Parental alienation is a devastating issue that can have tragic consequences for children and families. As civil rights advocates, we are always looking for ways to support victims whose rights have been violated. Recently, we have been exploring potential legal avenues on behalf of parents experiencing parental alienation in child custody cases.

One heartbreaking example is the case of a child who died by suicide, where parental alienation by the mother was found to be a contributing factor. This case illustrates how damaging alienation can be to a child’s mental health and wellbeing. It is a stark reminder that parental alienation should be taken very seriously by family courts.

In considering legal options, we need to research further to identify viable civil rights claims. There are significant legal hurdles, including broad governmental immunities that preclude money damages in many instances. However, one potential option is seeking injunctive relief to compel state agencies to implement parental alienation research findings into child welfare regulations and family court policies and procedures.

Whether an injunction can be issued to force, for example, a state department of human services to begin considering parental alienation when setting forth regulations regarding how legal decisions should be made regarding the child, is most definitely uncharted territory and will certainly require additional research and consideration.

Crafting a successful legal strategy will require deep examination of the law and facts. We are committed to advocating zealously for parents facing alienation, within the bounds of legal ethics. However, it is important to note that this post contains general information, not legal advice regarding any specific case. Those dealing with parental alienation issues should consult with an attorney to discuss their particular situation and potential claims. We encourage any parent or family seeking legal counsel in a potential civil rights case involving parental alienation to visit www.conduit.law for a free case evaluation.

However, there is one potential strategy for holding these employees accountable: proving that the initial removal of the child was only accomplished through falsified information, testimony, or evidence. If it can be shown that the caseworker knowingly provided false information to the court in order to secure the removal order, they may be liable for damages resulting from that action.

Unfortunately, case law in many jurisdictions makes it very difficult to pursue claims related to anything that happens after the initial removal. So the focus needs to be on the events and evidence leading up to the removal order. If deception or falsification can be proven by the caseworker as the basis for removal, that opens the door for a civil rights claim.

It’s a high bar, but by focusing on the initial removal and being able to clearly demonstrate fabrication or lies by the caseworker, it may be possible to overcome their immunity. This careful, strategic approach gives parents and attorneys seeking accountability for wrongful removals a potential path for recourse through the justice system.

A major development occurred this week in an important civil rights case out of Arapahoe County, Colorado. Federal judge Charlotte N. Sweeney denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against Arapahoe County caseworker Robin Niceta, allowing the case to move forward.

The lawsuit was filed by parents including a mother and father who allege that Niceta violated their constitutional rights by making false claims about their parenting in order to remove their daughter from their custody. Niceta had the daughter removed without a court order or evidence of abuse, exploiting the significant power that caseworkers have over families.

Judge Sweeney’s ruling rejected the county’s argument that Niceta has qualified immunity from the lawsuit. This precedent-setting decision means Niceta can be held accountable for violating the parents’ and daughter’s civil rights. The court acknowledged that caseworkers cannot be permitted to forcibly separate parents and children based on unsubstantiated opinions and hearsay.

This ruling has major implications, as it opens the door for increased scrutiny of the immense authority that social workers wield over families. There is potential for this case to prompt reforms addressing abuses of power by child welfare agencies nationwide.

Many civil rights advocates are hailing Judge Sweeney’s refusal to dismiss the case as a significant step toward justice and recognition of every American’s constitutional right to due process before their family is torn apart. The case will now move forward to trial or settlement negotiations, where the plaintiff’s attorney Elliot Singer with Conduit Law will seek accountability and damages for the trauma inflicted on the family.

This development gives hope to parents who have had children removed unjustly, as it signals that caseworkers are not immune from repercussions when they abuse their position. The Arapahoe County case is being closely watched by civil liberties groups as well as social welfare agencies across the country. However it is ultimately resolved, this case will likely lead to long-overdue changes in an arena where civil rights violations can inflict immense damage on innocent families.

The 14th Amendment provides constitutional protection for the right of parents to raise their children without undue government interference. However, this right is balanced against the state’s interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect. Child Protective Services (CPS) is the agency authorized to intervene when allegations of child maltreatment arise.

Removal of Children

CPS has the authority to remove children from parental custody if they have probable cause to believe abuse or neglect has occurred. Parents have a right to due process including a court hearing to contest removal. Courts use the minimum standard of “reasonable efforts” to prevent family separation.

Reunification Plans

When CPS removes children from the home, the agency must create a reunification plan for parents to regain custody. This may include parenting classes, counseling, drug testing, home visits, and other requirements aimed at addressing the safety issues. Parents should comply with the plan and seek prompt reunification.

Termination of Parental Rights

If parents fail to remedy the family issues within the mandated timelines, CPS may move to terminate parental rights altogether. At this stage, family reunification is no longer the goal. Courts can permanently sever the legal parent-child relationship. This is an uphill battle for parents to contest.

Seeking Reform

There are ongoing efforts to reform the child welfare system to better support family preservation, require higher standards of proof prior to removal, improve accountability for CPS errors, enforce parents’ rights to due process, provide better legal representation for parents, and prioritize family reunification plans. Reform advocates believe strengthening the integrity of the family unit should be the ultimate objective. Parents dealing with CPS interventions should seek advice from a family law attorney to understand their rights and options when faced with the potential dissolution of their family.