Sandoval v. Abbott House

Background

Melissa M. Sandoval sued foster agency Abbott House while representing herself. She brought claims on her own behalf and on behalf of her three minor children, alleging that the children suffered injuries while in Abbott House’s care. The court arranged for pro bono counsel for the children, and that counsel promptly dismissed the children’s claims. Sandoval’s own claim was the only claim remaining.

Abbott House filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Sandoval did not file an opposition, even after the court extended her deadline twice. The court nevertheless considered the motion on its merits.

Additional filings and claims

Because Sandoval was representing herself and her complaint contained little detail, the court considered additional facts in some of her later filings when those facts were consistent with the complaint. It did not treat those filings as adding new defendants or new legal claims. The court declined to consider allegations about discrimination and changes to visitation or custody because those allegations were not included in the complaint and could not be derived from its original facts. The court also found that the filings were too unclear to treat as a request to amend the complaint at that stage.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The court rejected Abbott House’s argument that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the legal power to hear the case. Although Sandoval’s allegations did not clearly identify a federal law, the court read her pro se complaint liberally and discerned a possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her own substantive due process rights. The court explained that the Second Circuit had not resolved whether a parent of a child harmed in foster care can bring an independent claim. Because Sandoval’s possible claim was not completely foreclosed by controlling precedent, the court held that it had federal-question jurisdiction.

Failure to state a claim

The court then analyzed the motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally recognized claim. For a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must allege a valid liberty or property interest and an arbitrary or irrational infringement of that interest.

The court recognized that parents have a constitutional liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children. But it held that, when children are placed in foster care, a parent’s remaining constitutional interest generally concerns preventing an irreparable break in the parent-child relationship. The court declined to recognize a claim based only on alleged misconduct involving the children’s day-to-day care and welfare, unless the conduct was specifically directed at interfering with the parent-child relationship.

Sandoval alleged that Abbott House had the children wear hand-me-down clothing during visits instead of clothing she purchased. The court said this allegation could possibly be understood as conduct directed at the parent-child relationship, but it was not sufficiently extreme to violate substantive due process because it was not conduct that shocked the conscience or offended human dignity. The court further held that the allegations about the children’s physical and mental injuries did not show that Abbott House’s conduct was aimed at interfering with Sandoval’s relationship with the children.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Sandoval leave to amend by June 6, 2025. The order did not state that the motion to dismiss itself was granted or denied; it stated that the complaint was dismissed. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 32.