Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.
Plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to reconsider his September order dismissing a lawsuit challenging conditions in North Carolina's foster care system. The judge had ruled that adults who filed the suit did not have close enough relationships with foster children to represent them in court.
"The Court dismissed this case on the ground that the proposed next friends 'fail to satisfy the significant relationship prerequisite for next friend standing,'" the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote Monday in a court filing supporting their motion for reconsideration.
"However, the Court's conclusion is based on a narrow and limited interpretation of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which held that next friends must have a significant relationship with the party in interest, but also suggested a more flexible application of the rule in a 'different case' where the party in interest 'has no significant relationships.'"
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld dealt with the federal government's detention of enemy combatants during a war. The case ultimately produced a 2004 decision from the US Supreme Court.
"This is that 'different case' referenced by the Fourth Circuit in Hamdi," plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in the NC foster care case.
"The foster children in State custody cannot bring suit directly because of their minority status and must rely on next friends to bring suit on their behalf. Unfortunately, those children's access to adult allies is substantially constrained by systemic failures perpetuated by Defendants and Defendants' affirmative steps to prevent the minor Plaintiffs in this case from developing or maintaining significant relationships."
"The Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint without appointing a representative or issuing another appropriate order to protect the minor Plaintiffs' interests results in manifest injustice by insulating serious constitutional claims from any judicial review based on State-engineered isolation within the foster care system," the court filing continued.
Adults in the case titled Bolch v. Cooper relied on
"next friend" relationships with 13 foster children to file suit against the state and departments of social services in Mecklenburg, Gaston, Johnston, Davidson, Harnett, Rockingham, and Randolph counties.
"The Court finds the next friends, who the minor Plaintiffs appear by, have not shown they have the requisite significant relationship for next friend standing," US District Judge Frank Whitney wrote in a nine-page order issued Sept. 25.
"Therefore, the Court finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case."
Whitney did not address other arguments state and local defendants put forward to have the case dismissed.
"Plaintiffs allege 'North Carolina's foster care system has been operating in a state of crisis for years' and 'Defendants' ongoing failures place foster children at significant risk of serious harm in violation of their rights under federal law and the U.S. Constitution,'" Whitney wrote.
"Defendants all seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the next friends cannot bring suit on their behalf," the judge added.
"Here, the Court agrees with Defendants and the Court finds the next friends fail to satisfy the significant relationship prerequisite for next friend standing," Whitney explained.
"To start, none of the next friends are current foster parents of the minor Plaintiffs. In fact, it is unclear whether Daria Barazandeh, Veronika Monteleone, Kari Danforth, and Kimberly Crothers have met or communicated with the minor Plaintiffs they appear as next friends for."
"Although Plaintiffs conclusory allege all the next friends acquainted themselves with the allegations regarding the minor Plaintiffs they appear as next friends for and that all the next friends are dedicated to the minor Plaintiffs' best interests, that is not enough for the significant relationship requirement," the judge added.
"The closest calls are Steven Bolch, Anne Richey, and Jackson Albert. According to the Amended Complaint, all three have met and either fostered or were members of the foster family of the minor Plaintiffs they appear as next friends for, respectively J.C., S.T., and R.S.," Whitney wrote.
"But, the minor Plaintiffs do not still reside with Steven Bolch, Anne Richey, and Jackson Albert. Also, the Amended Complaint does not elaborate on their present-day relationships."
"Notably, the Court notes at least some of the minor children appear to have significant relationships with adults who are not named next friends in this case," the court order continued.
"For example, it appears S.M., L.M., and H.M., who appear through their next friend Kari Danforth, who is seemingly a stranger, have grandparents who are involved in their lives."
"Considering Fourth Circuit precedent, the Court finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case," Whitney wrote.
"The Court has great sympathy for the minor Plaintiffs and was truly troubled by the allegations in the Amended Complaint. However, it does not appear the next friends have the requisite significant relationships required for next friend standing."
"While the Fourth Circuit and United States Supreme Court may expand next friend standing to eliminate or modify the significant relationship requirement, it is not this Court's place to do so," he added.
"Additionally, the Court is mindful of the Fourth Circuit's warning that the significant relationship requirement discourages 'those with strong views to seek in federal court what they could not otherwise obtain - namely, the vindication of objectives better suited to political than judicial resolution,'" Whitney explained.
"While the next friends seem knowledgeable about the foster care system and motivated to improve it, this further lends support to finding the significant relationship requirement for next friend standing is not met here."
Whitney dismissed the lawsuit
"without prejudice." That means plaintiffs could refile their suit at a later date as long as it meets the statute of limitations.
The lawsuit originally filed in September 2024 alleged North Carolina's foster system has been operating in a state of crisis for years, shuffling children between placements with
"disturbing frequency."
According to the lawsuit, foster children in North Carolina are placed into institutions at twice the national average, ranking in the bottom 10 states for placement stability in 2021.
poll#218
