Not an ICWA case, or even involving an Indian child, but this decision illustrates some disturbing removal practices in Wayne County. The U.S. Eastern District court found that because the judge left pre-signed removal orders for juvenile officials, she is not entitled to judicial immunity. This practice created an administrative procedure, not a judicial one:
It is not Hartsfield’s actions in signing the form of order that plaintiffs complain about.
Rather, it is Hartfield’s actions in putting in place a policy which allowed a pre-signed removal form to be filled in and docketed by non-judicial personnel, without judicial review, for a petition submitted to the family court after normal business hours. These actions, if true, are administrative. Hartsfield essentially signed pieces of paper that had no vitality until a third party–in this case a probation officer–filled in certain information on the paper. At the time the form of order was signed by Hartsfield, there were no parties before the court nor were there any active child custody proceedings. Her actions therefore could not have been “judicial acts.”
This is the federal case filed by the parents in the “Mike’s Hard Lemonade” removal case where the father accidentally gave his child alcoholic lemonade at a baseball game, leading to the child’s removal from the home, and the father having to leave the home so the child could return. The case will go forward against the judge, but not against the individual DHS workers in their individual capacities.
Turtle Talk 