In Hardwick v. County of Orange, published November 18, 2020, the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of summary adjudication in a plaintiff's favor of a claim for loss of familial association. County social workers allegedly made misrepresentations to a court that resulted in minors being removed from their mother's custody and put into foster care. The mother sued the social workers and the county in California state court. She obtained a verdict against some of the social workers that they had violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to familial relationship, or her right of privacy. She obtained a verdict against the county based on failure to train. When one of the minors obtained the age of majority, she sued the social workers and county in federal court, asserting violation of her right to familial association. She sought summary adjudication against the social workers and county based on claim preclusion from the state court verdict in her mother's favor. The district court denied summary adjudication, and granted a defense summary judgment motion by the county. The case against the social workers proceeded to jury trial, where the jury entered a verdict in favor of the social workers held liable in the state action.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the denial of claim preclusion. Both a parent and a child have a right to familial association under the Constitution. A parent's right is to custody and companionship, and is governed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The child's right is to companionship, and loss of it due to removal from custody is governed by the Fourth Amendment. But the same legal standard applies to evaluating both rights. But claim preclusion requires that the prior action adjudicate the identical issue. Since the verdict in the state court case found violation of either the right to familial relationship or the right of privacy, it is unclear whether the jury in the state case found violation of the familial relationship right. The district court therefore properly rejected claim preclusion. Further, because the Monell claim against the county was based on alleged violation of the constitutional right, the district court properly rejected claim preclusion against the county.
Comments