## Facts

- Kervin Occean, born in the Bahamas, was brought to the United States as a child and placed in the custody of Florida’s Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) in 1992.
- DCF removed Occean from his parents due to alleged inadequate supervision and placed him in foster care.
- In 1994, DCF transferred Occean to an out-of-state behavioral modification facility that provided round-the-clock care and education under a DCF contract.
- In 1995, a Florida juvenile court ordered that if DCF changed Occean’s placement, DCF had to submit a written report describing the proposed treatment plan and the basis for the recommendation.
- Occean alleged DCF terminated his foster care benefits when he turned 18 without notice, without an opportunity to be heard, and without complying with the juvenile court’s reporting requirement.
- Occean also alleged DCF failed to provide assistance needed to pursue immigration status and failed to provide notice and hearing through the case review process referenced in the Child Welfare Act.
- Occean sued state officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the Child Welfare Act’s case review provisions (including 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C)) create individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether Occean stated a procedural due process claim based on termination of foster care benefits at age 18 without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
3. Whether Occean stated a substantive due process claim based on DCF’s alleged failures while he was in state custody or control.
4. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred official-capacity claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court allowed core procedural due process claims to proceed based on allegations that foster care benefits were ended without notice or a hearing and in disregard of court-ordered safeguards.
- The court dismissed statutory claims to the extent they depended on Child Welfare Act provisions treated as funding conditions rather than enforceable individual rights under § 1983.
- The court dismissed certain substantive due process theories for failure to meet the stringent standard applicable to such claims, while permitting only those aspects plausibly tied to the state’s custodial responsibilities to continue at the pleading stage.
- The court held that official-capacity claims seeking prospective relief for ongoing violations of federal law were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may use § 1983 to enforce a federal statute only if the statute creates a specific, mandatory, individual right rather than a general program condition on federal funding.
- Termination of significant state-provided benefits may require constitutionally adequate procedures, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, when a protected interest is plausibly alleged.
- Substantive due process claims in the child welfare context require allegations of sufficiently egregious state conduct; ordinary disputes about services or case management generally do not satisfy that threshold.
- Under Ex parte Young, official-capacity claims for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law are not barred by sovereign immunity.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the lawsuit by dismissing Child Welfare Act–based § 1983 theories that did not rest on enforceable individual rights and by rejecting certain substantive due process allegations, but it permitted Occean’s procedural due process challenge to the termination of foster care benefits without notice or hearing to proceed for further litigation.


Occean v. Kearney, 123 F. Supp. 2d 618 (S.D. Fla. 2000)