## Facts

- Three consolidated § 1983 class actions challenged New York City child welfare practices affecting mothers who were victims of domestic violence and their children.
- The court certified two subclasses: (A) battered custodial parents whose children were removed or threatened with removal in connection with domestic violence, and (B) their children.
- Plaintiffs alleged the agency routinely removed children from non-offending mothers based solely on the children’s exposure to domestic violence or generalized “failure to protect” allegations, without adequate individualized assessment.
- Representative example: after Sharwline Nicholson was severely beaten and sought emergency help while arranging care for her children, the agency removed the children and initiated neglect allegations premised on the domestic violence occurring in the child’s presence.
- The record included evidence of removals without prior court orders, delayed filing of court petitions, and limited provision of supportive services to keep families safely intact.
- Expert testimony indicated that exposure to domestic violence does not invariably cause serious harm and that unnecessary separation from a non-abusive parent can itself cause substantial trauma to children.
- Plaintiffs sought classwide preliminary injunctive relief restraining removals and neglect prosecutions premised on domestic-violence victimization rather than individualized danger.

## Issues

1. Whether removing children from non-offending, battered mothers and prosecuting them for neglect solely because children witnessed domestic violence violates the Fourteenth Amendment rights of family integrity, including substantive and procedural due process.
2. Whether removals and continued separations without adequate judicial authorization, timely hearings, and notice constitute unconstitutional procedures.
3. Whether federal jurisdiction was barred or limited by abstention doctrines or by limitations on federal review of state-court matters.
4. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the standards for a classwide preliminary injunction against agency practices.

## Decision

- The court granted and elaborated a preliminary injunction restricting the agency from removing children or presuming neglect based solely on a mother’s victimization or a child’s exposure to domestic violence.
- The court found plaintiffs showed likely success on the merits and irreparable harm from unwarranted family separation.
- The court concluded the challenged practices likely violated substantive due process by penalizing a non-unfit parent for being battered and by separating children absent particularized proof of imminent danger.
- The court found likely procedural due process violations where removals occurred without proper court authorization and without sufficiently prompt and adequate post-removal process.
- The court rejected abstention and jurisdictional defenses, holding plaintiffs mounted a systemic, prospective constitutional challenge rather than seeking review of specific state-court judgments.
- The injunction required individualized risk determinations and directed changes such as training and guidance for caseworkers on domestic violence and child safety.

## Legal Principles

- Parents and children possess a protected liberty interest in family integrity; state interference requires more than a categorical presumption and must rest on an individualized showing of actual or imminent danger.
- Substantive due process is implicated where government action separating parent and child is arbitrary and unjustified by demonstrated risk, including when the state effectively punishes a domestic-violence victim for the batterer’s conduct.
- Procedural due process requires meaningful safeguards when the state removes children, including appropriate judicial authorization or prompt post-removal review and adequate notice of allegations.
- Federal courts may hear systemic constitutional challenges to child-welfare practices seeking prospective relief, notwithstanding ongoing state proceedings, when plaintiffs do not seek appellate-type review of particular state judgments.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is warranted where plaintiffs show likely success on constitutional claims and irreparable injury from ongoing family separations, and where equitable factors favor immediate restraint of unlawful practices.

## Conclusion

The court issued classwide preliminary injunctive relief against child removals and neglect charges that treated domestic-violence victimization or exposure as a per se basis for separation, holding that constitutional family-integrity protections require individualized proof of imminent harm and procedures adequate to prevent erroneous deprivation.


Nicholson v. Williams, 203 F. Supp. 2d 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)