As this Court previously explained in its February 5, 2014 Opinion and Order, "[o]nce parental rights are terminated, a parent lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of his or her children." Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Lomnicki v. Cardinal McCloskey Servs., No. 04-CV-4548, 2007 WL 2176059, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2007)). A parent also lacks standing to bring a § 1983 claim "based solely upon a deprivation of a child's constitutional rights."

(“As [the] plaintiff's complaint currently fails to demonstrate the involvement of a federal question, and, thus, fails to demonstrate this Court's jurisdiction, it is recommended that this Court also decline to exercise jurisdiction over [the] plaintiff's potential state law claim.”) (citing Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F.Supp.2d 100, 107 (N.D.N.Y. 2011), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3)(c)). III. Leave to Amend

(“As [the] plaintiff's complaint currently fails to demonstrate the involvement of a federal question, and, thus, fails to demonstrate this Court's jurisdiction, it is recommended that this Court also decline to exercise jurisdiction over [the] plaintiff's potential state law claim.”) (citing Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F.Supp.2d 100, 107 (N.D.N.Y. 2011), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3)(c)). III. Leave to Amend

(“As plaintiff's complaint currently fails to demonstrate the involvement of a federal question, and, thus, fails to demonstrate this Court's jurisdiction, it is recommended that this Court also decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's potential state law claim.”) (citing Kaminski v. Commissioner of Oneida Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Services, 804 F.Supp.2d 100, 107 (N.D.N.Y. 2011), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

No. 94-CV-0284, 1994 WL 313063, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 1994) (finding that the parents of expelled students lacked standing to bring their own due process claim when they failed to allege that “any right personal to them was violated by the defendants” and their claims were “wholly derivative of [the child's] claims based on her suspension and subsequent expulsion”); Irwin v. W. Irondequoit Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 6:16-CV-6028, 2017 WL 881850, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2017) (finding that that parent-plaintiff “lack[ed] standing to bring the asserted § 1983 claims based solely on the deprivation of the constitutional rights of his son”); Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F.Supp.2d 100, 104-105 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (same); Morgan v. City of New York, 166 F.Supp.2d 817, 819 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (same). The crux of Plaintiff's complaint is the alleged inadequate process T.H. received when he was suspended from Gulf Breeze High School and throughout his time in the Santa Rosa County school system.

; Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 804 F.Supp.2d 100, 105-06 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011) (dismissing claim as barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine where the plaintiff “argues her due process rights were violated by virtue of false evidence, contradicting statements, and perjured declarations submitted by [a counselor] in the underlying state court proceedings.”).

Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[W]hen a plaintiff proceeds pro se, a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally." (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)); Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (Hurd, J.) ("A pro se complaint must be read liberally.").

Such an action, however, is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F. Supp. 2d 100, 105-06 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005)).

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (citation omitted)); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[W]hen a plaintiff proceeds pro se, a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally." (quotation marks and alterations omitted)); Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (Hurd, J.) ("A pro se complaint must be read liberally.").

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (citation omitted)); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[W]hen a plaintiff proceeds pro se, a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally." (quotation marks and alterations omitted)); Kaminski v. Comm'r of Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 804 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (Hurd, J.) ("A pro se complaint must be read liberally.").