DCF Amended Complaint March 23
DCF Amended Complaint March 23
TANIYAH CRUTCH-WILLIAMS,
RODNEY JR. WILLIAMS,
CHARLOTTE WILLIAMS,
RODNEY SR. WILLIAMS,
CHRISTINE ROGERS, DANNY ROGERS,
DELAILA PINO LASALLE,
KENNETH NUNEZ ARROYO,
ESMERALDA ARROYO,
KEILA GARDNER, MARVIN GARDNER,
TRELANE JACKSON,
LEON ZETAR, SHARON ZETAR,
ALTHEA HOUSTON, CURT HOUSTON,
JILL LIPTON,
MINORS 2-8 and 10-13 by and through their Next Friends.
Plaintiffs,
Defendants.
1
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 2 of 43
Houston, Curt Houston, Jill Lipton2, and Minors #s 2-8 and 10-13 by and
through their next friends (as set forth below), file this civil action against
Guardian ad Litem Program (“GAL”) within the Statewide GAL Office, and
1 On February 24, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 40).
The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend by March 10, 2023, (Doc. No. 40), and that
deadline was subsequently extended to March 24, 2023. (Doc. No. 42). By filing the
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs are not intending to waive any rights or claims of
error related to the Court’s rulings on the motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 27 & 28).
2
Pseudonyms are used throughout this pleading both to protect the privacy rights of the
parties, including minors, and to avoid potential retaliation by Defendants.
2
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 3 of 43
I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
foster care; not scheduling regular and meaningful visitation among siblings
who are separated by Defendants; not placing children in foster care with
about the placement of their children with siblings and adult relative
caregivers.
remove children from their homes and place them in foster care. When
policies cannot survive strict scrutiny. See generally City of Dallas v. Stanglin,
3
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 4 of 43
490 U.S. 19 (1989); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25 (1976); United States v. Del
Valle-Cruz, 785 F.3d 48, 51-52 (1st Cir. 2015); United States v. Bear, 769 F.3d
1221, 1229 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Quinn, 698 F.3d 651, 651 (7th Cir.
2012); United States v. Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 408 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v.
Voelker, 489 F.3d 139, 154-55 (3d Cir. 2007); United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d
rights to have practices, customs, and policies of: separating siblings who are
removed from their homes by Defendants and placed into foster care; not
Defendants; not placing children in foster care with adult relative caregivers;
whose rights have not been terminated, about the placement of their children
policies, as set forth above, and to properly train and supervise case workers
visitation among siblings who are not placed together; placing children in
II.
THE PARTIES
A. The Plaintiffs
6. Plaintiffs are individuals whose rights have been deprived or who are
behalf of minors whose rights have been deprived or are at risk of being
3 Some courts analyze the constitutional rights raised by this complaint under the
substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See e.g. Aristotle P. v.
Johnson, 721 F. Supp. 1002, 1007-1010 (N.D. IL 1989). For purposes of both FRCP 8 (a) &
(e), Plaintiffs put Defendants on notice that they intend to pursue their claims under
either the First or Fourteenth Amendment or both should this Court determine that its
analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims would differ in any meaningful way under those
Amendments. Some courts have determined the analysis of the claims raised in this
pleading would be the same under either the First or Fourteenth Amendment. See e.g.
Kenny A. ex rel Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277, 298 (N.D. GA 2003) (Plaintiffs stated claims
under First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments; “[t]he constitutional right to family
integrity encompasses the right of children in foster care to have meaningful contact with
their siblings and parents.”); Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick, 771 F. Supp. 2d 142, 163-64
(D. Mass. 2011).
5
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 6 of 43
406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972). The purpose of the child welfare system is to
Florida.
9. Taniyah and Rodney Jr. are the biological parents of three children:
Williams.
10. Taniyah and Rodney Jr. bring individual and representative claims.
Taniyah and Rodney Jr. have all parental rights to Minor #3. Taniyah and
care system. Kids First of Florida, Inc. contracted with DCF to provide case
12. A board member (the husband) and agent (the wife) of KFF adopted
16. Taniyah and Rodney Jr.’s individual claims are related to their
fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children. There
custom or policy of taking siblings from their parents when there are
7
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 8 of 43
17. Taniyah and Rodney Jr.’s representative claims are related to Minor
#3’s fundamental right to visitation with his siblings, Minors #1 & #2.
18. Charlotte and Rodney Sr. Williams, who reside in Clay County,
Rodney Sr. adopted Minor #2. Charlotte and Rodney’s representative claims
are related to Minor #2’s fundamental right to visitation with his siblings,
Minors #s 1 & 3.
Minor #4 - Ar. Doe. Christine and Danny Rogers adopted Minor #4, who has
claims are related to Minor #4’s fundamental right to visitation with her
sibling.
20. The Arroyo family includes Delaila Pino LaSalle, Kenneth Nunez
Arroyo, and Esmeralda Arroyo. Delaila and Kenneth reside in Palm Beach
County, Florida and are the biological parents of Minors #s 5-7, Ad. and Ax.
Pino LaSalle, and El. Pino. Esmeralda is the paternal grandmother of Minors
8
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 9 of 43
#s 5 – 7 and she resides in Lee County, Florida. All three children are in
fundamental right to control the care and custody of their children. Delaila
continue to refuse to respect the parents’ requests. Delaila and Kenneth have
requested that, until their children can be reunified, regular sibling visitation
Minors #s 5 & 6 are in Defendants’ custody and placed together with a non-
9
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 10 of 43
Gardner. Minor #8 has eight siblings who either have been adopted by
Minor #8 does not reside or have scheduled visitation with any one of his
eight siblings. Keila and Marvin’s representative claims are related to Minor
#8’s fundamental rights to visitation with his siblings and cohabitation with
Keila and Marvin desire and intend to adopt Minor #8, if Minor #8 cannot
caregivers.
grandson. Defendants have taken custody of Minor #9, who is not currently
10
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 11 of 43
foster care with a stranger to the family. Defendants placed Minor #9 with a
foster care system insider. Defendants placed Minor #9 with the President
25. Leon and Sharon Zetar bring individual claims related to the
placement of Minor #10 – Le. Zetar with an adult relative caregiver. Leon
Defendants have taken custody of Minor #10, who is not residing with an
with and adopted by Sharon if his daughter is unable to return home. Leon
is Minor #10’s biological father and Leon has all paternal rights to Minor
#10. Sharon is Minor #10’s paternal aunt and desires that Minor #10 be
placed with her, unless and until the minor can be returned home. If Minor
11
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 12 of 43
26. Althea and Curt Houston bring representative claims on behalf of their
maternal grandchildren, Na. Kreps – Minor #11 and Ni. Kreps – Minor #12.
taken custody of Minors #s 11 & 12, who do not reside with an adult relative
caregiver.
27. Althea and Curt’s representative claims are related to Minors #s 11 &
28. Althea and Curt’s claims are related to their fundamental rights to
daughter, Minor #13 – Is. Lipton. Jill and Minor #13 reside in Pasco County,
Florida. Minor #13 has two older siblings that Defendants have taken
visitation was not scheduled and her sibling was not placed with an adult
relative caregiver.
30. Jill’s individual claim is related to her fundamental right to the care,
custody, and control of her children. There is an imminent risk that Minor
12
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 13 of 43
from their parents when there are allegations of abuse or neglect related to a
B. The Defendants
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
this is a civil action arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress the Defendants’
foster system by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The federal
13
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 14 of 43
declaratory and injunctive relief related to: (1) the separation of siblings in
care; (2) regularly scheduled visitation when siblings are separated in care;
Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of their relationship with the Defendants, who
operate the Florida foster care system throughout the state; and a majority
of the Defendants, if not all of the Defendants, have their principal place of
IV.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS: An Overview
38. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 states in relevant part, “Every person who, under color
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
14
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 15 of 43
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,
practices, customs, and polices have deprived, deprive, and will continue to
40. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the freedom to
relationships may take various forms, including the most intimate. See Moore
v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503–504 (1977) (plurality opinion). The
Supreme Court has not attempted to mark the precise boundaries of this
Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383–386 (1978); the begetting and bearing of children,
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684–686 (1977); child
rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534–535 (1925);
15
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 16 of 43
and cohabitation with relatives, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. at 503–504.
See also Bd. of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 545
necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special
personal aspects of one's life.” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609,
619–620 (1984).
42. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to engage in activities
Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 622. See also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S.
886, 907–909 (1982). For this reason, “[i]mpediments to the exercise of one's
right to choose one's associates can violate the right of association protected
by the First Amendment....” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 80, n. 4
(1984) (POWELL, J., concurring) (citing NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963);
203 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). The right to intimate association derives
petitioning for the redress of grievances, and exercising religion. Robert, 468
violates the right to intimate association must establish that the custom or
1563. On one end of the spectrum are those clearly protected personal
those that attend the creation and sustenance of the family – marriage,
45. The right of intimate association is the freedom to choose to enter into
Gaines v. Wardynski, 871 F.3d 1203, 1212 (11th Cir. 2017). This constitutional
government interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by
rights to control the care and custody of their children. Troxel v. Granville,
530 U.S. 57 (2000); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (“The fundamental
their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model
18
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 19 of 43
parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.”); Stanley
v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825 (2d Cir.
1977).
48. A local government entity is liable under Section 1983 when action
Soc. Serves., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). That includes a policy of inaction when
Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). The custom or policy of inaction
policy for the subject matter at issue. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S.
49. A local government entity’s failure to train its employees can also
create Section 1983 liability when the failure to train amounts to deliberate
indifference to the rights of persons with whom those employees are likely
50. In that event, the deficiencies in the training program must be closely
related to the alleged injury. In other words, the plaintiff must show her
19
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 20 of 43
injury would have been avoided had the government entity properly trained
relatives.
52. Defendants’ customs or policies were and are the moving forces
53. Defendants were acting at all applicable times under color of state law.
55. Defendants were and are aware that children taken into custody were
not and are not placed with their siblings and / or adult relative caregivers.
That custom and policy is widespread throughout the Florida foster care
system.
56. In instances where siblings in care are not placed together, Defendants
were and are aware that siblings are not afforded visitation with one
another. That custom and policy is widespread throughout the Florida foster
care system.
20
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 21 of 43
and practices, failed and continue to fail to properly train and supervise
siblings are not placed together, for affording siblings regular and
and practices, failed and continue to fail to properly train and supervise
and practices, failed and continue to fail to properly train and supervise
employees responsible for working with parents whose rights have not been
caregivers.
which would require, after siblings are placed in separate foster homes,
efforts to afford siblings regular and meaningful visitation with one another.
21
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 22 of 43
without visitation.
without taking proper efforts to place children with adult relative caregivers.
without taking proper efforts to place children with adult relative caregivers
68. As the result of Defendants’ customs and policies, Defendants did not
22
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 23 of 43
69. Because children are taken into custody and children are unable to take
case workers is of paramount importance. When proper steps are not taken
by the parents the consequences are dire. Siblings in care are separated,
without visitation, and children are not placed with adult relative caregivers.
harm. Brothers and sisters have been torn apart. Children have been placed
with strangers when appropriate adult relative caregivers are available. The
siblings in care, the rights of adult relative caregivers, and the rights of
parents, whose rights have not been terminated, all of whom have and / or
are likely to come into contact with Florida’s foster care system.
adversity, like that which occurs when a child is placed into Defendants’
72. Plaintiffs are siblings who desire to live together, children who desire
to live with adult relative caregivers, adult relative caregivers who desire to
custody, and parents whose rights have not been terminated and have
relative caregivers.
that are necessary to support the claim.” 31 Foster Parents v. Bush, 329 F.3d
24
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 25 of 43
1255, 1264 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
561 (1992)) (citations and internal marks omitted). See also Florida Action
Committee, Inc. v. Seminole County, 212 F. Supp.3d 1213, 1220 (M.D. Flo. 2016)
(At the pleading stage, the burden of establishing standing is not particularly
Defendants’ conduct.).
74. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries in fact. A
case.
75. Plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by absolute immunity, the Eleventh
similar defense.
herein. For this same reason, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. Roe
v. State of Ala. By and Through Evans, 43 F.3d 574, 579-580 (11th Cir. 1995)
25
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 26 of 43
(“because the plaintiffs are not parties to the circuit court action, the
court …”); Wood v. Orange County, 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1983) “The
Rooker bar can only apply to issues that the plaintiff had a reasonable
injure Plaintiffs.
491 U.S. 58 (1989); Doe 1-13 v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 719 (11th Cir. 1998).
78. In addition, Younger abstention has no place in this case because inter
V.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS: Causes of Action
Count I
26
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 27 of 43
against Defendants.
intervention.
83. Appropriate injunctive relief in this case would promote justice and
Count II
Plaintiffs: Charlotte and Rodney Sr. Williams as next friends of Minor #2
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (sibling visitation)
against Defendants.
intervention.
Count III
Plaintiffs: Taniyah and Rodney Jr. Williams as next friends of Minor #3
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
89. There is a real and immediate threat that Minor #3 will be taken into
custody by Defendants.
and Rodney Jr. as next friends of Minor #3 seek prospective injunctive relief
against Defendants.
intervention.
28
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 29 of 43
Count IV
Plaintiffs: Taniyah and Rodney Jr. Williams
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (parental control over
custody and care)
95. There is a real and immediate threat that Minor #3 will be taken into
custody by Defendants.
intervention.
29
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 30 of 43
Count V
Plaintiffs: Danny and Christine Rogers as next friends of Minor #4
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (sibling visitation)
against Defendants.
intervention.
Count VI
Plaintiffs: Delaila Pino LaSalle and Kenneth Nunez Arroyo as next friends
of Minors #s 5-7
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (sibling cohabitation)
30
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 31 of 43
against Defendants.
intervention.
Count VII
Plaintiffs: Delaila Pino LaSalle and Kenneth Nunez Arroyo as next friends
of Minor #7
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (sibling visitation)
against Defendants.
31
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 32 of 43
intervention.
Count VIII
Plaintiff: Esmeralda Arroyo
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
intervention.
32
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 33 of 43
Count IX
Plaintiffs: Delaila Pino LaSalle and Kenneth Nunez Arroyo as next friends
of Minors #5-7
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
121. Based on the deprivation of rights alleged herein, Delaila and Kenneth
intervention.
Count X
Plaintiffs: Delaila Pino LaSalle and Kenneth Nunez Arroyo
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (parental control over
custody and care)
33
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 34 of 43
Defendants.
intervention.
Count XI
Plaintiffs: Keila and Marvin Gardner as next friends of Minor #8
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (sibling visitation)
131. Based on the deprivations of rights alleged herein, Keila and Marvin
Defendants.
intervention.
34
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 35 of 43
Count XII
Plaintiffs: Keila and Marvin Gardner
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
136. Based on the deprivation of rights alleged herein, Keila and Marvin
intervention.
Count XIII
Plaintiffs: Trelane Gardner
35
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 36 of 43
intervention.
Count XIV
Plaintiffs: Sharon Zetar
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregiver)
intervention.
36
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 37 of 43
Count XV
Plaintiffs: Leon Zetar
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (parental control over
custody and care)
intervention.
Count XVI
Plaintiffs: Leon Zetar as next friend of Minor #10
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
37
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 38 of 43
intervention.
Count XVII
Plaintiffs: Althea and Curt Houston as next friend of Minors #s 11 & 12
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
161. Based on the deprivation of rights alleged herein, Althea and Curt seek
intervention.
38
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 39 of 43
Count XVIII
Plaintiffs: Althea and Curt Houston
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (cohabitation with
adult relative caregivers)
166. Based on the deprivation of rights alleged herein, Althea and Curt seek
intervention.
Count IXX
Plaintiff: Jill Lipton as next friend of Minor #13
39
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 40 of 43
171. There is a real and immediate threat that Minor #13 will be taken into
custody by Defendants.
Defendants.
intervention.
Count XX
Plaintiff: Jill Lipton
Section 1983: First Amendment Right of Association (parental control over
custody and care)
177. There is a real and immediate threat that Minor #13 will be taken into
custody by Defendants.
40
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 41 of 43
178. Based on the threatened deprivation of rights alleged herein, Jill seeks
intervention.
Count XXI
Plaintiffs
Declaratory Judgment: Defendants’ Practices, Customs, and Policies
Violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights
practices, customs, and policies cause severe harm to minors in their custody
41
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 42 of 43
Plaintiffs’ rights.
deprivations of rights.
unconstitutional.
1988. And,
d. Such other and further relief for Plaintiffs as the Court deems
42
Case 4:22-cv-00222-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 03/24/23 Page 43 of 43
And
43