Indiana parents lose custody over refusing to turn their son into a girl.
(thepostmillennial.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
I believe that since their complaints are that the state violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights, the parents can take this out of family court and file a federal case. Which is what I would do, as family court tends to justify anything the government wants under the umbrella of "needs of the child".
Any lawyers out to there who can confirm?
Probably not. There was a similar case, Dircks v. Indiana Dep't of Child Servs., No. 1:21-CV-00451-JMS-MG, 2022 WL 742435 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2022), that involved a couple suing the Indiana Department of Child Services under similar 1st and 14th Amendment violations for CHINS removals. The federal court tossed the § 1983 suit because:
Maybe it'd work if they sued indivdual people involved like social workers or school counselors, but then you'd run into the same qualified immunity problems that comes with suing cops.
Thanks; that's why I put it out there for someone who knows more than me.
Honestly, the whole concept of sovereign and qualified immunity seems convoluted and contradictory to me. In the case cited above the feds said they don't have jurisdiction over a state agency under the 11th Amendment, but I know the feds have gone after police agencies and state election agencies through federal court
Its all a huge mess, because of contradictory rulings based off of different constitutional provisions, and various state or federal laws. For example, states and the federal government have sovereign immunity unless they allow themselves to be sued. The feds have the federal tort claims act for that purpose. In addition, takings can be compensated under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. States are similar. You can sue state agents individually under § 1983 and federal agents under the similar Bivens actions. But that refers to actions in their individual capacity. When you complain of official actions, then qualified and absolute immunity come into play.
The federal suits are probably based off of various parts of the civil rights act of 1964, which is in my opinion, a wildly unconstitutional law. But SCOTUS lacks the balls to throw it out (well maybe Thomas might).
They're generally based off of state law, and vary state by state. Here's Texas's law for example.