitalized, Nicholson arranged for a trusted neighbor to care for her two children, but the Administration for Children Services (ACS) took the children from the babysitter and placed them in foster care without a court order.
- April Rodriguez was assaulted by her partner, Michael Gamble. To ensure her children's safety, she fled with them and found safe housing with her grandmother.
- ACS personnel threatened Rodriguez with court action and coerced her into signing an agreement that transferred custody of her children to Gamble, her abuser.
- Ekaete Udoh, a victim of long-term abuse by her husband, had her abuser leave the home permanently after an incident where he struck their daughter.
- The next day, ACS caseworkers removed Udoh's four children (ages 12-17) from their schools without a court order, reasoning the children might not have keys to get into the house after school while their mother was at a scheduled court appearance.
- Sharlene Tillett, who had a history of being abused by her baby's father, Mr. Gray, was visited by an ACS caseworker two days after giving birth. The caseworker found the baby to be healthy and clean.
- Despite the caseworker's findings, an ACS supervisor ordered the caseworker to return and remove the newborn from Tillett without a court order, based on the belief that Tillett was in imminent danger because she was financially dependent on Mr. Gray.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharwline Nicholson, Ekaete Udoh, and Sharlene Tillett filed separate class action complaints on behalf of themselves and their children against the Administration for Children Services (ACS) and the City of New York in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The court created a subclass for the children (subclass B), appointing separate counsel to represent their interests, with the mothers constituting subclass A.
- Subclass A amended the complaint to add the State of New York and some of its officials as defendants.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification and for a preliminary injunction against the City defendants.
- The district court held a 24-day trial on the questions of whether class certification was appropriate and whether a preliminary injunction should be issued.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state agency's policy and practice of removing children from their mothers, and charging the mothers with child neglect, solely because the mother has been a victim of domestic violence violate the mothers' and children's substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Weinstein, Senior District Judge
Yes. A state agency's policy and practice of removing children from mothers and charging them with neglect solely because they are victims of domestic violence violates their constitutional rights. This policy infringes upon the fundamental liberty interest in family integrity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment without being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of protecting children; in fact, the practice is often counterproductive and harmful to children. The removals, frequently conducted without prior judicial authorization in non-emergent circumstances, also violate the mother's procedural due process rights and the children's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. The state's interest in protecting children is not served, but rather is undermined, by policies that punish a non-offending parent for the violence committed by another.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent limiting the discretion of child welfare agencies in domestic violence cases. It affirms that a parent's status as a victim of abuse cannot, by itself, constitute child neglect or serve as the sole justification for separating a family. The ruling requires agencies like ACS to shift their focus from blaming the victimized parent to holding the actual abuser accountable and providing supportive services to keep the non-offending parent and child together safely. By finding the city's practices unconstitutional, the case sets a standard for challenging similar child welfare policies nationwide that penalize victims of domestic violence, reinforcing the constitutional sanctity of the parent-child relationship against unwarranted state intrusion.
