Civil rights – Foster care – Due process

Listen to this article

Where two minor sisters suffered severe harm while in the custody of the Department of Children and Families, four defendant employees of the department should have been awarded summary judgment because their conduct does not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation.

Reversed.

“At issue are the substantive due process claims of two minor sisters who suffered severe harm while in the custody of the Department of Children and Families (department). One night in August 2015, the older sister, then twenty-two months old, reached from her crib and manipulated a thermostat dial, causing the bedroom to overheat. Tragically this led to the child’s permanent impairment and the death of a third foster child, who is not involved in this action.

“A lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court against several defendants, including four department employees. Relevant to this appeal, the older sister’s adoptive parent and the younger sister’s guardian ad litem asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (§1983), alleging that the department employees’ failure to fulfill their duties caused the children’s harm. The employees moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity. A Superior Court judge denied the motion, and the employees appealed under the doctrine of present execution.

“This court transferred the matter on its own motion. For the following reasons, we conclude that the employees did not violate the children’s substantive due process rights, as their conduct was not the proximate cause of the harm suffered. Accordingly, we reverse the Superior Court’s denial of summary judgment. …

“… Given the nature of the State’s custody of children, we conclude that a ‘special relationship’ exists between foster children and the State, imposing upon the State an affirmative duty to ensure a reasonably safe foster home environment. …

“Having recognized a right to a reasonably safe foster home, we now assess whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantive due process violation of that right. …

“The department employees’ conduct does not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation. Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore reverse the Superior Court’s order denying summary judgment in their favor.”

Gotay, et al. v. Creen, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-033-25) (25 pages) (Georges, J.) The case was heard by Valerie A. Yarashus, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Katherine B. Dirks (Deborah Frisch also present) for the defendants; David A. Russcol (Timothy P. Wickstrom, Charles M. Giacoppe and Deborah Gresco-Blackburn also present) for the plaintiffs; Ann Balmelli O’Connor, Alexis Williams Torrey and Lauren E. Russell submitted a brief for Committee for Public Counsel Services and another, amici curiae; Jean Strout and Katherine E. Burdick, for Juvenile Law Center and others, amici curiae, submitted a brief (Docket No. SJC-13666) (March 21, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.