## Facts

- Parents and children challenged Texas child-welfare statutes and practices governing child-abuse investigations, abuse reporting/registry functions, and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.
- Plaintiffs sued state and local child-welfare officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
- A three-judge district court was convened because the suit sought to restrain enforcement of state statutes on constitutional grounds.
- The challenged statutory scheme authorized extensive preliminary investigative actions before any adversary hearing, including home visits, interviews of children, and psychological and physical examinations.
- The scheme permitted courts to issue ex parte orders compelling family cooperation with investigative visits, interviews, and examinations without notice to the family and without a required showing that the compelled relief was necessary.
- Information gathered through these investigations could be used to support later state action, including proceedings to terminate parental rights, and the statutes did not require disclosure of investigative information or reports to accused parents.
- Texas maintained a statewide child-abuse reporting system (CANRIS) that recorded reported child abuse and identified parents as “perpetrators”; an investigator could “validate” a report based on an administrative conclusion that abuse occurred.
- The CANRIS “validation” determination was not subject to judicial review, and plaintiffs alleged ongoing stigmatizing and practical consequences from being listed.
- A consolidated case presented the question whether indigent parents are entitled to appointed counsel in suits to terminate the parent-child relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal court should abstain under Younger and related doctrines because of related or potential state child-welfare proceedings.
2. Whether Texas Family Code provisions authorizing ex parte investigative orders and compelled examinations without notice and without a necessity showing violate procedural due process.
3. Whether the CANRIS registry’s “perpetrator” labeling and unreviewable “validation” process violate due process by imposing stigma and associated legal or practical disabilities without adequate procedures.
4. Whether due process requires appointment of counsel for indigent parents in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.

## Decision

- The court declined to abstain, holding that Younger-type abstention was not warranted under the circumstances presented by the systemic constitutional challenge.
- The court held that multiple provisions of the Texas Family Code were unconstitutional, including §§ 11.10, 11.15, 17.01, 17.03, 17.05, 17.06, 34.05(c), and 34.08, to the extent they authorized investigations and related consequences without constitutionally adequate safeguards.
- The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions.
- The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief addressing appointment of counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings as raised in the consolidated action.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may reach the merits of a facial, systemwide constitutional challenge to a child-welfare statutory scheme when Younger-type abstention would not appropriately protect federal rights in light of the posture and breadth of the challenge.
- Parents have a protected liberty interest in family integrity; state intrusion into the parent-child relationship must satisfy minimal procedural due process requirements.
- Procedures permitting compelled home access, interviews, and physical or psychological examinations through ex parte orders, without notice and without a required necessity showing, can violate due process when they authorize substantial intrusions without adequate judicial safeguards.
- Due process limits state child-abuse registry practices when the state labels individuals as perpetrators and maintains adverse “validated” determinations without meaningful opportunity for review.
- Termination of parental rights is a grave deprivation; due process may require appointment of counsel for indigent parents to ensure fundamentally fair proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court exercised federal jurisdiction, rejected abstention, and invalidated portions of the Texas Family Code that enabled intrusive child-abuse investigations and registry-based stigmatization without adequate process, while also requiring constitutionally sufficient protections—including counsel-related safeguards—in proceedings that could sever the parent-child relationship.


Sims v. State Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 438 F. Supp. 1179 (S.D. Tex. 1977)