The legal analysis posted last week on this blog by Daniel Pollack discussing legal immunity for children services social workers was comprehensive and well done. A review of Ohio federal cases on point is very interesting and enlightening.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided on the issue of whether a caseworker can be personally liable.1 In Holloway, the court determined that absolute immunity applies to a caseworker only when they are acting in the scope of a legal advocate (such as a prosecutor) which is not their role under Ohio law. The caseworker sued in Holloway withheld information from the Court that the mother had attempted to assert her parental rights, lying to the mother in telling her that her parental rights had been terminated when they had not and in failing to share information which would have allowed mother an opportunity to assert her rights in Court. Analogizing the caseworker’s actions to a usurpation of the court’s authority, the Court stated that the caseworker did not have absolute immunity, but may have qualified immunity from liability. This distinction would leave the worker possibly liable for money damages.
Qualified immunity protects an individual caseworker who was … Read More... “Should Ohio Social Workers Be Looking Over Their Shoulders?”
It is an accepted principle that a parent has a constitutionally protected interest in the custody and care of his or her child. This interest does have exceptions, especially when the child may be in immediate or apparent danger. This is when child protection services gets involved. Crucial to every child protection investigation is to establish the facts and circumstances of the case. When these are presented to the court at a dependency hearing, the evidence may become proof.