University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Nicholson v. Williams CW-NY-0003
Docket / Court 1:00-cv-02229 ( E.D.N.Y. )
Additional Docket(s) 1:00-cv-05155  [ 00-5155 ]
1:00-cv-06885  [ 00-6885 ]
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Child Welfare
Attorney Organization Legal Services/Legal Aid
Case Summary
The plaintiffs in this case are mothers in New York who have been subjected to domestic violence, and as a result, had the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) remove their children from their custody. Represented by the Sanctuary for Families, Lawyers for Children, and the New York Legal ... read more >
The plaintiffs in this case are mothers in New York who have been subjected to domestic violence, and as a result, had the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) remove their children from their custody. Represented by the Sanctuary for Families, Lawyers for Children, and the New York Legal Aid Society, they each brought suit, separately, in 2000 in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, against ACS. Their cases were then consolidated and converted to a class action in January 2001, against the state, the state Office of Children and Family Services, the city of New York, and the city Administration for Children's Services (ACS). The plaintiffs claimed violations of Constitutional rights, including the First, Fourth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and violations of federal and state law, including the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. § 675; the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 2261; and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5106.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2001. Judge Jack B. Weinstein pushed for an expedited trial schedule and consideration of preliminary injunctions, regardless of a final class certification decision, because of serious charges made of deprivation of constitutional rights to custody of children. After numerous hearings of testimonies supporting the claims of the mothers, in July 2001 the court certified the class with two subclasses in order to avoid a conflict of interest between mothers and children. Subclass A consisted of all persons subject to domestic violence or its threat who are custodians of children if the children were not themselves physically harmed and if the children are sought to be removed by ACS. Subclass B consisted of all children in the custody of a custodian in Subclass A who have been removed or are likely to be removed by ACS and has not been returned to the custodian as soon as possible. Nicholson v. Williams, 205 F.R.D. 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).

On July 9, 2001, a trial commenced to determine whether and in what form a preliminary injunction should issue. Trial lasted for twenty-four days and over forty-four witnesses testified. After trial concluded at the end of December, the court issued a preliminary injunction. The court prohibited ACS from separating a mother, not otherwise unfit, from her children on the basis that, as a victim of domestic violence, she was considered to have "engaged in" domestic violence. Additionally, the court required ACS to increase compensation for attorneys appointed to represent mothers threatened with separation from their children in order to allow for adequate representation of the mothers. Judge Weinstein noted the praiseworthy improvement ACS made to rectify continuing injustices, but nevertheless found that the defendants' constitutional violations, i.e. the separation of children from their families without due process, "may hinder parent-child bonding, interfere with a child's ability to relate well to others, and deprive the child of the essential loving affection critical to emotional maturity." In re Nicholson, 181 F. Supp. 2d 182, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).

In January 2002, the court stayed the injunction until June 2002, except for the requirement that the defendant ACS produce monthly reports on steps it was taking to protect the subclasses' rights.

Meanwhile, in an extensive opinion over 100 pages, the court clarified its initial December order and preliminary injunction, and identified modern perspectives on domestic violence and child welfare. After considering the facts of the plaintiff mothers' stories, and the views of experts, the court opined that best practices require that mothers should not be accused of neglect for being victims of domestic violence; batterers should be held accountable; children should be protected by offering battered mothers appropriate services and protection; separation of battered mothers and children should be the alternative of last resort; child welfare employees should be adequately trained to deal with domestic violence; and agency policy should provide clear guidelines to caseworkers. Judge Weinstein found that ACS policies and practices rarely employed any of these best practices, nothing that "[c]hildren's welfare, the state interest which is so often the great counterweight deployed to justify state interference in family affairs, has virtually disappeared from the equation in the case of ACS's practices and policies regarding abused mothers." Nicholson v. Williams, 203 F. Supp. 2d 153, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

The defendants appealed, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed. The defendants appealed certain provisions of the preliminary injunction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion for a stay of the injunction. While the appeal before the Second Circuit was pending, all four plaintiffs accepted judgments plus reasonable costs and attorney's fees. The cross-appeals of the plaintiffs were withdrawn as moot.

Additionally, Circuit Judge Katzman for the Second Circuit concluded that the federal constitutional questions may be substantially altered by controlling state law. Thus, the Second Circuit submitted a certification of questions of state law to the New York Court of Appeals. Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2003). The New York Court of Appeals answered the questions, finding that a child's exposure to domestic violence against their caretaker is insufficient to constitute neglect under New York state law. Nicholson v. Scopetta, 820 N.E.2d 840 (N.Y. 2004). Thus, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court. Nicholson v. Scopetta, 116 F. App'x 313 (2d Cir. 2004). Meanwhile, the District Court had extended the preliminary injunction until October 2004.

In December 2004, the Court found that ACS had substantially complied with the terms of the preliminary injunction and the City stated its intention to comply with the New York Court of Appeals decision. Thus, the parties settled by stipulation to terminate the preliminary injunction on December 31, 2004, and that the case would be dismissed with prejudice in September 2005 unless the plaintiffs moved to restore the case before that time. The plaintiffs did not move to restore the case, and the Second Circuit dismissed as moot any remaining appeals. After months of negotiations, the court settled the matter of attorneys' fees in March 2007.

Elizabeth Homan - 12/20/2012

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Benefit Source
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Preliminary relief granted
Remedial education
Sex discrimination
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Classification / placement
Emergency shelter
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
Family abuse and neglect
Family reunification
Grievance Procedures
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Pattern or Practice
Placement in shelters
Quality of representation
Relative caretakers
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Timeliness of case assignment
Youth / Adult separation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.
Adoption Assistance Program, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) New York
New York City
New York City Administration of Children's Services
Plaintiff Description Subclass A is all persons subject to domestic violence or its threat who are custodians of children if the children were not themselves physically harmed and if the children are sought to be removed by New York Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Subclass B is all children in the custody of a custodian in Subclass A who have been removed or are likely to be removed by ACS and has not been returned to the custodian.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Legal Services/Legal Aid
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2001 - 2004
Filing Year 2000
Case Closing Year 2007
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Legal Accountability in the Service-Based Welfare State: Lessons from Child Welfare Reform
Date: Summer 2009
By: Kathleen G. Noonan, Charles F. Sabel, William H. Simon (Center for High Impact Philanthropy , Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School Faculty)
Citation: 34 Law & Soc. Inquiry 523 (Summer 2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

00-CV-05155 (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/20/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
00-CV-06885 (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-9002.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/20/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
1:00-cv-02229 (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/18/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum and Order (205 F.R.D. 92) (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/16/2001
Source: Westlaw
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (2001 WL 1338834) (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0015.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/25/2001
Source: Westlaw
Amended Memorandum, Order and Preliminary Injunction (181 F.Supp.2d 182) (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/03/2002
Source: Westlaw
Order (203 F.Supp.2d 153) (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/18/2002
Source: Westlaw
Opinion (344 F.3d 154)
CW-NY-0003-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/16/2003
Source: Westlaw
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 482] (294 F.Supp.2d 369) (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/09/2003
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 527] (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/14/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (2004 WL 1304055) (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0014.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/14/2004
Source: Westlaw
CW-NY-0003-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/26/2004
Source: Westlaw
Amended Summary Order (116 Fed.Appx. 313)
CW-NY-0003-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/30/2004
Source: Westlaw
Stipulation and Order of Settlement [ECF# 578] (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/16/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation & Order of Settlement [ECF# 574]
CW-NY-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/17/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Judgment on Attorneys' Fees [ECF# 680] (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/16/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Katzmann, Robert A. (Second Circuit)
CW-NY-0003-0011 | CW-NY-0003-0013
Kaye, Judith (State Appellate Court)
Oakes, James Lowell (D. Vt., Second Circuit)
Pollak, Cheryl L. (E.D.N.Y.) [Magistrate]
Sharpe, Gary L. (N.D.N.Y.) [Magistrate]
Walker, John Mercer Jr. (S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit)
Weinstein, Jack Bertrand (E.D.N.Y.)
CW-NY-0003-0002 | CW-NY-0003-0003 | CW-NY-0003-0004 | CW-NY-0003-0006 | CW-NY-0003-0007 | CW-NY-0003-0009 | CW-NY-0003-0014 | CW-NY-0003-0015 | CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001
Plaintiff's Lawyers Banks, Steven (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-0002
Brauner, Lisa M. (New York)
Drinane, Monica (New York)
CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Freedman, Karen J. (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Goldstein, Barrie L. (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-0002
Greenberg, Daniel L. (New York)
Gutheil, Karen Fisher (New York)
Kubitschek, Carolyn A. (New York)
CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Lansner, David J. (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-0002 | CW-NY-0003-9000
Levi, Benjamin (District of Columbia)
Sirotkin, Joanne Nancy (New York)
Walker, Bryce K. (New York)
Weddle, Christopher S. (New York)
Zuccardy, Jill M. (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-0002 | CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Defendant's Lawyers Aronson, Paul (New York)
Bristow, William (New York)
Calhoun, Martha Anne (New York)
CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Cardozo, Michael A. (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-0002
Esposito, Frank Michael (New York)
Kerby, Shawn (New York)
Pines, Jonathan (New York)
CW-NY-0003-0001 | CW-NY-0003-0002 | CW-NY-0003-9000
Wolpert, Carolyn Michelle (New York)
CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Other Lawyers Aldrich, Liberty (New York)
CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002
Goldscheid, Julie (New York)
CW-NY-0003-9000 | CW-NY-0003-9001 | CW-NY-0003-9002

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -