A federal appeals court has revived a closely watched lawsuit brought by a Bronx father who alleges that New York City’s child welfare agency violated his family’s constitutional rights by taking custody of his infant son without a court order and without adequate justification. The two were separated for nearly three years even though the father was accused of no wrongdoing.
Identified in court documents as K.W, the father first filed suit in 2022. Five years earlier, the city’s Administration for Children’s Services removed his newborn, K.A., and placed him in foster care with strangers. In 2024, a lower court dismissed his lawsuit, which sought a jury trial and financial damages for the “psychological damage, and emotional pain and suffering” caused by the family’s prolonged separation, according to court records.
But on May 19, the father prevailed when the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City unanimously reversed the lower court’s decision in part. That allows a narrower case against two of the defendants — the Administration for Children’s Services and its CPS caseworker Amar Moody — to move forward to trial.
Moody, they wrote, did not offer any evidence against the father to bypass obtaining a court order, which is only allowed under an “emergency removal.”
“It was unreasonable for Moody to believe that there was imminent danger to K.A. such that an emergency removal was necessary,” appellate judges on the Second Circuit stated in their decision. Moody, they wrote, lacked evidence that the father was an “active threat” to his son, and later made possible “false statements” to justify the emergency removal without a court order.
Following the ruling, the father of the child, who is now 9, praised the decision.
“My infant son was torn from my arms by ACS when he was just a few days old and put into foster care with strangers,” the father, identified as K.W., said in a press release. “I fought with all my heart and might to get him back for nearly three years. After my son came home, we’ve been fighting to right that devastating wrong. And because of today’s win, our fight continues — for our family and thousands of other families.”
A spokesperson from the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) told The Imprint that the agency’s legal department was reviewing the decision.
According to court documents, caseworkers visited K.W.’s home to conduct a welfare check on the five-day-old infant, identified as K.A. CPS automatically initiates an investigation whenever a mother who has other children in foster care gives birth. The infant’s mother had a history of child welfare involvement regarding her older children, who had different fathers. K.W. had no prior history with the agency.
During that home visit, K.W. and the mother were allegedly told to bring the child to the agency office the next day for a meeting. When he arrived, the father was asked to hand the newborn over to an employee while he met with caseworkers, he states in court filings.
Once separated, K.W. was told that his son was being removed from his custody on an emergency basis “because of K.A.’s mother’s history with ACS,’’ according to the appellate ruling. “Upon hearing the news, K.W. fell to his knees crying and screaming,’’ the plaintiffs alleged. He had “no chance to say goodbye.”
The infant was placed in “non-kinship” foster care and, initially, the father was only allowed supervised visitation for a few hours per week. He was also required to complete drug screenings, psychological evaluations and parenting and safety classes “to earn his parental rights,’’ even though the agency “never charged K.W. with abuse, neglect or any other related fault,’’ according to the appeals court ruling.
K.W. and his son were eventually reunited in December 2019.
The district court that originally dismissed K.W.’s claim in 2024 ruled that the emergency removal was justified, and that Moody was entitled to “qualified immunity” that would have shielded him from liability — similar to protections often given to police officers named in lawsuits.
But judges on the Second Circuit disagreed with that decision, arguing that Moody had enough time to obtain a court order before seizing the child, which, along with other allegations, raised legitimate due process questions.
“Assuming, as we must, that the facts are as alleged, by leaving the plaintiffs in procedural limbo for nearly three years, Moody evidently fell within the ranks of ‘the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,’’’ the judges wrote. “He is not entitled to qualified immunity for this conduct.’’
One legal observer said the court’s decision clarifies that caseworkers do not have automatic protection from litigation, now making it easier for families to file lawsuits accusing them of wrongful emergency removals. Along with New York, rulings made by the Second Circuit Court also apply to Connecticut and Vermont.
“This should lead to more lawsuits against caseworkers and child protective services in many places,” said Chris Gottlieb, an assistant professor at New York University’s School of Law and leader of the school’s Family Defense Clinic, which represents parents in child welfare cases.
The ruling also criticized the lower court for relying heavily on family court records that the appellate judges said should not have been considered at that stage.
K.W. alleged he was later diagnosed with chronic depression, which “stemmed from the separation and years-long fight for reunification.” Both father and son also experienced “psychological damage and emotional pain and suffering” and found it difficult to bond, according to court documents.
Several prominent children’s defense firms, civil rights organizations and law professors submitted “friend of the court” briefs in support of the appeal, including Children’s Rights and the Juvenile Law Center. Attorney David Shalleck-Klein commended the court’s ruling in a press release.
“Because of Mr. W.’s bravery in seeking to redress the terrible harm inflicted on his own family and pursuing protection for all parents and children, fewer families will be illegally and traumatically separated,” said Shalleck-Klein, executive director of the Family Justice Law Center, one of the firms that represented K.W.
It is unclear at this time when the case will go to trial.
