In the Second Circuit, a seizure of children is a violation of their rights, but not the rights of the parents. P.C. v. Conn. Dep’t of Children & Families, 662 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D. Conn. 2009):<\/p>\n
The seizure of the C. children does not, however, implicate the Fourth Amendment rights of P.C. and S.R.C. as alleged in Count One. See Second Amended Complaint at 25 (“The specific acts of the DCF employees … violated the rights of the parents in this manner …”) (emphasis added). That is, to the extent they bring a claim to redress their own Fourth Amendment rights, as opposed to the Fourth Amendment rights of their children, such claim fails as a matter of law. See Tenenbaum v. Williams, 862 F. Supp. 962, 974 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[T]he court is not aware … of any federal decision which has held that a parent may legitimately assert an individual, as distinct from representative, Fourth Amendment claim based upon the seizure of a child”); see also F.K. v. Iowa Dist. Court, 630 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Iowa 2001) (“Numerous federal courts have recognized parents’ rights under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 to vindicate–in a representative capacity–the constitutional interests of their children whose removal from their custody was accomplished without warrant …. These cases uniformly recognize that the seized children, not their parents, have privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment”). Neither P.C. nor S.R.C. has been the subject of a search or seizure at the hands of the defendants. Consequently, defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Count One.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading