Family association claim fails under Rule 12

There are certain rights and entitlements that do not expressly appear in the U.S. Constitution. The right to intimate family association is one of them. The courts have implied that such right exists and can predicate a damages claim -- if that right is actually violated. It was not violated in this case.

The case is Keller v. Schoharie County Dept. of Social Services, a summary order issued on May 20. Keller claims that defendants violated her constitutional right to intimate association with family and her right to privacy by interfering with her relationship with her then-minor daughter, C.K, and revealing her mental health issues to C.K. Keller. A body of case law governs cases like this:

To state a claim for infringement of the right to familial association, a plaintiff must allege conduct “so shocking, arbitrary, and egregious that the Due Process Clause would not countenance it even were it accompanied by full procedural protection.” State action that is “incorrect or ill-advised” is insufficient to give rise to a substantive due process violation; rather, the action must be “conscience-shocking.” A plaintiff must also allege “that state action was specifically intended to interfere with the family relationship.” While “parents enjoy a constitutionally protected interest in their family integrity, this interest is counterbalanced by the compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves.”

So we have a strict burden of proof in this area. Plaintiff cannot survive this legal standard, and her case is dismissed under Rule 12 for failure to state a plausible claim. While she claims the defendants "destroyed her relationship with her daughter by telling her that Keller has serious mental health issues and should be on medication but is not," this "unwise and inappropriate" statement "does not rise to the level of ignoring overwhelming exculpatory information or manufacturing false evidence." What is more, "the estrangement between mother and daughter came after a years-long abusive relationship that resulted in multiple orders of protection against Keller. It is implausible to credit the breakdown in relationship to the comments of Woods and Baldwin where multiple instances of domestic violence by Keller against C.K. resulted in multiple lawful restraining orders and a no-contact order."

Labels: