On Thursday, November 7, 2024, Law.com reported that a legal team representing plaintiffs in a child abuse case against the state of Texas is seeking an en banc review from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the removal of U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of the Southern District of Texas. The judge, who has presided over the case since 2011, was removed by a three-judge panel due to claims of bias.
The controversy centers on allegations against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Department of Family and Protective Services concerning their handling of the abuse investigation. The plaintiffs, who advocate for a child with severe disabilities, argue that the prolonged misconduct by the state should be a focal point of the case.
In their petition for rehearing, the plaintiffs contend that the panel’s decision to vacate a civil contempt fine imposed by Judge Jack against the state agencies was erroneous. The fine, amounting to $100,000 per day, was intended to compel compliance with court orders for timely investigations into abuse allegations. The plaintiffs emphasized that Judge Jack’s actions were a response to what they described as the state’s failure to adhere to proper investigative procedures.
The Fifth Circuit panel’s order highlighted a documented pattern of antagonism exhibited by Judge Jack toward the state and a perceived bias favoring the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs argue that Judge Jack’s impatience was justified given the state’s lack of action on critical abuse cases. They pointed to deficiencies in the state’s investigations, including inconsistent handling of allegations, inadequate interviews, and failures to complete investigations in a timely manner.
One notable case mentioned in Judge Jack’s orders involved a child referred to as “Child C.” The judge indicated that this case exhibited particularly egregious investigative shortcomings. For instance, the caseworker reported that critical evidence was destroyed shortly before law enforcement arrived, and there were significant delays in contacting relevant authorities.
On November 2, the Foster Care Advocacy Center (FCAC) filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs’ petition. The FCAC, which specializes in complex child welfare cases, argued that Judge Jack’s extensive knowledge of the case is vital, given the state’s historical unwillingness to implement necessary reforms. The brief criticized the defendants for labeling the judge’s actions as an “insurmountable obstacle” while neglecting to address the systemic issues stemming from their own conduct.
The plaintiffs also noted that Texas did not contest any of the evidence presented during the trial regarding the inadequacies of the investigations conducted by the Health and Human Services Commission. Instead of addressing the issues, the state opted to appeal the civil contempt findings directly to the Fifth Circuit.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the panel’s decision to vacate Judge Jack’s contempt order was flawed. They maintain that the panel mischaracterized the contempt order as criminal rather than civil, which they assert disregards the plaintiffs’ request for coercive civil relief. This contention is supported by precedents that allow appellate courts to substitute coercive sanctions for improperly imposed criminal sanctions in civil matters.
As of now, the state of Texas has not responded to the petition for rehearing.
Source: Law.com
