One of the issues we have raised on a number of occasions here in our articles, is the unbridled freedom that CPS workers have, coupled with a startling lack of oversight, when dealing with parents and families. Which is why we would like to share this particular case with you, that deals with whether or not it is acceptable for a caseworker to lie in court in order to achieve what they believe is the “right” result in a case.
The case in question has been ongoing in Orange County, California for years. Court records show that the situation began during a custody battle between Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick and her husband. The couple has two daughters, and courtesy of Orange County CPS, it took this mother six and a half years to get her daughters back.
The two Orange County Social Services social workers that Fogarty-Hardwick had problems with are Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak. Court records show that Vreeken told Fogarty-Hardwick that if she didn’t “submit to her will”, she would never see her children again. In addition, the pair also tried to coerce Fogarty-Hardwick to sign papers stating that she was a bad parent, by threatening to remove her children.
She refused to sign the papers, and the two girls were removed from their home and placed in Orangewood Children’s Home under the care of the state. They were later placed in foster care. In the hopes of protecting her daughters from being taken away from their parents, Fogarty-Hardwick agreed to give her ex husband full custody, and accepted only twice monthly supervised visits with her daughters. Four years later, after a great deal of fighting, she finally won 50-50 custody.
The first time Fogarty-Hardwick sued Orange County in 2002, she lost. That time the ground for her lawsuit were that the county had violated her civil rights, but the jury ruled against her. She came back again with another lawsuit, however, this time arguing that the county had violated her fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights.
In her second lawsuit, Fogarty-Hardwick claimed that Vreeken and Dwojak held back evidence and filed falsified reports in an effort to keep her from regaining custody of her children. She also accused them of interviewing her daughters without a parent present, removing them without making a finding of imminent danger or serious physical injury, and holding them without cause.
In 2007, a jury voted in Fogarty-Hardwick’s favor, and awarded her $4.9 million in compensation. But the county appealed the decision. In the end, the case ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Justices decided that Fogarty-Hardwick indeed deserved to be fully compensated by the county for the injustices she suffered.
They upheld the $4.9 million in damages and compensation, as well as the $1.6 million in attorneys fees. However, the county and the two social workers named in the lawsuit are responsible for paying the interest that has accumulated over the last four years, which raises the awarded amount to almost $9.3 million.
However, this doesn’t end there. Vreeken’s attorneys have since appealed the decision on the grounds that although state code instructs caseworkers not to lie, no case law or precedent exists to suggest that a caseworker lying to the court lying is unconstitutional. Vreeken claims that as a government workers, she is entitled to qualified immunity from prosecution in federal court unless A) a constitutional rights has been violated, and B) it has been clearly established that she knew “without a doubt” that her actions were a violation of law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California heard the arguments last week, and will be deciding shortly. Interestingly, if they rule against Vreeken and she appeals their decision again, this case will likely end up before the Supreme Court. In that instance, there is a chance that this case may set the precedent that CPS workers may not lie in court simply to get what they want.
We would like to remind our readers that, amazing as this story is, it didn’t take place in Michigan. This is a California federal case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case, and it’s ultimate results, are not the law in Michigan unless the case goes all the way up to the U S Supreme Court and is decided there. Michigan is bound by decisions from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which is based in Cincinnati, OH.