WALLIS VS.SPENCER in the 9th district cir.1999

State law cannot provide immunity from suit for federal civil rights violations.  State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no application to suits under �1983. 

HAFER VS.MELO (S.Ct. 1991) -

Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC �1983 if they are named in their 'official and individual capacity'.   

Harlow v. Fitzgerald -

If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, a police officer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity based on good faith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct.

McCord v. Maggio (5th Cir. 1991) -

Immunity is defeated if the official took the complained-of action with malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights, or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Young v. Biggers -

 A defendant in a civil rights case is not entitled to any immunity if he or she gave false information either in support of an application for a search warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor on which the prosecutor based his or her charge against the plaintiff.

Grossman v. City of Portland -

 Individuals aren't  immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services

 (10th Cir. 1999) - Police officer was not entitled to absolute immunity for her role in procurement of court order placing child in state custody where there was evidence officer spoke with the social worker prior to social worker's conversation with the magistrate and there was evidence that described the collaborative worker of the two defendants in creating a "plan of action" to deal with the situation. 

 Officer's acts were investigative and involved more that merely carrying out a judicial order.

Snell v. Tunnell (10th Cir. 1990) -

 Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity for pleadings filed to obtain pick-up order ,

for temporary custody prior to formal petition being filed.

Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department policy was for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other authorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings.

Social workers investigating claims of child abuse are entitled only to qualified immunity.

Assisting in the use of information known to be false in order to further an investigation is not subject to absolute immunity.

Social workers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they deceived judicial officers in obtaining a custody order or deliberately or recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports, criminal complaints and applications.

Use of information known to be false is not reasonable, and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth are not entitled to qualified immunity.

No qualified immunity is available for incorporating allegations into the report or application where official had no reasonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was prepared.

Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991) -

 Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment because she should've investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. 

Millspaugh v. County Dept. of Public Welfare (7th Cir. 1991) - Social worker was entitled to absolute immunity for her testimony in an ex parte judicial proceeding,

 but her application for the ex parte order is only entitled to qualified immunity. 

Chrissy v. Miss. Dept. of Public Welfare (5th Cir. 1991) -

was not entitled to absolute immunity for failure to initiate the  investigation,

 failing to disclose medical reports at the family court hearing.

LEARN YOUR LAW AMERICA!

I AM....

I AM STUDYING AROUND THE CLOCK AND KNOWLEDGING MY OWN STAFF AT GOODMOMSFIGHTDYFS.COM AS MANY ARE BEING VIOLATED AND AS YOU SEE YOU CAN WIN AGAINST DYFS OF NEW JERSEY,SO FILE THOSE NOTICES OF CLAIMS GET YOUR CASE HEARD IN U.S.FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT NOW!!!

 PUT A STOP TO THE ABHORRENT ACTIONS OF DYFS IN UNION COUNTY AND IN NJ,where you have a case against dyfs,you can sue you can RECORD,ALL LEGAL IN THE 3RD DISTRICT,WHICH IS NEW JERSEY,SO GET TO IT NEW JERSIANS!!

TAKE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BACK AS I AM DOING FOR ME AND MY GIRLS!!!!!!!

SUE THEM  FILE COMPLAINTS,AND FILE YOUR NOTICES ASAP...

( IF YOU CAN PROVE)

 as i shall prove it and my girls as the damage brought into our lives by DYFS IS SIMPLY AND CLEARLY VISIBLE DAILY.....

MY GIRLS NOW DAMAGED BECAUSE OF UNION COUNTY DYFS AND MOM,

WE WILL PROVE ALL THE WRONGDOING,fraudulent practices and AND THE SEVERE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION BROUGHT ON BY DYFS FOR ALMOST 1500 DAYS NOW.....

ALL SO NEEDLESSLY ON INNOCENT PARENTS AND INNOCENT CHILDREN IN NEW JERSEY.

CALL US FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE AT THE NUMBER ON FRONT PAGE OF GOOD MOMS AND IN ALL OF OUR BLOGS.

GOD SPEED TO US ALL...