SUMMARY: A jury finding of liability under a §1983 claim based on violation of the father’s substantive due process rights in the relinquishment of his parental rights to Amanda C. has preclusive effect in the subsequent lawsuit brought by Amanda C. alleging violation of her substantive due process rights to a parent-child relationship, and evidence established the existence of actual harm to Amanda C. proximately caused by the act of formal relinquishment by the father.
Defendant Kelly Case, a DHHS caseworker, appeals a district court judgment finding in favor of Amanda C.
Amanda C. is the daughter of Richmond and Carol, whose parental rights had already been terminated as to two prior siblings. Amanda C. entered DHHS custody at age 6 in Kimball, Nebraska, on July 23, 1993, on allegations of abuse. She was initially placed first in a foster home in Kimball and had regular visitation with Richmond. On June 1, 1995, Amanda was placed with her maternal grandparents in Omaha, who had custody of her two siblings, and Richmond no longer was provided visitation. A petition for termination of Richmond’s parental rights was filed on September 4, 1996. On August 4, 1998, defendant Kelly Case was assigned as caseworker. Case met with Richmond, who had appointed counsel, and encouraged open adoption, representing that Richmond would have visitation opportunities that wouldn’t be available if his parental rights were terminated by the court. Case also arranged a phone call with Richmond, the maternal grandmother and Amanda, and statements were made that an open adoption would occur. None of the other parties to the case were aware of these activities. Case did later notify Richmond’s attorney, who sent a letter to her indicating Richmond’s opposition to relinquishment. Case pursued relinquishment with Richmond, and Richmond signed documents relinquishing his parental rights.
Richmond filed a lawsuit against Case in 1999 alleging unauthorized practice of law in providing legal advice about the ramifications of relinquishments and claimed it was a violation of his substantive due process rights to custody of his child under §1983. Case, although acting in her capacity as a DHHS caseworker, did not claim qualified immunity. A jury found in favor of Richmond and awarded $1 in compensatory damages and $65,000 in punitive damages. The relinquishment was later voided by the court. Case appealed, but the parties reached a settlement and the appeal was dismissed.
On May 20, 2004, a second lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amanda C. alleging violation of her substantive due process rights to a parent-child relationship in violation of §1983. The court concluded that judgment in the prior lawsuit had preclusive effect on the issue of violation of Amanda’s substantive due process rights in the current lawsuit and granted summary judgment on the issue of liability. After trial on the remaining issues, the court awarded Amanda $150,000 in damages. Case appealed, challenging the summary judgment and the finding of actual harm. The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the prior judgment did have preclusive effect on the issue of violation of substantive due process rights, even though the first was to Richmond’s and the current was to Amanda’s, because according to In re Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. 239, 246, 682 N.W.2d 238, 244 (2004), “parents and their children have a recognized unique and legal interest in, and a constitutionally protected right to, companionship” which protects “the child’s reciprocal right to be raised and nurtured by [his or her] biological…parent.” The Supreme Court added that Richmond’s failure to maintain nurturing ties does not preclude or negate the child’s rights. The Court also noted its confusion at the absence of a qualified immunity claim by Case as “[t]his defense is commonly raised by, and has been granted to, social service workers.” 275 Neb. 757, 769.
On the issue of Case’s conduct being a substantial factor causing Amanda’s harm, the Court relied on evidence that Amanda’s conduct down-spiraled after formal relinquishment and the testimony of Amanda’s psychologist that “the relinquishment did have an effect on Amanda.”
The Supreme Court also held that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Case’s liability to Amanda, and any factual disputes are rendered irrelevant by the preclusive effect of the prior judgment.