M., et al v. Carcieri, et al

Filing 920100618

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'The Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the\
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The complaint initially named ten children as Plaintiffs. \
However, three of the children were subsequently adopted and\
therefore, they are not currently under DCYF custody. The district\
court concluded that the children\'s adoption rendered their claims\
moot and Plaintiffs have not challenged this conclusion on appeal. \
After the district court rendered its opinion, Plaintiff Deanna H.\
was adopted and thus her claims are also moot. The remaining named\
Plaintiffs, who are identified by pseudonyms to protect their\
identities, are Sam and Tony M, David T., Danny and Michael M., and\
Caesar S.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Defendants do not challenge the Child Advocate\'s statutory\
authority to initiate the present suit on the children\'s behalf.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'Among others, the Child Advocate has the power to recommend\
changes in the child welfare system and to "take all possible\
action including, but not limited to programs of public education,\
legislative advocacy, and formal legal action, to secure and ensure\
the legal, civil, and special rights of children" that are under\
DCYF custody. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-73-7.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 7, 2007.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'Although Defendants claim the proposed Next Friends lack\
standing to sue, we are not here concerned with whether the\
proposed Next Friends have suffered an injury within the context of\
an Article III case or controversy. From the face of the complaint\
it is clear that the children are the real party in interest and\
their standing to sue has not been challenged in this case. Morgan\
v. Potter, 157 U.S. 195, 198 (1895) (explaining that a Next Friend\
is "neither technically nor substantially the party, but resembles\
an attorney, or a guardian ad litem, by whom a suit is brought or\
defended in behalf of another"). We therefore construe Defendants\'\
claims as challenging the proposed Next Friend\'s capacity to sue on\
behalf of the children. See Gardner by Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d\
131, 137 n.9 (3d Cir. 1989) (explaining that Article III standing\
is not implicated when an individual claims "capacity to sue as\
representative of an incompetent" pursuant to Rule 17(c)).\
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'In their complaint, Plaintiffs claim they have suffered great\
harms while in DCYF custody due to the DCYF\'s negligence and\
failure to provide them with safe and permanent placements. We,\
however, do not advance any criteria regarding the merits of\
Plaintiffs\' claims.\
'

var WPFootnote8 = 'Under Rhode Island law, "[a]ny child who is alleged to be abused\
or neglected as a subject of a petition filed in family court,\
. . . shall have a guardian ad litem and/or a court-appointed\
special advocate (CASA) appointed by the Court to represent th[e]\
child, all in the discretion of the court." R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-11-14. "The Office of the Court Appointed Special Advocate is an\
arm of the Rhode Island Family Court. It consists of several\
attorneys who are knowledgeable in juvenile law, social workers and\
volunteers from the community." 03-011-001 R.I. Code R. (2009).\
'

var WPFootnote9 = 'An amicus brief filed by the National Association of Counsel for\
Children ("NACC") in conjunction with other nonprofit and public\
interest organizations, explains that Rhode Island\'s regulations\
regarding family court guardians ad litem or CASA attorneys are\
consistent with national standards of practice that limit the\
attorneys\' authority and responsibilities to child welfare and\
dependency matters brought before the court in which the attorney\
is appointed.\
'

var WPFootnote10 = 'The amicus brief filed by the NACC explains that in many\
instances, guardians ad litem or CASA attorneys may be unable to\
represent the children in federal court due to large caseloads. \
For example, a report issued by the Rhode Island Family Court\
reveals that CASA attorneys on average manage 400 cases. NACC\'s\
Amicus Br. at 21 citing, Jeremiah S. Jeremiah, Jr., Chief Judge,\
Judiciary of Rhode Island, Family Court: Overview of its\
Departments and Functions (2006), http://www.courts.state.ri.\
us/family/overview.htm.\
'

var WPFootnote11 = 'The district court stated that the guardians ad litem were the\
children\'s duly appointed representatives. However, it never\
clarified whether it considered the guardians ad litem to be the\
children\'s "general guardian, committee, conservator or like\
fiduciary." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1). To the extent that the\
district court found the guardians ad litem were the children\'s\
"dully appointed representatives," we assume that the court\
considered, without stating so, that the guardians met the\
requirements of a Rule 17(c)(1) representative.\
'

var WPFootnote12 = 'We recognize that in the exercise of its discretion to appoint\
a Next Friend under Rule 17(c)(2), a federal court may find that a\
state-appointed guardian ad litem may serve as a minor\'s duly\
appointed Rule 17(c) representative if the guardian petitions the\
federal court to represent the child and the court finds the\
guardian is an appropriate Next Friend. See M.K. through Hall v.\
Harter, 716 F. Supp. 1333, 1335 (E.D. Cal. 1989) (finding that a\
state-appointed guardian ad litem could serve as a minor\'s Rule\
17(c) representative); see also Susan R.M. by Charles L.M. v. Ne.\
Indep. Sch. Dist., 818 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that where\
state law vests authority on a state-appointed managing conservator\
to bring actions on behalf of a minor, the conservator could bring\
a federal suit as the infant\'s representative, thereby depriving\
the infant\'s father of "standing" to pursue a federal suit as Next\
Friend). In the present suit, however, the state-appointed\
guardians ad litem have not requested appointment as Next Friends.\
'

var WPFootnote13 = 'Because Plaintiffs sued Defendants for the DCYF\'s alleged abuse\
of its trust and fiduciary duties as the children\'s legal\
custodian, we cannot sanction Defendants\' attempt to oppose a Next\
Friend appointment and deflect a suit filed against them on the\
basis of a general assertion that the children may have other\
relatives who could represent them or who should be consulted. \
Given that Defendants effectively control the children\'s lives as\
the children\'s legal custodian, we think they are ideally suited to\
show that the children have relatives who could serve as the\
children\'s representatives. They have failed to do so.\
'

var WPFootnote14 = 'Plaintiffs Caesar, David, Danny, and Michael, are under the\
DCYF\'s legal guardianship. Because the children\'s parents or\
natural guardians are unavailable, it is reasonable to conclude\
that the children lack general guardians or representatives to\
pursue the present suit against their legal guardian. While it\
appears that Sam and Tony M.\'s mother still enjoys her parental\
rights, the boys are candidates for adoption and there is no\
indication in the record that after losing custody of the boys in\
1999, the mother is available to represent the children.\
'

var WPFootnote15 = 'Dr. Elliot also petitioned to sue as Next Friend for Deanna. \
The record shows that Deanna was adopted and therefore the suit\
became moot as to her.\
'

var WPFootnote16 = 'Because we find that the district court abused its discretion\
in declining to appoint the proposed Next Friends to represent\
Plaintiffs, we need not address the propriety of the court\'s\
decision to dismiss the complaint without appointing other Next\
Friends. See Adelman on Behalf of Adelman v. Graves, 747 F.2d 986,\
989 (5th Cir. 1984)(reversing the district court\'s dismissal of\
complaint filed on behalf of an incompetent and holding that the\
district court improperly dismissed the case without first\
determining whether the incompetent\'s interests were adequately\
represented); Gardner, 874 F.2d at 140 (holding that the district\
court, after finding that the proposed Next Friends were\
inadequate, "should have appointed a next friend or at the least\
held a hearing to determine whether a next friend should be\
appointed").\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "