Phillips v. Hennepin County Human Services Children Services

Background

In October 2019, Hennepin County opened a child-protection investigation based on information from Lorain County Child Services in Ohio. Hennepin County then filed a Minnesota state-court petition seeking to terminate Lametra Phillips’s parental rights to her child, LXR, and filed an emergency-care motion.

A Minnesota state judge granted emergency protective care, finding a preliminary showing that the child’s health, safety, or welfare was endangered. The state court ordered the child into protective care and out-of-home placement. Phillips objected and argued that the county had not met its burden and had violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The state court overruled her objections and stated that the factual allegations could be challenged in a later trial.

Federal Claims and Motions

Phillips filed this federal lawsuit alleging that Hennepin County violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it removed LXR from her home. She alleged that the county improperly relied on information from Lorain County, that the warrant lacked probable cause, that the warrant listed an incorrect apartment number, and that officers caused bodily harm to her and her child. She sought weekly payments of $520,000 for pain and suffering.

Phillips also moved to amend her complaint and to remove the pending state child-protection proceeding to federal court. Hennepin County moved to dismiss the federal complaint.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

A magistrate judge recommended granting the county’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denying Phillips’s motion to amend, and denying her motion to change venue. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a type of case. The recommendation also relied on the abstention doctrine, including the rule from Younger v. Harris, which can limit federal-court involvement in certain ongoing state proceedings.

Because Phillips’s objections did not specifically address the recommendation’s analysis, Judge Wright reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full independent review of the objected-to issues. The court concluded that the recommendation was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and adopted it in its entirety.

Disposition

The court overruled Phillips’s objections and adopted the June 8, 2020 Report and Recommendation. It granted Hennepin County Human Services Children Services’ motion to dismiss, dismissed Phillips’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied her motion to amend the complaint, and denied her motion to change venue. The order did not decide whether Phillips’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment allegations were substantively correct.