Marisol A. By Next Friend Forbes v. Giuliani, 95 Civ. 10533 (RJW).
Citation | 929 F. Supp. 662 |
Decision Date | 18 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95 Civ. 10533 (RJW).,95 Civ. 10533 (RJW). |
Parties | MARISOL A., By her Next Friend, Rev. Dr. James Alexander FORBES, Jr.; Lawrence B., by his next friend, Prof. Mitchell I. Ginsberg; Thomas C., by his next friend, Dr. Margaret T. McHugh; Shauna D., by her next friend, Prof. Kathryn Conroy; Ozzie E., by his next friends, Jill Chaifetz and Kim Hawkins; Darren F. and David F., by their next friends, Juan A. Figueroa and Rev. Marvin J. Owens; Bill G. and Victoria G., by their next friend, Sister Dolores Gartanutti; Brandon H., by his next friend, Thomas J. Moloney; and Steven I., by his next friend, Kevin Ryan, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rudolph W. GIULIANI, Mayor of the City of New York; Marva Livingston Hammons, Administrator of the Human Resources Administration and Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the City of New York; Nicholas Scoppetta, Commissioner of the New York City Administration for Children's Services; George E. Pataki, Governor of the State of New York; and Brian J. Wing, Acting Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the State of New York, Defendants. |
Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Children's Rights, Inc., New York City (Marcia Robinson Lowry, Craig Levine, Mark G. Peters, Rebecca Kim Kimura, Martha Stone, of Counsel), Lawyers For Children, Inc., New York City (Gayle Lerner, Karen Freedman, of Counsel), for Plaintiffs.
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel (Grace Goodman, Phyllis Seidman, of Counsel), for City Defendants.
Attorney General of the State of New York, New York City, Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General (Ronald Younkins, Michael S. Popkin, Steven M. Connolly, of Counsel), for State Defendants.
Defendants Rudolph W. Giuliani, Marva Livingston Hammonds, and Nicholas Scoppetta ("City defendants") have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., for an order dismissing large portions of plaintiffs' complaint filed on December 3, 1995 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants George E. Pataki and Brian J. Wing ("State defendants") likewise have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R.Civ.P., for a partial order of dismissal. Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., for an order certifying this action as a class action. Finally, City defendants have moved for an order bifurcating this action.
For the reasons hereinafter stated, defendants' motions to dismiss are denied to the extent that (1) custodial plaintiffs may pursue their substantive due process claims based upon alleged violations of their right to be free from harm and all plaintiffs may pursue their procedural due process claims based upon alleged violations of various provisions of New York's Child Protective Services laws, codified at Title 6 of Article 6 of the New York Social Services Law; (2) plaintiffs may pursue their federal statutory claims based upon the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, including the provision herein referred to as the Multiethnic Placement Act, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act; and (3) plaintiffs may pursue their state law claims. Further, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. Finally, City defendants' motion to bifurcate this action is denied.
Plaintiffs are eleven children all of whom have suffered, and some of whom continue to be at risk of, severe abuse and neglect. These children allege that defendants, who are officials with responsibility for the Child Welfare Administration of the City of New York ("CWA") now renamed the New York City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS"),1 mishandled plaintiffs' cases and, through defendants' actions or inactions, deprived plaintiffs of their rights under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, under Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, as well as under numerous federal and state statutes.
The factual allegations of the complaint portray a child welfare program in crisis and collectively suggest systemic deficiencies of gross proportions. The eleven children who seek to represent the proposed class have endured a wide range of abuses and all reflect the dire situation facing children in the system. In their complaint, the named plaintiffs allege the following facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Knights of Columbus
...1999) ("Bifurcation . . . is a procedural device to be employed only in exceptional circumstances.") (citing Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 662, 693 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)); Rosa v. Town of East Hartford, No. 3:00CV1367 (AHN), 2005 WL 752206, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2005) ("Even though bifu......
-
McLean v. Pine Eagle Sch. Dist., Case No. 3:15-cv-654-SI
...where police officer shot the child's dog while standing only a few feet away from the child and her dog); Marisol A. v. Giuliani , 929 F.Supp. 662, 675 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd , 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.1997) (taking a "broad view of the concept of harm" when children in state custody alleged se......
-
Jonathan R. v. Justice
...108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ; Charlie H. v. Whitman , 83 F. Supp. 2d 476, 514 (D.N.J. 2000) ; Marisol A. by Forbes v. Giuliani , 929 F. Supp. 662, 688–89 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).The animating principles behind all of these cases are rather straightforward: individual periodic hearings ......
-
Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, Civ.A. 99-0016.
...1268, 1285 (E.D.Wis.1995) (motion to dismiss denied for claims brought under sections other than 671(a)(15)); Marisol A. by Forbes v. Giuliani, 929 F.Supp. 662, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd, 126 F.3d 372 (2nd Cir.1997) (Court found "no evidence that Congress has indicated its intent to preclu......
-
Judicial Oversight over the Interstate Placement of Foster Children: The Missing Element in Current Efforts to Reform the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children
...the best position to prevent the state from overreaching into the protected realm of the family. 44 See, e.g. , Marisol A. v. Giuliani , 929 F. Supp. 662, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding that children in foster care have a constitutional right to be protected from harm by the State, including ......
-
Mark G. v. Sabol: substantive due process rights, a possibility for foster care children in New York.
...of the New York City child welfare agency to protect and care for the plaintiffs). (12) See Marisol A. ex rel. Forbes v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 662, 693 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying the defendants' motions to dismiss, thus enabling custodial plaintiffs to "pursue their substantive due process c......
-
A precept of managerial responsibility: securing collective justice in institutional reform litigation.
...HARD JUDICIAL CHOICES 105-35 (1988); Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, 96 HARV. L. REV. 374, 394-95 (1982). (5.) Marisol v. Guiliani, 929 F. Supp. 662 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). (6.) The plaintiffs' statutory claims included violations of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.......
-
Public Management in the Shadow of the Constitution
...Marini, F. (1971). Toward a new public administration: The minnowbrook perspective. Scranton, PA: Chandler. Marisol A. v. Guiliani, 929 F. Supp. 662 (S.D.N.Y., 1996).McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures instruments of political control. Journal ......