Social Workers Have NO Absolute Immunity For Lying in Sworn Statements

[Guest guest]

FYI,

This is an important case for all of those whose children have been made ill

from mold; who have gone from physician to physician in a futile search of

one knowledgeable in viable treatment of mycotic diseases; and have

subsequently had trumped up charges lodged by Child Protective Services against

them

that they are psychological child abusers. No longer are social workers given

carte blance to rewrite history that fits their needs of snatching sick

children from caring parents. This does not just impact the mold issue. Social

services and the way money moves/flows over the matter has devastating harmed

many a good family. Did you know that foster families are paid more (sometimes

3 times as much) for problem teens than they are for well behaved ones?

Prove the foster child is a problem by documentation of required mood altering

prescriptions, get more money. So glad to see moves made on this one that might

help correct much of the problem ie: lying.

Sharon K

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

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. "

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-Appellan ts,

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-Appellee s. þ

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

December 12, 2007—Pasadena, California

Filed January 24, 2008

Before: Kozinski, Chief Judge, Reinhardt,

J. Kleinfeld, Daly Hawkins,

Kim McLane Wardlaw, A. Fletcher,

M. Gould, A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon,

R. Clifton and S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

1201

COUNSEL

R. and Dennis R. Ingols, The Law Offices of

R. , San , California, for the plaintiffsappellant s.

R. Kiniyalocts, Deputy County Counsel, and Ann

-Ravel, County Counsel, Santa Clara County, San ,

California, for the defendants-appellee s.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1. 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 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 Suarez’s 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 Beltrans’ 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.’ †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 aren’t similar to discretionary

decisions about whether to prosecute. A prosecutor doesn’t

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 court’s error is perfectly understandable, as

it relied on our incorrect ruling in Doe v. Lebbos, which we

overrule today. We reverse the district court’s 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

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.

http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489