Ernst v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County
| Decision Date | 31 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1929,93-1929 |
| Citation | 108 F.3d 486 |
| Parties | 46 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 983 Sylvia ERNST, Appellant in, v. CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES OF CHESTER COUNTY; Carol Schravazande; Arden Olson; Wayne Stevenson; Rita Borzillo; The Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; *Sylvia Ernst, Administrator of the Estate of Susanne Ernst, for Susanne Ernst. *(Amended as per the Court's |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Edward A. Hartnett (Argued), Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, NJ, for Sylvia Ernst, Appellant in No. 93-1929.
Robert B. Gidding (Argued), Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Sylvia Ernst, Cross Appellee in Nos. 93-1930 and 94-1273.
Thomas L. Whiteman (Argued), Office of County Solicitor, West Chester, PA, for Carol Schravazande, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
Joseph P. Green, Jr. (Argued), Duffy & Green, West Chester, PA, for Rita Borzillo, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
David M. Donaldson (Argued), Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Administrative Office of PA Courts, Philadelphia, PA, for Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Attorney General, Gregory R. Neuhauser (Argued), Senior Deputy Attorney General, Calvin R. Koons, Senior Deputy Attorney General, John G. Knorr, III, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of Attorney General of PA, Harrisburg, PA, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae/Appellee/Cross Appellant.
Before: STAPLETON, GREENBERG, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
A grandmother alleges in this civil rights action that she was deprived of the custody of her granddaughter for five years in violation of rights secured by the Constitution. The defendants are Chester County Children & Youth Services ("CYS"), individual CYS caseworkers, and an attorney retained by CYS to represent it in the judicial proceedings that transferred custody to the state. We are called upon to decide whether and to what extent child welfare workers and attorneys who represent child welfare agencies are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in connection with dependency proceedings in state court. This is an issue of first impression in this circuit. Like the other courts of appeals that have addressed the issue, we hold that child welfare workers and attorneys who prosecute dependency proceedings on behalf of the state are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for all of their actions in preparing for and prosecuting such dependency proceedings.
Sylvia Ernst ("Ernst") was the sole guardian of her minor granddaughter Susanne from infancy until the child was nine years old. 2 At about that time, during the 1987-88 school year, a number of people in the Downingtown, Pennsylvania area where Ernst and Susanne lived became concerned about Susanne's well-being. A mover who had moved Ernst and Susanne into an apartment in Downingtown contacted police and expressed concern that there was something wrong in the relationship between Ernst and Susanne. He reported that Susanne looked unwell and appeared too young to be Ernst's daughter.
The Downingtown police conducted an investigation and learned that the Family Court of Nassau County, New York, had issued warrants for the arrest of Ernst and her daughter for child neglect and that a petition for custody of Susanne had been filed in 1981 but never served on Ernst. Nassau County officials informed the Downingtown police that the warrants had been vacated and the petition for custody of Susanne had been withdrawn. The police informed a CYS employee of its investigation and of the status of the warrants, but the CYS personnel responsible for the decision to seek custody of Susanne were apparently unaware at the time of their decision that the Nassau County warrants had been withdrawn.
School officials at several schools Susanne attended became concerned about Susanne's frequent tardiness, poor attendance, and inability to separate from Ernst at the start of the school day. The days would often begin with a scene outside Susanne's classroom during which Susanne would cry and scream and refuse to let go of her grandmother. On May 3, 1988, after another morning tantrum, officials at the East Ward School in Downingtown contacted CYS and requested immediate intervention. CYS believed Susanne's attachment to Ernst was sufficiently extreme to be unhealthy and filed a petition that same day seeking an adjudication of dependency 3 and emergency custody of Susanne. After an immediate detention hearing, Judge Stively of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas found that a prima facie case of dependency had been presented, and ordered Susanne placed in a psychiatric institution for a complete evaluation.
At a subsequent hearing on May 18, 1988, the parties stipulated to an adjudication of dependency, which resulted in temporary legal custody remaining with CYS. The stipulation provided that CYS's goal was the reunification of the family and that Ernst could receive counseling and treatment at the institution at which Susanne was being treated.
CYS retained custody of Susanne for the next five years. During that time, Ernst and CYS waged an intense legal battle over Susanne's dependency status and custody. They also developed an extremely contentious relationship. CYS caseworkers found Ernst to be uncooperative, antagonizing, and unwilling to acknowledge her parenting problems. They also complained that she frequently made negative comments about CYS and Susanne's foster families during visits with Susanne. As CYS caseworkers became increasingly frustrated with Ernst, they sought and obtained restrictions on her visits with Susanne. Ultimately, with the approval of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, they changed CYS's goal for Susanne from family reunification to long-term foster placement. Meanwhile, Susanne occupied eight different placements at various foster homes and institutions. Ultimately, her emotional and intellectual development deteriorated significantly.
Finally, in April 1993, a new judge assigned to review Susanne's placement recognized that "[t]he adversarial air of the proceeding [concerning Susanne's dependency] ... at times ... captured the focus of many of those involved in this case instead of focusing on Susanne." Juvenile No. 83 CS 88, Order of April 26, 1993, Op. at 2. Concluding that "[w]e have come to the point where state intervention in Susanne's life is now doing more harm than good," the court ordered that physical custody of Susanne be returned to Ernst, with legal custody remaining with CYS. Ernst was granted legal custody on November 17, 1993.
During the pendency of the state court proceedings, Ernst filed this action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CYS, various CYS caseworkers who were involved in Susanne's case (the "CYS defendants"), three officials from the Downingtown Area School District, and Rita Borzillo, a private attorney who represented CYS throughout Susanne's dependency proceedings. Ernst's complaint alleged (1) violation of procedural and substantive due process by all defendants for their improper "seizure" of Susanne; (2) violation of substantive due process by CYS, the CYS defendants, and Borzillo for the imposition of restrictions on visitation and for the recommendation of long-term placement instead of reunification; (3) violations of procedural due process in the course and conduct of state court proceedings; and (4) violation of the First Amendment by the Pennsylvania statute that presumptively closes juvenile dependency proceedings to the public. The district court joined the Judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to defend the First Amendment claim.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Downingtown School officials on statute of limitations grounds, and to all defendants on all claims alleging procedural due process violations before May 24, 1991 on the ground that those claims had been fully and fairly litigated in state court. The court granted partial summary judgment to the CYS defendants and Borzillo, ruling that they were entitled to absolute immunity "insofar as they acted in their prosecutorial capacity of filing petitions and making recommendations to the court." The court held that the CYS defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity, however, for actions taken in their capacities as social workers formulating recommendations to be made to the court. The court further held that Borzillo was not entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in an "extra-prosecutorial" capacity.
A bench trial ensued on the claims that survived summary judgment. After the trial, the court granted judgment to CYS, the CYS defendants, and the Judiciary of Pennsylvania. Although the court criticized the CYS defendants for flawed social work practice and inability "to submerge their personal views in dealing with a difficult woman" and focus on Susanne's welfare, Ernst v. Chester County Children & Youth Servs., No. CIV.A. 91-3735, 1993 WL 343375, at * 23 (E.D.Pa. Sept.3, 1993), it ultimately concluded that the CYS defendants' actions "were not so devoid of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...such Supreme Court review is discretionary by way of a writ of certiorari and is not an appeal of right; see Ernst v. Child and Youth Servs., 108 F.3d 486, 491(3d Cir.1997). In civil, criminal, and other cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reviewed decisions of the Supreme Cou......
-
Holloway v. Brush
...that served as the basis for" such recommendations, which the Third Circuit has held are entitled to immunity. See Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs., 108 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1997). In Ernst, the court had the opportunity to evaluate the caseworkers' actions and to accept or reject their suggestio......
-
Izquierdo v. Sills
...broad discretion. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Ernst v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County, 108 F.3d 486, 496-96 (3d Cir.1997). It is also aware that by not considering absolute immunity at this juncture, it may force the individually na......
-
Kufner v. Suttell
...custody, even if the recommendations are made outside the context of a dependency proceeding); Ernst v. Child and Youth Services of Chester County, 108 F.3d 486, 495-96 (3d Cir. 1997) (joining Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, the court concludes that caseworkers are entit......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...that the court may resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Ernst v. Child and Youth Svcs. of Chester County , 108 F.3d 486 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 139 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). After a bench trial , the plaintiff realized that she had failed to show a “policy or custom......
-
Other evidence rules
...that the court may resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Ernst v. Child and Youth Svcs. of Chester County , 108 F.3d 486 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 139 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). After a bench trial , the plainti൵ realized that she had failed to show a “policy or custom”......
-
Other evidence rules
...that the court may resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Ernst v. Child and Youth Svcs. of Chester County , 108 F.3d 486 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 139 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). After a bench trial , the plainti൵ realized that she had failed to show a “policy or custom”......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...that the court may resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Ernst v. Child and Youth Svcs. of Chester County , 108 F.3d 486 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 139 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). After a bench trial , the plaintiff realized that she had failed to show a “policy or custom......