Opinion
C 22-03048 WHA
06-15-2022
Richards, Plaintiffs v. State Of California Child Protective Services, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE CIVIL ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
A Sonoma County judge ruled for the natural mother that her child should be restored to her. But the mother and her domestic partner, a co-plaintiff herein, nevertheless wanted the help of Child Protective Services to obtain a baby stroller and SSI for the child. CPS replied that it could help only if the case was re-opened, to which both the mother and her co-plaintiff agreed. The reopening led to a baby stroller (in questionable condition) but, more importantly, to another investigation of the mother, which has now led to a new hearing in Sonoma County Court set for June 22, 2022, evidently to take the child away (for a second time). The original judge has retired, so a different judge will hear the case.
Plaintiffs here are the mother and (this is presumed) her domestic partner. They want this federal court to stop the proceedings in Sonoma County Court.
Their argument is anchored in their view that CPS has dredged up evidence on the mother from sealed records about her when she was twelve. There is no federal law or right, however, that would prevent any such use (even if it were unlawful under state law). And, even if that evidence were illegal and inadmissible, we can rely on the California system to decide correctly at the trial level or on appeal. A federal court has no business telling a state court how to run a trial concerning what is best for children, much less ordering the state court to halt all proceedings out of fear it might violate a constitutional right.
Another grievance in the record is that the foster father, back when the child was originally in the care of CPS, kissed the child on the lips. This should be brought to the attention of the state court judge. There is absolutely no indication that the state court will fail to give this the weight it deserves. Indeed, the mother won in state court the first time, so that trial was certainly fair to her. She can do it again if she so deserves.
The foregoing is entirely sufficient to end this case with prejudice. There is simply no basis alleged or shown for any possible federal relief, so the case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
As a side note, a further problem with plaintiffs' approach herein was to seek an ex parte hearing with the federal judge to discuss their case without the other side being present, so that the judge could “investigate the case” “sua sponte” and stop defendants from “stealing her child.” Federal courts do not conduct such roving sua sponte investigations, much less conduct sua sponte investigations without the opposing party having notice and opportunity to be heard. Instead, anyone wanting injunctive relief against a defendant must present a sworn record of facts warranting such relief, to be followed by an opportunity for the party against whom an injunction is sought to be heard before an injunction is (or is not) issued. Plaintiffs were told of these basic procedural requirements in prior orders but have continued to request ex parte proceedings.
It is true that in rare cases a temporary restraining order might issue on a compelling sworn record where time is too short for the other side to be heard but a prompt hearing is allowed or, on a compelling sworn record, where notice to the wrongdoer would result in the destruction of evidence. No such circumstances have been presented here. The state court will undoubtedly provide a fair hearing.
This lawsuit is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. There is no possibility of future relief. The next step for plaintiffs would be, if they wish to pursue this case, to file a timely notice of appeal and docket an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Finally, plaintiffs have given no adequate reason for proceeding anonymously or under seal. It is obvious that CPS and the Sonoma courts know their identities and their grievances. Nevertheless, this order, while effective immediately, will be kept under seal for FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS to give plaintiffs an opportunity to show good cause under oath for redacting their names from the caption or redacting anything else. After fourteen days, in all events, the entirety of this order shall be made public, the only issue being whether plaintiffs names will appear in the caption or any other redactions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.