New York Family Law Blog
Parents generally have a constitutional right to the care and custody of their children. At the same time, child welfare agencies have a responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect. When government officials remove a child from a parent’s custody without a court order, courts must determine whether the removal was justified by an emergency or whether it violated constitutional protections. In K.W. v. The City of New York, No. 24-3042-cv (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered claims arising from the removal of a newborn child from his father’s custody shortly after birth. The court concluded that several constitutional claims brought on behalf of the child should proceed.
Background Facts
K.A. was born in March 2017 at Bronx Lebanon Hospital in New York City. According to the complaint, he lived with his father, K.W., during the first days of his life.
Five days after K.A.’s birth, Amar Moody, an employee of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), visited K.W.’s home to conduct a welfare check. The complaint alleged that ACS’s concerns stemmed primarily from allegations involving K.A.’s mother and her treatment of other children from different fathers.
When K.A. was six days old, ACS removed him from K.W.’s custody without first obtaining a court order. The plaintiffs alleged that there was no emergency requiring immediate removal and that K.W. was capable of caring for his son.
After the removal, child welfare officials sought and obtained a Family Court order. According to the complaint, that order was obtained through omissions and false statements that failed to properly account for K.W.’s role as K.A.’s father. As a result, K.W. was granted only limited visitation and did not regain custody of his son for nearly three years.
K.W. filed suit on behalf of himself and K.A. against the City of New York, ACS employee Amar Moody, the Children’s Aid Society, and Children’s Aid Society caseworker Brian Gomez. The district court dismissed all claims. K.W. appealed.
Issue
Did government officials violate K.A.’s constitutional rights when they removed him from his father’s custody without a court order and then obtained a Family Court order that allegedly relied on false or incomplete information?
Holding
Yes, in part. The Second Circuit held that the complaint adequately stated claims on behalf of K.A. for unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and for violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also held that qualified immunity did not shield ACS employee Amar Moody at this stage of the case. However, the court agreed that K.W.’s procedural due process claim should be dismissed and that all claims against the Children’s Aid Society and Brian Gomez should be dismissed.
Rationale
The Second Circuit emphasized that the case was before the court on a motion to dismiss. At that stage, the court was required to assume that the factual allegations in the complaint were true.
Based on those allegations, the court concluded that K.A. had adequately alleged an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The complaint claimed that ACS removed the infant from his father’s custody without a court order and without circumstances requiring immediate action. If those allegations proved true, the removal could constitute an unreasonable seizure.
The court also concluded that K.A. adequately alleged a violation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the complaint, officials later obtained a Family Court order by omitting important information and making false statements. The complaint further alleged that those actions resulted in K.A. remaining separated from his father for an extended period. The court determined that these allegations were sufficient to allow the due process claim to proceed.
The Second Circuit also rejected Moody’s claim of qualified immunity at this early stage of the litigation. The court concluded that, accepting the allegations as true, Moody was not entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity before further factual development.
The court reached a different conclusion regarding K.W.’s own procedural due process claim. While the child could pursue his constitutional claims, the court agreed with the district court that K.W. had not adequately stated a procedural due process claim on his own behalf.
The court also affirmed dismissal of all claims against the Children’s Aid Society and Brian Gomez. The opinion concluded that the allegations were insufficient to establish liability against those defendants.
As a result, only K.A.’s Fourth Amendment and procedural due process claims against the City defendants were reinstated.
Conclusion
The decision highlights the constitutional limits on emergency child removals and underscores that child welfare agencies may face liability when children are removed without sufficient legal justification or when court orders are allegedly obtained through misleading information.
If your family has been affected by the actions of child welfare authorities or government officials, contact an experienced New York civil rights lawyer. An attorney can evaluate whether constitutional rights were violated and help pursue available legal remedies.