## Facts

- Sylvia Ernst was the primary caretaker and guardian of her granddaughter, Susanne Ernst, from infancy until Susanne was nine.
- School personnel reported repeated problems including tardiness, poor attendance, and Susanne’s inability to separate from Ernst at the start of the school day.
- Police investigated and informed Chester County Children and Youth Services (CYS) about prior, but withdrawn, arrest warrants for Ernst for child neglect and a withdrawn out-of-state custody petition involving Susanne.
- After another incident at school, CYS took emergency custody of Susanne and placed her on a psychiatric hold for evaluation.
- CYS initially pursued reunification, but after several years of conflict with Ernst, CYS shifted its goal to long-term foster placement.
- CYS caseworkers and CYS-retained counsel participated in ongoing dependency and review proceedings in Pennsylvania state court concerning Susanne’s placement.
- After approximately five years, a state judge granted Ernst full legal custody, returning Susanne to her care.
- Ernst filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that CYS, individual caseworkers, and CYS’s attorney violated substantive and procedural due process by seizing and retaining custody and pursuing long-term foster placement.

## Issues

1. Whether child welfare caseworkers are entitled to absolute immunity from § 1983 damages for actions taken in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting state dependency proceedings.
2. Whether an attorney retained by a child welfare agency is entitled to absolute immunity for advocative conduct in dependency proceedings.
3. Whether non-advocative conduct by child welfare workers related to child placement and services is outside absolute immunity and instead subject to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment insofar as it rested on absolute immunity for CYS caseworkers and CYS’s attorney for actions taken in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings.
- The court held that child welfare workers and agency counsel acting as advocates in dependency litigation are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for that advocative conduct.
- The court clarified that absolute immunity is function-based and does not extend to non-advocative, administrative, or investigative functions, which may receive only qualified immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute immunity turns on the function performed, not the actor’s job title.
- Child welfare workers and agency attorneys have absolute immunity for advocative conduct closely associated with the judicial process, including preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings.
- Absolute immunity does not cover investigative, administrative, or service-related conduct that is not intimately connected to courtroom advocacy; such conduct is assessed under qualified immunity.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit applied a functional immunity framework, holding that child welfare caseworkers and agency counsel are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for their advocative roles in dependency proceedings, while preserving only qualified immunity for non-advocative conduct outside the judicial process.


Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs. of Chester Cnty., 108 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1997)