Fathers Rights

I monitor a Yahoo!Groups that helps father enforce their father’s rights in court.  The group is called “Dads In Court” and it asks members to post strategies that have been successful in court.

A member recently posted a court opinion from the 9th Circuit that says social workers doing investigations do not have immunity if they lie.  It is unbelievable to me - as an American, as a lawyer, and as a parent - that any court anywhere would NOT punish social workers for lying or fabricating evidence on a petition to remove children from a home (as apparently happened in this particular case).

The Yahoo!Group is here: Yahoo Group: Dads In Court.

My manual for aggressively pursuing your rights in court is here
(Manual for Fathers: Aggressive Pleadings For The Non-Custodial Father)

And the text of the posting to the group is right here:
(I have tried to clean it up - it looks like it was scanned and OCR’d, but it’s readable - and worth reading)

BIG WIN   U.S. 9th Circuit: DCF Workers Have NO Absolute Immunity For Lying in Sworn Statements. A good quote in this published case.  We must thank the Law Offices of Robert Powell for this remand.  Has your social worker ever lied and fabricated evidence?  Well we all know the truth. Let justice prevail.
 
“Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal  matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. ” Yey Baby, in your face, in your face.
 

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORI BELTRAN; ROBERT BELTRAN; ü

COBY BELTRAN, by and through his

Guardian Ad Litem Lori Beltran,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY; MELISSA No. 05-16976

SemUApRloEZy,e ein odfiv tihdeu aClloyu nantyd oafs Saannta ý CV-03D-0.C3.7 6N7o-.RMW

Cinldairvai;d JuEaNllNyI FaEnRd H aUsB aBnS, employee OPINION of the County of Santa Clara;

EMILY TJHIN, individually and as an employee of the County of Santa Clara,

Defendants-Appellees. þ

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

December 12, 2007—Pasadena, California

Filed January 24, 2008

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Michael Daly Hawkins, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon, Richard R. Clifton and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

1201

COUNSEL

Robert R. Powell and Dennis R. Ingols, The Law Offices of Robert R. Powell, San Jose, California, for the plaintiffsappellants.

Melissa R. Kiniyalocts, Deputy County Counsel, and Ann Miller-Ravel, County Counsel, Santa Clara County, San Jose, California, for the defendants-appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1. Melissa Suarez, a social worker for Santa Clara County’s child protective services, investigated whether Lori Beltran was abusing her son, Coby. After this investigation, Suarez’s supervisor Emily Tjhin filed a child dependency petition, which Tjhin signed under penalty of perjury. This petition included a three-page statement of facts describing the findings of Suarezâ€^TMs investigation. Suarez also filed a separate custody petition, which she signed under penalty of perjury.

The custody petition attached and incorporated by reference the three-page statement of facts from the dependency petition.

BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA 1203

The dependency petition was denied, Coby was returned to his parents, and the Beltrans sued Suarez and Tjhin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing Coby from the Beltransâ€^TM custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state. Specifically, the Beltrans claimed that Suarez and Tjhin fabricated much of the information in the three-page statement of facts. Relying on Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2003), the district court held that Suarez and Tjhin had absolute immunity for their actions connected to signing and filing the dependency and custody petitions—including the alleged fabrication of evidence and false statements. It therefore dismissed plaintiffs’claims that were based on the allegedly false petition statements. The district court eventually granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remainder of plaintiffs’ claims, but those issues are not before us, as plaintiffs appeal only the dismissal of claims based on absolute immunity.

[1] 2. Parties to section 1983 suits are generally entitled only to immunities that existed at common law. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417-18 (1976). We have therefore “granted state actors absolute immunity only for those functions that were critical to the judicial process itself,” such as “ ‘initiating a prosecution.â€^TM ” Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431). It follows that social workers have absolute immunity when they make “discretionary, quasi-prosecutorial decisions to institute court dependency proceedings to take custody away from parents.” Id. at 898. But they are not entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they fabricated evidence during an investigation or made false statements in a dependency petition affidavit that they signed under penalty of perjury, because such actions arenâ€^TMt similar to discretionary decisions about whether to prosecute. A prosecutor doesnâ€^TMt have absolute immunity if he fabricates evidence during a preliminary investigation, before he could properly claim to be acting as an advocate, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993), or makes false statements in a sworn

1204 BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

affidavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-30 (1997). Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. See id. at 126.

[2] The district courtâ€^TMs error is perfectly understandable, as it relied on our incorrect ruling in Doe v. Lebbos, which we overrule today. We reverse the district courtâ€^TMs ruling that defendants are entitled to absolute immunity and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA 1205

Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President

Civil Rights Advocate For Families
Connecticut DCF Watch
P.O. Box 9775
Forestville, CT 06011-9775
860-833-4127
Admin@connecticutdcfwatch.com
www.connecticutDCFwatch.com

It’s the beginning of a new year, which could be very good for non-custodial fathers.  It’s a chance to take control of your situation.  Here are some tips on how to start turning your life - and your kids’ lives - around.
1.  Stick to the parenting schedule as much as possible.   Right now, grab a calendar and your Order defining your parenting time schedule, and lay out all your weekends and holidays for 2008.  This way, you know immediately if her “offer” to switch weekends or to re-arrange a holiday will work for you or for her.  Also, sticking to the parenting schedule reinforces to her that she does not have control over this.
2.  Plan to pay your child support.  Nothing derails a father’s case like getting behind in child support.  So list out when you have to pay, when your paychecks come in, when your bonuses come in, etc.  When you get your tax refund, set some aside to pay child support.
3.  Write letters to your kids, but don’t mail them.  Write 5 or 10 letters to your kids right now, on anything you want.  Then, at random times during the year, send them to your kids, but to locations where your kids are guaranteed to get them.  maybe to a trusted relative or friend, or the daycare or school.  Maybe take them to your kids’ game or recital, and slip it to them.
4.  Write to your lawyer.  If you are in litigation, or plan to be in litigation, send a letter or email to your lawyer every 2 or 3 weeks, and ask what is going on.  Are you getting every letter and pleading?  Is your lawyer pushing for discovery from your ex?  Are you and your lawyer on the same page regarding strategy.
5.  Talk to your ex.  About the kids.   Let your ex know what the kids did when they were with you.  Let the ex know you want to be informed of school activities, sports schedules, meetings, doctor appointments.  Ask who your kids’ doctors, teachers, counselors, friends, troop leaders, are.  Discuss church.  Discuss politics.  Discuss how your kids dress.  But don’t be silent when it comes to your kids.

The beginning of the year is a time for resolutions and new beginnings.  These are some tips of things you can do right now, and continue to do during the year, to maintain a strong relationship with your kids and to put you in a better position to win in court, if that has to happen.

Also, don’t forget the following resources for fathers:
–Yahoo Group: Dads In Court
–Manual for Fathers: Aggressive Pleadings For The Non-Custodial Father

And please comments on this and all blog postings.  Other fathers can learn from YOUR experiences.