An Emergency Is Not Whatever CPS Says It Is

A mother gives birth. Three days later, the state takes her newborn without a court order. Years afterward, a federal appeals court concludes that her allegations plausibly describe unconstitutional conduct, but the officials responsible for the removals remain shielded from those claims.

That is the troubling divide at the heart of O’Bryant v. New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency, decided September 16 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: a constitutional right can be recognized while the path to accountability remains closed.

The events began in 2017. According to the family’s complaint, a child-welfare caseworker demanded entry into their home after receiving a report that a caregiver appeared upset and agitated at school. When he refused, she insisted he could not deny her entry. He relented under what the complaint describes as coercion.

Later that summer, officials removed the mother’s two older children and her newborn without prior judicial authorization. The agency pointed to concerns involving the caregiver’s history, the mother’s depression, and household conditions that included pests and a broken stove.

These remain disputed allegations, not findings after a trial. That distinction is central to the ruling.

The district court had dismissed the family’s lawsuit on qualified-immunity grounds. The appellate majority faulted its handling of the facts: it relied on allegations outside the complaint, drew adverse inferences from what the parents had not said, and accepted statements attributed to agency workers or others as true.

An accusation does not become proof because a government employee writes it down. At this stage, the court’s job was to assess whether the family had plausibly alleged a legal violation, not resolve disputed facts against them.

The appeals court then addressed the emergency itself.

Common household problems must be connected to specific facts establishing imminent harm before they can justify emergency removal. Depression of unknown severity and impact does not automatically establish that danger. Neither does an old report that someone appeared agitated.

For the newborn, the majority identified an especially consequential fact: the caregiver supposedly presenting a danger had already been in police custody for two days. The complaint supplied no reason to believe his release was imminent.

The majority made clear that removing children without a prior hearing requires circumstances in which swift action is necessary for their safety. Following a state’s emergency-removal procedures does not, by itself, satisfy the Constitution.

Yet the court upheld dismissal of the removal-related due-process claims. Qualified immunity protected the workers because the relevant constitutional rules had not been clearly established for these particular circumstances in 2017.

One claim survived: the alleged unconstitutional entry into the home. The majority found existing precedent sufficiently clear to deny the caseworker qualified immunity at this stage and returned that claim for further proceedings. Judge Thomas Hardiman dissented from that result and disputed the majority’s treatment of the record.

This was a partial victory, not a damages award or a final determination of liability. Its reasoning nevertheless gives reformers a concrete foundation.

Legislatures should require contemporaneous documentation identifying the danger, the evidence supporting it, and why there is insufficient time to seek judicial authorization. Parents should promptly receive the allegations and supporting records. Courts should scrutinize emergency claims independently, and lawmakers should provide enforceable remedies for unlawful removals.

Children facing genuine danger need immediate protection. Families also need protection from government decisions that confuse concern with an emergency. Both obligations belong in a functioning child-welfare system.

The Third Circuit has clarified an essential boundary. Now lawmakers must make that boundary enforceable before another family spends years litigating what should have been established before the children were taken.

Protecting a child should never require abandoning the Constitution at the family’s front door.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.

Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.