In Calif: Have you sued or are now sueing a social worker?

[Stephen Konnoff]

I wrote and lobbied for Cal Gov't code 820.21. As the creator of this law I am , naturally, very interested in knowing how the reform is working out. ARE CPS/SWs changing their behavior since the law went effect?

Please do respond if you have (or need) information re: Cal 820.21.

Thanks to all; do not give up!

Stephen

[Dazeemay]

Thank you for pointing this out.

I am going to post your thread on our California forum and also I will post the law for the California parents.

I know that these past few months we have had several from California on the site. I do remember one case in particular where the parents were being hassled by the caseworkers.

It is to bad I did not know about 820.21 then. They sure could have used it.

[good dad]

Hi Stephen, welcome to the site

How did you get it in front of lawmakers?
Was it hard to sway them to support it?

[Stephen Konnoff]

Yes it was difficult. It took me 9+ years and a whole lot of work to get the Calif legis to pass it. A lot of luck too.
Perserverence pays off.

Remember that Cal Government 820.21 code was intended to overturn the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit IN CALIFORNIA! Other US Appealate jurisdictions MAY NOT recognize a social worker claim of immunity under 42 USC 1983 actions(civil rights).

[/b]

[Greegor]

Mostly that would speed up Civil Rights suits
against the caseworkers right?

In a LOT of 42 USC 1983 suits against caseworkers
they have done things that VOID their immunity,
but proving this takes time, effort, litigation.

I am not a lawyer.

[Stephen Konnoff]

It actually creates a remedy in California cases.

I do know of a few that have been filed--they all settled in favor of the family.

If you are in one of the other 11 Western states under the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE UNDER 42 USC 1983.
You need to enact legislation like CA.

[Greegor]

Wasn't Wenatchee WA in that Ninth part of the country?
Their Chapter 42 Section 1983 suit worked.

In NO part of the country do caseworkers get
to keep their immunity when they do things
outside of policy or law.

But I'd really like to see the caselaw you're referring to
that grants workers immunity when they step outside
policy or law.

I am not an attorney.

Greg Hanson in Cedar Rapids Iowa

[Teresa]

When did this law come into effect? Would it apply to custody evaluators who claim immunity?

[Greegor]

Are custody evaluators as corrupt as Child Protection?
Are they getting pulled from Child Protection agencies?

AFRA has had success with class action "1983" suits in 31 states.
It seems the Federal courts are not giving caseworkers immunity.

[Teresa]

YES!!! Sometimes they are too!! Our custody evaluator knew that our child was abused by his father on multiple occassions and that our child was scared to death of him and that I was not lying and that the father was lying (she testified under oath about all of this...... BUT because I scored high on the paranoia scale of a test she decided the child should be able to have overnight weekend unsupervised visits!

Eventually I was able to prove the reason I scored high on the paranoia scale was because my ex had several friends in the system who were lying and covering up for him. I had GOOD reason to be paranoid!

The reason the evaluator tried to cover for him is because of the number of professionals that were also doing it at the time. Fortunately he ended up proving himself to a lot more professionals and they all saw how abusive he really is.

[justina78]

We are fighting an appeal over the social workers but being that we live in a small county where the judges are good friends and know each other things don't look so good

[Frustrated]

What a shocker. Of course Judges are in bed with the Social Workers! They get paid and vice versa! I have seen the Judges pictures taken in the Newspapers and the CPS Workers were right beside them. Of course they are friends with each other. What else is new?
The whole judical system is corrupt and rotten! The whole world is sick! What do you do when an apple is sick? Throw in the Garbage!
Pay attention to who you vote in the Elections, root them out! We don't have good ones anymore, and it is rare.
Sad indeed.

[Sarahlynn74]

......

[Teresa]

I dont know what state you are in, but check the statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits and if you are still within the time, then file a civil rights lawsuit against the sw and whoever else was involved.

[brefen]

Hope non of you missed the posting of "Rogers vs San Juaquin" here on fightcps. It's a pretty solid blow to caseworker immunity in my state.

[Teresa]

I did not find it, can you supply a link or give direction where it is posted?

Thank you

[Marina]

.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopin ... penelement

OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
The Rogers family brought this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that the conduct of social worker Charlotta
Royal in removing the Rogers children from their home without
a warrant violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. Both parties filed motions for summary
judgment, although the Rogerses’ was as to liability only. The
district court granted Royal’s motion on the basis of qualified
immunity. Because we hold that it was clearly established that
warrantless removal of children is permissible only in cases
of exigency, and that it would have been apparent to a reasonable
social worker that no exigency existed in this case, we
reverse both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the
denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
Child abuse and neglect are very serious problems. We
applaud the efforts of social workers to address these matters
and to protect the vulnerable victims of these crimes. “No one
can doubt the importance of this goal.” Cf. Mincey v. Arizona,
437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978). However, the rights of families to
be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state
action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one
hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and,
on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty
interests that families are guaranteed under both the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution.
Assuming Royal’s version of the facts, the Rogers children
were in a sorry state and suffering from neglect of a type that
could, if their parents’ conduct was not modified within a reasonable
period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions
here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily
harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain
a warrant. In removing the Rogers children from their home
without obtaining judicial authorization, Royal violated the
Rogerses’ clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. The lack of exigency would have been apparent
to any reasonable social worker. Accordingly, we conclude
that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to
Royal and in denying the Rogerses’ motion for partial summary
judgment as to Royal.
We REVERSE the grant of summary judgment to Royal
and we likewise REVERSE the denial of the Rogerses’ partial
summary judgment motion with respect to her. We REMAND
with instructions to grant partial summary judgment to the
Rogerses and for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.


.