D55 Fifth Amended Complaint

Case 2:21-cv-07858-PA-JC Document 55 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:977
FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
1 MARISSA HERNANDEZ
2 1248 Oliva Ct. June 9, 2023
3 Duarte, CA. 91010
4 (626) 407-1773 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KH
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY
5 PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 MARISSA HERNANDEZ, and individual, Case No: 2:21-cv-07858-PA (JC)
11 [PROPOSED] FIFTH AMENDED
PLAINTIFF
12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
v.
13 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First &
14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public Fourteenth Amendments
15 entity; MICHAEL LY, an individual; S. Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1
16 THOMPSON, an individual; JOSEPH Pendent Tort Claims
17 SANTOYO, an individual; ANNABEL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
18 MARTINEZ-NAVARRO, an individual;
19 GRISELDA SUBIAS, an individual;
20 GUADALUPE GARIBAY, an individual;
21 MARIA BORROTO, an individual; LORI
22 HIROTA, an individual; and DOES 1 – 10,
23 inclusive;
24 DEFENDANTS
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
Marissa Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, et al. Case No: 2:21-cv-07858-PA (JC)
PG. 1
[PROPOSED] FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
PLAINTIFF, RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
3
INTRODUCTION
4
5
1. Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, arising
from acrimonious juvenile dependency proceedings, Marissa Hernandez lost
6
custody of her minors, J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. (collectively “the children”). In this
7
subsequent civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Marissa sues the
8
County of Los Angeles, and employees of its respective Department of Children and
9
Family Services ("DCFS"). Defendants’ Michael Ly, Griselda Subias, Guadalupe
10
Garibay, S. Thompson, Annabel Martinez-Navarro, Lori Hirota, Joseph Santoyo,
11
and Maria Borroto (collectively “Defendant Social Workers”), ignored Federal, state
12
and county laws, county policies, and procedures, individually and by way of
13
conspiracy with each other defendants maliciously – lied, falsified evidence, and
14
suppressed exculpatory evidence — all of which was material to the dependency
15
court's decision to deprive Marissa of custody.
16
17
2. This action seeks compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants for
violating various rights under the United States Constitution and state law in
18
connection with the unjustified, grossly excessive, and thereby, entirely
19
unreasonable, detention and continued detention of Plaintiff’s children, J.H., I.H.,
20
and J.N.H.
21
JURISDICTION & VENUE
22
23
3. Title 28 of the United States Code, §§ 1331 and 1343 confers jurisdiction
upon this Court. The acts, omission, claims, and cause of actions by Defendants
24
complained of herein occurred in the County of Los Angeles, and it is believed that
25
all parties resided in the County of Los Angeles within the Central District of
26
California at the time of the occurrences herein. This Court also has supplemental
27
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
28
PG. 2
1 4. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because

2 Defendants are believed to reside in this district and all incidents, events, and
3 occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in this district.
4 5. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar jurisdiction.
5 PARTIES
6 6. Plaintiff, MARISSA HERNANDEZ, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) has been,
7 and is, a resident of the state of California, in the county of Los Angeles, and is a
8 United States Citizen.
9 7. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter “COLA”) is an
10 incorporated public entity duly authorized and existing as such in and under the laws
11 of the State of California; and at all times herein mentioned, COLA has possessed
12 the power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations and
13 practices affecting the operation of the Los Angeles County Department of Children
14 and Family Services (“DCFS”) and its tactics, methods, practices, customs, and
15 usage. At all relevant times, COLA was the employer of Defendants Ly, Subias,
16 Garibay, Thompson, Martinez-Navarro, Hirota, Santoyo, and Borroto, and DOES 1-
17 10, individually and as employees of COLA.
18 8. Defendant MICHAEL LY (hereinafter “Defendant Ly”), whose acts as
19 alleged herein were performed under the color of state law, was at all times material
20 hereto, a children’s social worker for DCFS and is sued in his individual capacity as
21 an employee of COLA.
22 9. Defendant GRISELDA SUBIAS (hereinafter “Defendant Subias”), whose
23 acts as alleged herein were performed under the color of state law, was at all times
24 material hereto, a supervising children’s social worker for DCFS and is sued in her
25 individual capacity as an employee of COLA.
26 10. Defendant GUADALUPE GARIBAY (hereinafter “Defendant Garibay”),
27 whose acts as alleged herein were performed under the color of state law, was at all
28 times material hereto, a supervising children’s social worker for DCFS and is sued
PG. 3
1 in her individual capacity as an employee of COLA.

2 11. Defendant S. THOMPSON (hereinafter “Defendant Thompson”), whose
4 material hereto, a children’s social worker (IDC CSW III) for DCFS and is sued in
5 his/her individual capacity as an employee of COLA. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true
6 name of Defendant Thompson. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege said
7 Defendant’s true name when that information becomes known to Plaintiff.
8 12. Defendant ANNABEL MARTINEZ-NAVARRO (hereinafter “Defendant
9 Martinez-Navarro”), whose acts as alleged herein were performed under the color
10 of state law, was at all times material hereto, a children’s social worker for DCFS
11 and is sued in her individual capacity as an employee of COLA.
12 13. Defendant LORI HIROTA (hereinafter “Defendant Hirota”), whose acts as
13 alleged herein were performed under the color of state law, was at all times material
14 hereto, a supervising children’s social worker for DCFS and is sued in her individual
15 capacity as an employee of COLA.
16 14. Defendant JOSEPH SANTOYO (hereinafter “Defendant Santoyo”), whose
18 material hereto, a children’s social worker for DCFS and is sued in his individual
19 capacity as an employee of COLA.
20 15. Defendant MARIA BORROTO (hereinafter “Defendant Borroto”), whose
22 material hereto, a supervising children’s social worker for DCFS and is sued in her
23 individual capacity as an employee of COLA.
24 16. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants
25 named herein as DOES 1 through 5, inclusive. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint
26 to allege said Defendants true names and capacities when that information becomes
27 known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DOES
28 1 through 5, inclusive, are legally responsible and liable for the incident, injuries,
PG. 4
1 and damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said Defendants proximately
2 caused the injuries and damages by reason of negligent, careless, deliberately
3 indifferent, intentional, or willful misconduct, including the negligent, careless,
4 deliberately indifferent, intentional, willful misconduct in creating and otherwise
5 causing the incidents, conditions, and circumstances hereinafter set forth, or by
6 reason of direct or imputed negligence or vicarious fault or breach of duty arising
7 out of the matters herein alleged. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to set
8 forth said true names and identities of DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, when they have
9 been ascertained.
10 17. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendant DOES 6
11 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names.
12 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant so named
13 was employed by COLA at the time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff alleges
14 that each of Defendant DOES 6 through 10 were responsible for the training,
15 supervision and/or conduct of the social workers and/or agents involved in the
16 conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff alleges that each of Defendant DOES 6 through 10
17 were also responsible for and caused the acts and injuries alleged herein. Plaintiff
18 will amend this Complaint to state the names and capacities of DOES 6 through 10,
19 inclusive, when they have been ascertained.
20 A. Administrative Prerequisites
21 18. Plaintiff is required to comply with an administrative tort claim requirement
22 under California law. Plaintiff emailed a claim against COLA that was confirmed as
23 received by the Los Angeles County First District on July 2, 2021. The County did
24 not respond to the claim. By not responding, on August 16, 2021, COLA effectively
25 rejected Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies
26 pursuant to California Government Code Section 910.
27 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
28 19. COLA is a public entity and is being sued under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
PG. 5
1 violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,
2 California state law, the California Tort Claims Act, and the Government Code for
3 the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, who at the time they caused
4 Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were duly appointed, qualified, and acting officers,
5 social workers, employees, and/or agents of COLA and acting within the course and
6 scope of their employment and/or agency.
7 20. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful conduct
8 and resulting harm by, inter alia, personally participating in the conduct, or acting
9 jointly and in concert with others who did so, by authorizing, acquiescing,
10 condoning, acting, setting in motion, or omitting or failing to take action to prevent
11 the unlawful conduct, by promulgating or failing to promulgate policies and
12 procedures pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred, by failing and refusing
13 to initiate and maintain proper and adequate policies, procedures and protocols, and
14 by ratifying and condoning the unlawful conduct performed by agents, officers,
15 deputies, medical providers, private citizens, and/or employees under their direction
16 and control.
17 21. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by
18 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, such allegations and references shall also be
19 deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each DOE Defendant individually,
20 jointly, or severally.
21 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
22 22. Plaintiff, Marissa Hernandez, is the mother and lawful custodian of three
23 minor children: “J.H.” (D.O.B.: 02-2012, age 9 at the time of the removal), “I.H.”
24 (D.O.B.: 05-2013, age 8 at the time of the removal), and “J.N.H.” (D.O.B.: 10-2016,
25 age 4 at the time of the removal). The father of these three children is Salvador
26 Hernandez (“Salvador”), but Plaintiff has had sole physical and legal custody since
27 2016.
28 23. Plaintiff and the children are protected from Salvador by a restraining order
PG. 6
1 issued on October 14, 2020, and effective until October 14, 2025. (This was a
2 subsequential order to the temporary order granted on September 21, 2020).
3 24. Prior to the removal of the children by defendants, Plaintiff raised, nurtured,
4 provided guidance, education and athletic opportunities, and cared for the children,
5 and both Plaintiff and the children enjoyed the company, companionship, and
6 society of each other, all other benefits and obligations of their rights of familial
7 association with each other.
8 A. DCFS Referral
9 25. On June 2, 2021, Defendant Ly, an emergency response social worker for
10 DCFS, responded to an expedited referral to a child abuse hotline report alleging
11 that the child, J.H., was left alone in a private office leased by Plaintiff. The referral
12 also alleged that J.H.’s siblings were “at risk” of the same “general neglect.”
13 26. J.H. was brought to the West Covina Police Department (“WCPD”) at some
14 time in the morning as a result of the allegations.
15 27. At WCPD station that day, Defendant social worker Ly interviewed various
16 police officers, as well as J.H., Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s mother (J.H.’s maternal
17 grandmother, or “MGM”).
18 B. Ly’s Investigation
19 28. In Ly’s interview with J.H., the child explained that he had told Samuel
20 Nicholas (“Sam”, Plaintiff’s friend) he wanted to go to the office because his sisters
21 were screaming, so Sam brought him there. When asked what he would do if he
22 needed help, J.H. stated that the office had cameras that his mother watched, and he
23 also had a tablet he could use to call his mother. J.H. said that before this, he had
24 only been left alone for ten or twenty minutes while his mother picked up food or
25 something like that.
26 29. Ly inquired about drug or alcohol use in the household and J.H. stated that
27 there was none. J.H. also disclosed that his father, Salvador, had hit him in the past,
28 but they did not live together anymore. The last time his father hit him was around
PG. 7
1 Plaintiff's birthday on September 19, 2020.

2 30. During the interview with MGM, she explained that Plaintiff was
3 experiencing homelessness as a result of the domestic violence, so MGM had the
4 girls (I.H. and J.N.H.) most of the time; I.H. resided with her and J.N.H. was with
5 her mostly, but because of her transitional kindergarten program, she was with
6 Plaintiff too. J.H. stayed with Plaintiff because he was very attached to her. MGM
7 stated if anything happened, she was willing to take in all of the children. MGM's
8 statements to Ly supported the similar details provided by J.H. and Plaintiff during
9 the investigation.
10 31. Plaintiff informed Ly that she was unaware that J.H. was alone in her office
11 overnight. Sam was supposed to be with J.H. in the office but was called into work.
12 Plaintiff had gone to bed early feeling lightheaded, and Sam thought she was going
13 back to the office.
14 32. Plaintiff told Ly that in August 2020, she lost consciousness which caused
15 her to fall and left her with three stitches above her eye. She explained that at that
16 present time, she had been experiencing fainting spells due to her syncope condition
17 but had not had the time or money to see a doctor.
18 33. Ly asked if Plaintiff was willing to submit to a drug test that day, and
19 Plaintiff said she would.
20 34. In addition to the incident with J.H., Defendant social worker Ly’s
21 investigation also concerned an incident the previous evening (the early morning of
22 June 1st) in which Plaintiff’s eight-year-old daughter, I.H., had been left at home
23 unattended for about forty-five minutes to an hour and was found outside the
24 building while looking for her mother after having woken up to realize that her
25 mother was not there.
26 35. Regarding that incident, Plaintiff told Ly she had gone to the hospital with
27 her (four-year-old) daughter J.N.H. and had left her other daughter I.H. asleep at
28 home. She was still on her way to the hospital to be dropped off by Sam when she
PG. 8
1 received a call from law enforcement instructing her to return.

2 36. When asked about domestic violence between her and the children’s father,
3 Salvador, Plaintiff told defendant Ly she had made a police report about the last
4 incident of abuse, the previous September, when Salvador choked her and physically
5 harmed J.H., and she obtained a restraining order against him the next business day.
6 37. Plaintiff explained to Ly that she had not wanted to be around Salvador at
7 that time, but he had forced his way back into her life in April 2020 after following
8 her across the state and threatening her life, and the pandemic limited her resources.
9 Plaintiff said she left after the choking incident the previous September (2020) and
10 had not seen Salvador since.
11 38. Ly expressed concerns about Plaintiff's ability to care for her children, and
12 Plaintiff shared that she was already discussing with MGM to take care of the
13 children for a few months to enable her to get back on her feet. When asked if she
14 would agree to a "Safety Plan" outlining the arrangement between her and MGM,
15 Plaintiff agreed and signed the plan.
16 C. Retaliation and Warrantless Seizure
17 39. After Plaintiff signed the Safety Plan, Ly requested that Plaintiff sign
18 authorization forms to release the children's school and medical records. However,
19 Plaintiff declined, citing her lack of trust in the Department (DCFS) based on her
20 past experience. She reiterated that she agreed to comply with the investigation only
21 insofar as it related to the incidents with J.H. and I.H. on June 1st-2nd and that the
22 arrangement with MGM was made before she knew about the investigation.
23 40. In response, Ly informed Plaintiff that he would need to consult with his
24 supervisor, believed to be Defendant Subias and/or Defendant Garibay, to ensure
25 that the Safety Plan was sufficient. Ly dismissed Plaintiff from the interview while
26 knowing that WCPD police officers intended to arrest her.
27 41. The Safety Plan did not limit Plaintiff's contact with her children.
28 42. Following the interview, WCPD police officers arrested Plaintiff on felony
PG. 9
1 charges of child endangerment under CA PEN 273a(a). However, the District

2 Attorney's office later rejected the charge. Plaintiff was released on bond in the early
3 morning of June 3, 2021.
4 43. J.H. was released to MGM by the officers after detaining Plaintiff.
5 44. After Plaintiff's arrest, Ly went to MGM's home to conduct an inspection
6 of the conditions where the children would be residing. During the inspection, Ly
7 instructed MGM to restrict all access of Plaintiff to her children until he said so.
8 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Subias
9 and/or Defendant Garibay and/or DOES 1-5 encouraged, directed, ratified, and/or
10 set in motion, Ly's actions of going to MGM's home on June 2, 2021, and instructing
11 MGM to deprive Plaintiff of her children's care, custody, and control in the absence
12 of a warrant, court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent.
13 D. Fraudulent Warrant
14 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at some point
15 over the following week, June 2-8, 2021, and without first informing Plaintiff, Ly,
16 Subias, Garibay, and/or DOES 1-5 began preparing an “Application and Declaration
17 for Protective Custody Warrant” (“Warrant Application” or “Ly’s Application”) to
18 initiate dependency proceedings for the removal of the children from their home
19 while knowing the children were already residing with MGM.
20 47. On June 8, 2021, on behalf of DCFS, Defendant Ly signed and filed a
21 protective custody warrant application and declaration, under penalty of perjury,
22 seeking authorization to remove Plaintiff’s children, pursuant to section 340(b) of
23 California’s Welfare and Institution Code, and for entry into Plaintiff’s home.
24 48. Ly’s Application falsely claimed that the children were in substantial
25 danger of physical abuse, that their physical environment posed a substantial threat
26 to their health and safety, and that no reasonable means by which the children could
27 be protected without temporary removal from the physical custody of Plaintiff and
28 Salvador.
PG. 10
1 49. The front page of Ly’s sixteen-page declaration listed seven “Summary
2 Concerns,” including that Plaintiff had left I.H. home alone; she had left J.H.
3 “unattended at a place of business overnight with inappropriate plans for the child’s
4 supervision”; J.H. had “sustained a scratch from a screwdriver while left
5 unsupervised by [Plaintiff]”; Plaintiff had left the children unattended overnight
6 without supervision at “a place of business” on “at least 2 other occasions”; and
7 during their interviews, the children “reported witnessing domestic violence
8 including the father, Salvador Hernandez[,] choking the mother, [Plaintiff].” Ly
9 concluded the declaration by falsely stating:
10 a. “[Plaintiff’s] and father’s abusive domestic violence and physical abuse
11 and leaving the children unattended for regular periods overnight at a
12 business complex, endangers the physical and emotional well-being of
13 the children such that the children are at risk of suffering emotional or
14 physical harm. As such, the children need to be removed from the
15 mother, [Plaintiff], and the father, Salvador Hernandez, and placed into
16 protective custody in order to ensure the children’s safety and to protect
17 the child from the endangering or detrimental conduct of the father and
18 the mother.”
19 50. Defendant Ly obtained a Protective Custody Warrant Removal Order to
20 remove Plaintiff’s children by filing a sworn affidavit rife with factual inaccuracies,
21 deliberate misrepresentations, unsupported assumptions, and material omissions. In
22 drafting his sworn affidavit in support of his application for a Protective Custody
23 Warrant, Defendant Ly knowingly and intentionally included false information. In
24 addition, he intentionally and knowingly omitted material exculpatory information
25 from the affidavit. Defendant Ly presented an incomplete narrative to the court
26 regarding the basis for a Protective Custody Warrant.
27 51. First, Defendant Ly knowingly provided false information in his application
28 by inaccurately implying that domestic violence was ongoing and likely to continue
PG. 11
1 and suggesting that Plaintiff had violated the Safety Plan. Ly falsely claimed he
2 requested entry into the home because he believed the children would be found in
3 the home of Plaintiff and Salvador, despite knowing they were already residing with
4 MGM. His misrepresentations deliberately misled the court about the children's
5 actual living conditions.
6 a. Ly falsely stated that the children should be "detained from their
7 mother" and "father," and referred to the "continuance in the home of
8 the parent(s) and/or legal guardian," which falsely indicated that the
9 children still resided with their father and Plaintiff on June 8, 2021, and
10 that domestic violence was ongoing or likely to continue (a necessary
11 element to support a domestic violence claim for removal).
12 b. Ly had no valid reason to include Salvador in the matter, as all
13 witnesses confirmed that Plaintiff and her family had been hiding from
14 Salvador since September 2020, which contributed to the family's
15 hardship on June 1, 2021. Ly was aware that Salvador's rights over the
16 children were terminated in 2016 and that Plaintiff had a restraining
17 order protecting herself and the children from Salvador.
18 52. Second, Ly's Application falsely claimed that the children resided with
19 Plaintiff on June 8, 2021, that there was “probable cause to believe” they faced
20 substantial danger in Plaintiff's home, that no other reasonable means were available
21 to protect the children except removal, and that DCFS had “made reasonable efforts
22 to prevent removal.”
23 a. These assertions were misleading, as Ly knew that the children were
24 already residing with MGM, in line with the Safety Plan signed on June
25 2, 2021. By falsely stating that the children would be found in Plaintiff's
26 home on June 8, 2021, rather than MGM's home, Ly intentionally
27 misled the court into believing that the children had returned to
28 Plaintiff's home and faced the risk of being left alone once again. Ly
PG. 12
1 knew that Plaintiff complied with the Safety Plan.

2 b. Ly also knew that the circumstances leading to the investigation were
3 due to Plaintiff's medical emergency, connected to her Syncope
4 condition, and her plans for MGM to temporarily care for the children.
5 Despite this, Ly purposely omitted exculpatory information, creating a
6 distorted impression about the children's safety and well-being.
7 c. Instead, Ly falsely claimed that the children (including J.N.H., who was
8 only 4 years old and never left alone) had been left unsupervised on at
9 least two other occasions beyond June 1st-2nd, while knowing this was
10 false.
11 d. On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff informed Ly that she had previously reached
12 out to DCFS in January 2021 seeking assistance to prevent such
13 emergencies, but she was denied services because she did not have an
14 open case. Plaintiff inquired if services could now be provided to
15 address the challenges that led to the June 1, 2021 emergency. In
16 response, Ly stated that Plaintiff still did not have a case and he could
17 not provide services, however, Ly’s Application falsely claimed that
18 reasonable services had been provided to prevent the removal.
19 53. Further, these allegations were made in direct retaliation for the complaints
20 registered by Plaintiff against her distrust against DCFS as outlined above in
21 aforesaid paragraphs.
22 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Ly sent the
23 Protective Custody Warrant Application and Declaration to the Juvenile Court. Said
24 defendant knew that the application and declaration would be presented as evidence
25 and relied upon by the Juvenile Court.
26 55. On June 8, 2021, the juvenile court found that it had jurisdiction over the
27 children under section 300 of California’s Welfare and Institution Code, and issued
28 a protective custody warrant pursuant to section 340, authorizing the removal of the
PG. 13
1 three children (J.H., I.H., and J.N.H.) from their parents, Plaintiff and Salvador. The
2 juvenile court also granted entry into the home, while under the false belief that the
3 children would be found in the home of Plaintiff and Salvador. The findings
4 specifically states,
5 “The Court has read and considered the application and supporting
6 documents presented by the social worker in this matter, and makes the
7 following findings and orders based thereon.”
8 56. Plaintiff was not present for this ex-parte hearing.
9 E. Continued Detention – Violation of CA WIC §309
10 57. On June 9, 2021 (around 7pm to 8pm), Ly brought the court orders to
11 MGM’s home, where Ly found the arrangement to be “appropriate”1 and observed
12 that the children were in the living room watching television together, free of any
13 marks or bruises.
14 58. On June 9 (around 6pm to 7pm), Ly also went to Plaintiff’s home to deliver
15 the court’s orders and findings to Plaintiff. When Plaintiff asked why he had filed
16 an emergency application even though she had signed the Safety Plan, Ly stated that
17 he had already known the officers were going to arrest Plaintiff, and the Safety Plan
18 was simply a way to “buy [him] time” to file the application and remove the children
19 because he “did not have exigency.”
20 59. Ly informed Plaintiff that she could only have monitored visits once per
21 week for two hours.
22 60. Defendant Ly knew or should have known that the children were not in
23 danger on June 9, 2021 and failed to return the children to the care, custody, and
24
25
26 1
“On 6/9/21, CSW Ly met with the Caregiver/Maternal Grandmother Alice Varela at her home. The CSW also met
with the children [J.H.], [I.H.], and [J.N.H.]. The CSW knocked on the door and CG answered and gave the CSW
27 consent to enter the home. The CSW observed the children to be in the living room watching TV together. The
children were all dressed appropriately for the weather and the CSW did not observe any marks or bruises. The
28 CSW assessed the home and found it to be appropriate.” Ly, Subias, and Thompson, Detention Report, 17
(06/11/2021)
PG. 14
1 control of Plaintiff in violation of CA Welf & I C § 3092. There was no reason to

2 remove and/or continue the removal.
3 61. Defendant Ly saw for himself upon delivering the Orders and Findings on
4 June 9, 2021 that the children were still residing in MGM’s home where Ly found
5 the arrangement to be “appropriate” and the children to be free of any marks or
6 bruises.
7 62. Plaintiff subsequentially emailed Defendant Ly and informed him that
8 perjury is a crime and demanded to speak with a supervisor to complain about his
9 conduct. Plaintiff then spoke with Defendant Garibay, Ly’s supervisor, who refused
10 to intervene in the matter even though she knew or should have known the children
11 were in no imminent danger of harm.
12 F. Judicial Deception and Continued Detention – Detention Hearing
13 63. On June 11, 2021, new records, including the §300 Petition, Detention
14 Report, and Addendum Report, were filed in the juvenile court in support of the
15 continued removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. by Defendants Ly, Subias, and
16 Thompson for the Detention Hearing.
17 64. Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson falsely reported to the juvenile court
18 that the children were residing with Plaintiff on June 9, 2021 at the time of the
19 removal and placed into custody with MGM on June 9, 2021 at 7:30 p.m. to continue
20 the false narrative that Domestic Violence was ongoing, and that Plaintiff violated
21 the Safety Plan. Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson knew this was false. Said
22 Defendants knew or should have known that on or around June 9, 2021 at 7:30pm is
23 the time that Defendant Ly delivered the Orders and Findings to MGM at her home
24 where Defendant Ly already knew the children would be found.
25 65. By June 11, 2021, Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson completely
26
27 W&IC Section 309 states now, and stated at the time of the detention, that the social worker shall “attempt to
2
maintain the child with the child's family through the provision of services[,] [t]he social worker shall immediately
28 release the child to the custody of the child's parent, guardian, or responsible relative unless one or more of the
following conditions exist:” None of the listed exceptions applied.
PG. 15
1 altered the allegations to focus on false claims of domestic violence and physical
2 abuse by the father who had resided in an entirely different state for almost a year
3 because they knew that the isolated circumstance on June 1st-2nd was not enough
4 to support a basis for removal of the children. In fact, the juvenile court never made
5 findings on any of the claims related to the children being left alone as a basis for
6 removal.
7 66. In the section 300 petition filed by Ly, Subias, and Thompson, 12 claims
8 were asserted. Two out of the 12 claims were related to the events that lead to the
9 investigation on June 2nd, while the other 10 out of 12 claims were focused on
10 Salvador’s past abuse towards Plaintiff and the children that was not ongoing or
11 likely to continue 3.
12 67. Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson knew or should have known that
13 Salvador’s past abuse towards Plaintiff and the children was not ongoing or likely
14 to continue because: Plaintiff (1) reported the abuse that occurred in September
15 2020; (2) filed a restraining order against abuse on the first day the Court was open
16 to accept filings; (3) immediately moved out of the house where the abuse occurred
17 after San Bernardino County Sheriff’s failed to enforce the restraining order on
18 multiple occasions; (4) sought services to prevent the events of June 1, 2021 as early
19 as September 2020 without relief, those services including (i) psychological
20 treatment for the children, (ii) medical assistance, (iii) childcare assistance, and (iv)
21 housing. Plaintiff even went as far as asking DCFS for help and was denied both
22
23 3
“Physical violence between a child's parents may support the exercise of jurisdiction under subdivision (b) [of
24 section 300] but only if there is evidence that the violence is ongoing or likely to continue and it directly harmed the
child physically or placed the child at risk of physical harm.” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717
25 (Daisy).) Further, “[e]vidence of past conduct, without more, is insufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under
section 300. There must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur.” (In re
26 James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 136 (James R.), disapproved on another ground as stated In re R.T. (2017) 3
Cal.5th 628, 628 (R.T.); see In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 824 [noting that “[w]hile evidence of past
27 conduct may be probative of current conditions, the question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time
of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm”]; disapproved on another ground as stated in R.T., at p.
28 628; In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993 [noting “[w]hen the jurisdictional allegations are based solely
on risk to the child, that risk must be shown to exist at the time of the jurisdiction finding”]. (emphasis added))
PG. 16
1 times (January 2021 and June 2, 2021). All of which would have prevented the
2 circumstances that occurred on June 1st-2nd from happening before DCFS became
3 involved; and (5) signed a Safety Plan arranged with the assistance of DCFS as
4 clearly dictated in W&I Code section 309.
5 68. Regarding the 2 out of the 12 claims related to the events that led to the
6 investigation on June 2nd:
7 a. The two claims were a duplicate of themselves. The only significant
8 difference between the two claims is that one states that Plaintiff left
9 the children alone in comparison to asserting that Plaintiff “made an
10 inappropriate plan” for the children’s care and supervision to allow Sam
11 to leave the children alone. (At the November 1, 2021 contested
12 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the
13 allegations that Plaintiff had “made an inappropriate plan” for the
14 children’s care and supervision to allow Sam to leave the children alone
15 and that I.H. was found wandering the streets. The court struck the
16 assertation that I.H. was wandering the streets. The court also never
17 made findings on the other claim as a basis for removal.)
18 b. Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson continued to falsely allege that
19 J.N.H. (age 4, at the time) was also left alone. J.N.H. was never left
20 alone and Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson knew that J.N.H. was
21 never left alone.
22 c. Both falsely allege that the children were left alone on multiple
23 occasions beyond the events that occurred between June 1st-2nd.
24 Defendants Ly, Subias, and Thompson knew or should have known this
25 was false.
26 d. Nowhere in the claims does it mention that Plaintiff did not know that
27 J.H. was alone on June 2nd, nor does it state that the incident was
28 related to Plaintiff’s medical emergency condition that did in fact result
PG. 17
1 in a Safety Plan to prevent the occurrences from continuing.

3 registered by Plaintiff due to her distrust against DCFS and complaint against Ly for
4 his actions in the unlawful interference in Plaintiff’s families lives as outlined above
5 in aforesaid paragraphs.
6 70. Plaintiff asked Defendant Ly for copies of the reports that were filed in the
7 juvenile court and never received the reports for the Protective Custody Warrant
8 Hearing or the Detention Hearing until after the Detention Hearing was held. The
9 only documents Plaintiff received were the two-page “findings” and one-page
10 “orders” that the juvenile court issued on June 8, 2021.
11 71. Plaintiff’s former court-appointed attorney also never provided her with the
12 social workers’ records that were filed in support of the protective custody warrant
13 and detention hearing. Moreover, the attorney never informed Plaintiff of her rights
14 and instead told her she had no constitutional rights in the juvenile court.
15 72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Ly, Subias, and
16 Thompson sent the new reports and § 300 Petition on June 11, 2021 to the Juvenile
17 Court in support of the continued removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. for the Detention
18 Hearing. Said defendant knew that the petition, and reports would be presented as
19 evidence and relied upon by the Juvenile Court.
20 73. On June 16, 2021, an initial Detention Hearing was held in the juvenile
21 court on the application to continue the removal of Plaintiff’s children from her care,
22 custody, and control, pursuant to section 319 of the California Welfare and
23 Institution Code.
24 74. The court ordered equal monitored visitations for the parents (Plaintiff and
25 Salvador) two times a week for two hours per visit based on the recommendations
26 made by Ly, Subias, and Thompson.
27 75. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Juvenile
28 Court reviewed and relied on the misrepresentations and requested custody orders
PG. 18
1 contained in the Section 300 Petition, Detention Reports, Addendum Report, LMIs,
2 and other supporting documents prepared and filed by Defendants Ly, Subias,
3 Garibay, and Thompson in making its decision in the case at the Detention Hearing
4 to continue the removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. on June 16, 2021. The minute order
5 for the Detention Hearing specifically states,
6 “The Court has read and considered the detention report and the addendum
7 report and makes the following findings and orders based on the
8 information contained therein”
9 G. Continued Detention
10 76. At the conclusion of the Detention Hearing, the Juvenile Court granted
11 DCFS discretion to return the children to their mother or father.
12 77. DCFS assigned the case to Defendant Santoyo on June 16, 2021.
13 78. Plaintiff immediately contacted Ly after the hearing to inquire about the
14 return of her children based on the Juvenile Court's discretion. In response, Ly stated
15 that he had no further interest in speaking with Plaintiff.
16 79. Ly provided Plaintiff with the contact information for Defendant Santoyo,
17 the new case worker. Plaintiff then contacted Defendant Santoyo to discuss the
18 return of her children, but Santoyo refused to discuss the matter.
19 80. On June 21st, Santoyo informed Plaintiff that she would need to set up a
20 meeting with Defendant Martinez-Navarro to discuss an investigation. Plaintiff
21 agreed and requested that the investigation be conducted to prove that her children
22 would be safe if returned back under the Safety Plan. She also informed Martinez-
23 Navarro that the Juvenile Court had given DCFS discretion to return the children to
24 either parent.
25 81. On June 29th, Plaintiff sent text messages to Martinez-Navarro to prove
26 that her children would be safe with her. However, Martinez-Navarro responded that
27 the department could not release the children without a court order.
28 82. Plaintiff informed Martinez-Navarro that the Juvenile Court had granted
PG. 19
1 DCFS discretion to return the children to either parent with a safety plan in place.
2 83. Martinez-Navarro continued to respond, “I am aware of the order, it says a
3 meeting is [sic] to be held if a safety plan can be implemented for the children to be
4 released to either or both parents. At this time, the Department is not seeking to
5 implement a safety plan. I can reach out to my supervisor and re-discuss it with her,
6 but I cannot guarantee it. Typically, my supervisor and CSW Joseph’s supervisor
7 has to agree as well as the administrator.” 4
8 84. Plaintiff cooperated with Martinez-Navarro to complete the social study
9 investigation to prove that her children would be safe in her care.
10 85. On July 2nd, Plaintiff followed up with Martinez-Navarro and asked if she
11 could do another follow up with a supervisor.
12 86. Despite having the Juvenile Court's discretion to return the children to
13 either parent and knowing that the children would not be in danger with Plaintiff,
14 Defendants Santoyo, Martinez-Navarro, Borroto, Hirota, and DOES 1-5 made a joint
15 decision in refusing to return the children to Plaintiff between June 16th and
16 November 1st, 2021.
17 H. Judicial Deception and Continued Detention – Disposition/Jurisdiction
18 Hearing
19 87. Defendants Martinez-Navarro, Hirota, and DOES 1-5 filed hundreds of
20 pages to the juvenile court to fabricate a false narrative in support of the Disposition
21 Hearing to continue the removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. in furtherance of the initial
22 court removal on June 8th, 2021 and continued removal on June 16th, 2021.
23 88. First, the Disposition Report filed and prepared by Martinez-Navarro and
24 Hirota falsely states, “The father and mother have a history of engaging in domestic
25 violence and have failed to address the domestic violence in their relationship. The
26 father denies any domestic violence has occurred and mother minimized the last
27 domestic violence incident stating the children were not present. Mother and father
28
4
Martinez-Navarro. Text message to Plaintiff. June 29, 2021.
PG. 20
1 appear to not have insight as to how the domestic violence in their relationship has/is
2 impacting their children’s physical, behavioral, and emotional health.”
3 a. The fact that the children were not present during the incidents of
4 domestic violence was merely contextual information that did not
5 diminish the immediate protective measures that were taken.
6 Defendants Martinez-Navarro and Hirota intentionally distorted the
7 facts by falsely suggesting that Plaintiff had minimized domestic
8 violence by fabricating contextual information.
9 b. Defendants Martinez-Navarro and Hirota falsely assert that “Mother
10 […] appear[(s)] to not have insight as to how the domestic violence in
11 their relationship has/is impacting their children’s physical, behavioral,
12 and emotional health.” This false assertion undermines the fact that
13 Plaintiff had a restraining order against Salvador protecting Plaintiff
14 and the children from the father; that the family had not been in contact
15 with Salvador since the previous September 2020; Plaintiff was
16 actively seeking mental health services for her children; and moreover,
17 learned for themselves that Salvador was residing in Texas as
18 confirmed by Salvador through Martinez-Navarro’s investigation.
19 c. Defendants Martinez-Navarro and Hirota intentionally failed to correct
20 the false indication that Salvador was residing in the home with the
21 children and Plaintiff on June 8, 2021 while knowing in fact that the
22 children were already residing with MGM since June 2, 2021.
23 d. The report continues to falsely state that the children were residing with
24 Plaintiff until June 9, 2021 at 7:30 p.m. which falsely indicates that
25 domestic violence was ongoing or likely to continue.
26 89. Second, as to the incident relating to June 1st-2nd, the report falsely states,
27 “Mother as well does not understand how she jeopardized the safety of the children
28 [J.H.] and [J.N.H.] by failing to make an appropriate plan and is blaming her illness,
PG. 21
1 the West Covina Police Department, and the Department for the removal of her
2 children.”
3 a. Defendants Martinez-Navarro and Hirota fabricated this conclusion to
4 manipulate the narrative by focusing on Plaintiff’s frustrations over the
5 false allegations, demand to clarify the reasonableness of the removal,
6 and the deliberate disregard to her contentions after the children were
7 removed.
8 b. This false conclusion intentionally fails to address the Safety Plan that
9 did in fact show that Plaintiff was concerned over the events that
10 occurred between June 1st – 2nd and took “appropriate” action.
11 c. Defendants Martinez-Navarro and Hirota knowingly made false claims
12 that J.N.H. had been left alone and unattended, while knowing this was
13 false. This accusation had significant implications, especially
14 considering J.N.H.'s young age and whether it was appropriate for a
15 four-year-old to be left alone. Defendants knew or should have known
16 that Plaintiff strongly opposed to leaving J.N.H. alone under any
17 circumstances due to her age and level of maturity.
19 registered by Plaintiff and her open distrust of DCFS, her complaint against Ly for
20 his actions in the unlawful interference in Plaintiff’s families lives, her demand to
21 correct the false allegations, and her continued demands for information to
22 understand why the children were removed as outlined above in aforesaid
23 paragraphs.
24 91. Defendants Santoyo, Martinez-Navarro, Borroto, and Hirota refused to
25 provide Plaintiff with information explaining how the children would be in danger
26 if returned to her care, custody, and control between June 16th (Detention Hearing)
27 – November 1st (Disposition Hearing), despite Plaintiff’s continued request for
28 information.
PG. 22
1 92. Plaintiff’s new court appointed attorney informed Plaintiff that he would
2 call the social worker and other relevant witnesses to the stand on November 1, 2021
3 for cross-examination, but never did.
4 93. On November 1, 2021, the juvenile court held its Disposition/ Jurisdiction
5 Hearing and issued Orders on that date finding that it was “reasonable and necessary
6 to remove the children from their parents.”
9 contained in the Disposition/ Jurisdiction Reports and LMIs prepared by Martinez-
10 Navarro and Hirota, and other supporting documents prepared and filed by
11 Defendants Ly, Garibay, Subias, Thompson, Borroto, Martinez-Navarro, and Hirota,
12 in making its decision in the case at the Disposition/ Jurisdiction Hearing to continue
13 the removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. on November 1, 2021.
14 I. Judicial Deception and Continued Detention – 6-Month Review Hearing
15 95. On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed this legal action.
16 96. Plaintiff made best efforts to overcome the challenges leading to the
17 removal and continued removal between November 1, 2021 through June 8, 2022.
18 Plaintiff was told that the only remedy at that time was to appeal, which Plaintiff
19 did, and at that point, she could only challenge the case plan. 5
20
21 5
"[T]he central unifying tool in child welfare services" is called the "case plan." (§ 16501.1, subd. (a)(1).) It is a
plan written by the Agency to ensure "that services are provided to the child and parents or other caretakers ... in
22 order to improve the conditions in the parent's home, to facilitate the safe return of the child to a safe home or the
permanent placement of the child, and to address the needs of the child while in foster care." (§ 16501.1, subds.
23 (a)(2) [goals] & (e) [written].)
24 The case plan has several components, including: identifying the reasons for dependency (§ 16501.1, subd. (g)(3));
setting forth specific goals and describing why planned services are appropriate to meet those goals (§ 16501.1,
25 subd. (g)(2)); and describing the services to be provided to assist in reunification (§ 16501.1, subd. (g)(10.)).
The case plan is generally written within 60 days of removing the child and must be updated as the service needs of
26 the family dictate. (§ 16501.1, subd. (e).) The case plan must be updated with each status review hearing. (Ibid. )
Between review hearings, the casework supervisor may modify the case plan in furtherance of its goals without
27 court approval. (§ 16501.1, subd. (g)(14).
28 (continued…)
PG. 23
1 97. Plaintiff never received the Case Plan until after the Disposition Hearing.
2 98. Plaintiff asked Defendant Martinez-Navarro for the records that would be
3 filed in support of the Disposition Hearing. Defendant Martinez-Navarro never
4 provided Plaintiff with the recommended Case Plan. Defendants Martinez-Navarro,
5 Hirota, and DOES 1-5 did not give Plaintiff an opportunity to object to the case plan.
6 99. Plaintiff asked Defendant Santoyo to provide specific details about the
7 learning objectives, length of time, and/or quantity of services in the case plan to
8 ensure that the ongoing removal of her children would not be arbitrary and without
9 clear expectations.
10 100. The ordered case plan at the Disposition Hearing based on the
11 recommendations of Defendants Martinez-Navarro, Hirota, and DOES 1-5 included:
12 a. Five (5) Random Drug Screenings
13 b. Parenting Classes
14 c. Domestic Violence Victim Support Group
15 d. Therapy: to address “case issues, effects of DV, signs of self-harm in
16 minors w/ DCFS approved therapist”.
17 101. Defendant Santoyo's response to Plaintiff's request for case plan details was
18 inadequate, as he merely stated that Plaintiff needed to participate in the ordered
19 services without providing any clear expectations or specifics about what was
20 necessary to complete the case plan requirements.
21
The Agency submits the case plan to the court ahead of the dispositional hearing. (See § 358, subd. (b)(1).) The
22 court must "consider[ ]" the case plan "at the initial hearing and each review hearing." (§ 16501.1, subd. (g)(14); see
also § 358, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.708(b)(3), 5.706(b)(2).) The court reviews the plan to
23 determine whether it satisfies the requirements of section 16501.1 (Rules 5.690(c)(2)(A)–(B)) and to verify that
appropriate parties were consulted in its preparation (Rules 5.690(c)(2)(C)–(D), 5.708(e)(3)–(10).)
24
When the court orders a parent to participate in a program – such as parent education, counseling, parenting
25 programs, etc. – the program must be "designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the
child is a person described by Section 300." (§ 362, subd. (d).) In other words, the court cannot arbitrarily order
26 services that are "not reasonably designed" to eliminate the behavior or circumstances that led to the court taking
jurisdiction of the child. (See In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 770–771, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 875.) For this
27 reason, it is helpful that the case plan must identify specific goals and then explain how the "planned services" are
designed to achieve those goals. (§ 16501.1, subd. (g)(2).) By explaining how planned services are tied to specific
28 goals, the case plan helps the court ensure these programs are in fact "designed to eliminate those conditions that led
to the court's finding that the child is a person described by Section 300." (§ 362, subd. (d).)
PG. 24
1 102. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant
2 Borroto and DOES 1 through 5 encouraged, directed, and/or ratified Santoyo's
3 actions of depriving Plaintiff of any information that could clearly outline the
4 expectations of the case plan in the effort to continue the removal of J.H., I.H., and
5 J.N.H. from Plaintiff for an unnecessary and unlimited period of time.
6 103. Instead, Defendant Santoyo and Borroto filed a 6-Month Review Hearing
7 Report with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, unsupported assumptions, and
8 omissions, knowingly including false information and omitting material exculpatory
9 information to continue the removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. from Plaintiff at the 6-
10 Month Hearing.
11 104. In the 6-Month Review Hearing, Defendants Santoyo and Borroto falsely
12 reported that Santoyo had met with Plaintiff on April 5, 2022, and discussed her case
13 plan services. They claimed that Plaintiff questioned the relevance and measurement
14 of her participation in the services, and that Santoyo attempted to address her
15 concerns. However, these statements were false because Plaintiff sought
16 clarification about the case plan expectations, and Defendants failed to provide any
17 meaningful answers or address her concerns.6
18 105. Further, the allegations made by Defendants Santoyo and Borroto in the 6-
19 Month Review Report were retaliatory in nature, targeting Plaintiff for her
20 complaints against DCFS, her legal actions against the Department and its social
21 workers, demand to correct the false allegations, and her questioning of the case
22 plan's reasonableness. Defendants emphasized their frustrations with Plaintiff's
23 actions in the report by including the following statements:
24 a. “In meeting with mother, she stated that she does not agree or
25 understand how the services are linked to the sustained allegations. In
26 speaking with mother, it appears that she has placed most of her efforts
27
28 6
Clear expectations of the case plan objectives were not provided until the 12-Month Review Report was filed on or
around November 28, 2022.
PG. 25
1 in proceeding with a lawsuit against the Department, to include all

2 social workers that have been involved in her case.”7
3 b. “Mother stated, ‘The services have no quantity, learning objectives, and
4 no predetermined length of time for completion.’ Further, mother
5 stated, my involvement with DCFS is based on ‘lies’ and ‘false
6 allegations.’ DCFS is informing the court that mother has on various
7 times posted said statements on social media, utilizing Facebook as the
8 platform, including the names of DCFS staff who have been assigned
9 to her case from Emergency Response to present time.” 8
10 c. “Ms. Hernandez has partnered with other parents, who have existing
11 and/or prior cases with DCFS and in union, have agreed to file litigation
12 against DCFS, under the premise that, children are removed without
13 supportive evidence in violation of their rights.” 9
14 106. In a striking contrast, at the 6-Month Review Hearing, the Department
15 recommended that Salvador, who was found by the juvenile court to have used
16 physical force against the children (J.H. and I.H.) in February 2022 and had
17 threatened to place a “hit” on Defendant Santoyo, be granted unmonitored visitations
18 with the children based on Defendant Santoyo and Borroto’s recommendation to do
19 so. Consequently, Salvador was allowed unmonitored visits with I.H. and J.N.H.
20 while Plaintiff’s visitations were still recommended to be monitored. However, the
21 Department changed their stance on Salvador's unmonitored visits after he informed
22 Defendant Santoyo that he believed Plaintiff had valid claims and would be joining
23 in her federal lawsuit against the Department. Following this revelation, Salvador's
24 visits with I.H. and J.N.H. reverted to being monitored.
25
26 7
Santoyo and Borroto, Six-Month Review Hearing Report, 7 (04/21/2022)
8
Id.
27 9
In Rizzo, the Ninth Circuit held that “a ‘jailhouse lawyer’ assisting other inmates with habeas petitions and other
28 federal actions” was engaging in expressive association under the First Amendment. Rizzo v. Dawson (9th Cir.
1985) 778 F.2d 529, 529; see also, Santoyo and Borroto, Six-Month Review Hearing Report, 8 (04/21/2022)
PG. 26
1 107. Plaintiff's attorney did not cross-examine the social worker regarding the
2 false allegations at the 6-Month Hearing despite Plaintiff’s direction to do so.
3 108. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Santoyo and
4 Borroto sent the new reports on April 20, 2022 to the Juvenile Court in support of
5 the continued removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. for the 6-Month Review Hearing.
6 Said defendant knew that the reports would be presented as evidence and relied upon
7 by the Juvenile Court.
8 109. On June 8, 2022, the 6-Month Review Hearing was held in the juvenile
9 court on the reports filed by Defendants Santoyo and Borroto to continue the
10 removal of Plaintiff’s children from her care, custody, and control.
13 contained in the 6-Month Report, LMIs, and other supporting documents prepared
14 and filed by Defendants Ly, Garibay, Subias, Thompson, Martinez-Navarro, Hirota,
15 Santoyo and Borroto in making its decision in the case at the 6-Month Review
16 Hearing to continue the removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. on June 8, 2022.
17 J. J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. Return Home
18 111. Between June 8, 2022 through March 23, 2023, Defendants Santoyo,
19 Borroto, and DOES 1-5 continued the removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. from Plaintiff
20 through tactical schemes without a reasonable basis.
21 112. On March 23, 2023, the juvenile court returned J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. back
22 to Plaintiff’s care, custody, and control.
23 K. Monell Related
24 113. Defendant Social Workers, and each of them, continued to deprive Plaintiff
25 of a fair process to conduct an investigation in connection to the false allegations so
26 that she could not correct the resulting damages.
27 114. During the incidents, Defendant Social Workers and DOES worked
28 together as a group to back each other up, provide tacit approval for the incident, and
PG. 27
1 support, assist, and encourage one another’s actions.

2 115. Each of the Defendant Social Workers and DOES failed to intervene or
3 prevent harm when their colleagues were depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional
4 rights as stated in this Complaint.
5 116. By failing to intervene, each of the Defendant Social Workers and DOES
6 additionally violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
7 117. The actions and omissions of COLA Defendant Social Workers, and DOES
8 were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, without legal justification
9 or other legal right, done under color of law, within the course and scope of their
10 employment as social workers and/or public officials, and pursuant to
11 unconstitutional customs, policies, and procedures of the County and/or other
12 jurisdictions.
13 118. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that COLA and DOES 6
14 through 10, inclusive, breached their duty of care to the public in that they have
15 failed to discipline Defendant Social Workers. Their failure to discipline Defendant
16 Social Workers, inclusive, demonstrates the existence of an entrenched culture,
17 policy or practice of promoting, tolerating and/or ratifying with deliberate
18 indifference the making of improper removals and continued removals of children,
19 the failure to investigate false allegations, and the fabrication of official reports to
20 cover up Defendant Social Workers’ misconduct. (See (1) Samuel Nicholas v. City
21 of West Covina, et al. (case no. 2:22-cv-02425-PA (JC)); (2) Susan Schofield v.
22 County of Los Angeles, et al. (case no. 2:22-cv-04332-JGB (AS)); (3) January
23 Schofield v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (case no. 2:22-cv-05590- JGB (AS)); and
24 (4) Morris v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (case no. 2:22-cv-02846-PA (MAA)).
25 119. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that members of
26 DCFS, including, but not limited to Defendants Social Workers and/or each of them,
27 have individually and/or while acting in concert with one another, engaged in a
28 repeated pattern and practice of using excessive, arbitrary and/or unreasonable
PG. 28
1 removals and continued removals of children against individuals, including, but not
2 limited to Plaintiff.
3 120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges COLA knew, or had
4 reason to know by way of actual or constructive notice, of the aforementioned policy,
5 culture, pattern and/or practice and the complained of conduct and resultant
6 injuries/violations.
7 121. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each
8 Defendant were conscience-shocking, reckless, deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
9 rights, negligent, and objectively unreasonable.
10 DAMAGES
11 122. As a consequence of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights
12 under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff was
13 physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially injured and damaged as a
14 proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct.
15 123. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
16 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (42 USC §1983)
18 Violation Under The United States Constitution
19 FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS against
20 Defendants Ly, Garibay, Subias, Thompson, Martinez-Navarro, Hirota, Santoyo,
21 Borroto, and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
22 124. Plaintiff realleges, and incorporates herein as if set forth in full, paragraphs
23 1 – 123 of this Complaint.
24 125. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in part “Every person who, under color of any
25 statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
26 District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
27 States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
28 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
PG. 29
1 party injured in an action at law, suit at equity, or other proper proceeding for
2 redress.”
3 COUNT 1
4 Procedural Due Process Unwarranted Seizure, and Familial Association
5 By Plaintiff against Defendants Ly, Garibay, Subias, Thompson, Martinez-
6 Navarro, Hirota, Santoyo, Borroto, and DOES 1-5, inclusive.
7 126. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
8 Process Clause protects the liberty interest “of parents in the care, custody, and
9 control of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); see also
10 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (discussing “the fundamental liberty
11 interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child”). The
12 right of familial association is also protected by the First Amendment. Lee v. City of
13 Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 685 (9th Cir. 2001).
14 127. Under circumstances of this case, outlined above, Plaintiff had the right to
15 familial association guaranteed under, without limitations, the First and Fourteenth
16 Amendments of the United States, which right is “clearly established” such that a
17 reasonable social worker in Defendants’ situation would know it’s wrong to interfere
18 in a parent’s right to remain with her children in the absence of exigent
19 circumstances, and that such right may not be impinged upon without first obtaining
20 a warrant or other lawful court order to do so. “…[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s
21 protection of parental rights prohibits the state from separating parents from their
22 children ‘without due process of law except in an emergency.” Wallis v. Spencer,
23 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 1999). “Officials may remove a child from the custody
24 of its parent without prior judicial authorization only if the information they process
25 at the time of the seizure is such as provides reasonable cause to believe that the
26 child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the
27 intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.” Wallis at 1138.
28 128. DOES 1-5 and Defendant social workers named hereinabove, in their
PG. 30
1 conspiracy against Plaintiff, set in motion a set of actions that caused the removal
2 of, and continued removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. from June 8, 2021 to March 23,
3 2023 which began with a false arrest and an unwarranted seizure, where a set of
4 “facts” untrue and easily verifiable as to their falsity were promoted by DOES 1-5
5 and Defendant social workers named above to deprive Plaintiff of her parental and
6 Constitutional right to the care and enjoyment of her children as they develop and
7 grow. Even as late as March 23, 2023, where Plaintiff had zero issues with her
8 visitation at the 12-month review hearing Defendants listed herein cited an ongoing
9 concern that the return of the children to Plaintiff would be a detriment. Ultimately,
10 the judge returned the children on March 23, 2023.
11 129. On June 8, 2022, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without any
12 evidence to suggest that J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. were in imminent danger of suffering
13 serious bodily injury in the hands of Plaintiff, Defendant Ly seized J.H., I.H., and
14 J.N.H. and brought them to their grandmother telling her under no condition should
15 the children see Plaintiff; this is tantamount to an unwarranted seizure. 10 Prior to the
16 time when Defendants fraudulently obtained a warrant, J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. were
17 kept from Plaintiff for six days without a court order.
18 130. Defendants, and each of them, interrupted and impaired the familial rights
19 of Plaintiff by unlawfully removing and continuing to remove J.H., I.H., and J.N.H.,
20 from Plaintiff’s care, custody, and control. Defendants’ conduct was without proper
21 justification or authority, and without probable cause, consent, exigency, or a
22 lawfully obtained court order. Further, Defendants’ actions were taken with
23 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.
24 131. As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has
25 suffered, and will continue to suffer economic, physical, mental, and emotional
26 injury, all to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial.
27
10
This case is like Keates v. Koile in that Koile detained, without a warrant, the child at a hospital and had hospital
28 staff inform the parent, Keates, that she could not have contact with her daughter or take her home. See Keates v.
Koile 883 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 2018).
PG. 31
1 132. Defendant Social Workers are vicariously responsible for the conduct of
2 each other and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, under applicable statutory and case
3 law.
4 133. On information and belief, Defendant Social Workers, and DOES 1 through
5 5, inclusive, and each of them acted with malice and with the intent to cause injury
6 to Plaintiff and her children, or acted with a willful conscious disregard of the rights
7 of Plaintiff in a despicable, vile, fraudulent, and contemptible manner. Therefore,
8 Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages for the purpose of punishing
9 these defendants, and each of them, and to deter them and others from such conduct
10 in the future.
11 COUNT 2
12 Substantive Due Process, The Rights To Be Free From The Use Of Deception In
13 Judicial Proceedings, and Familial Association
14 By Plaintiff against All Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
15 134. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there is a clearly
16 established Fourteenth Amendment due process right not to be subjected to false
17 accusations on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the
18 government and resulting in the loss of familial association such that a reasonable
19 social worker in Defendants’ situation would know it is unlawful to lie, fabricate
20 evidence, and/or suppress exculpatory evidence in sworn affidavits, sworn petitions,
21 court reports or Juvenile Dependency Petitions filed with the court. That said,
22 Defendants’ actions of deception in front of the court, were so devious that it would
23 be shocking to the conscious. “Official conduct that ‘shocks the conscious’ in
24 depriving parents of [a relationship with their children]” is a cognizable as a violation
25 of substantive due process. Capp v. County of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1060 (9th
26 Cir. 2019) (quoting Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010)).
27 135. Defendants and DOES 1-5, and each of them, acting under the color of law,
28 agreed, and/or conspired to deceive the juvenile dependency court in order to obtain
PG. 32
1 an order authorizing the removal and continued removal of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H.
2 from Plaintiff’s care, custody, and control between June 8, 2022 and March 23, 2023
3 by fabricating to the court that domestic violence was ongoing, that the children
4 (including J.N.H. who was never left alone) were left alone on multiple occasions
5 beyond Plaintiff’s emergency circumstances, and that reasonable services were
6 provided to Plaintiff to prevent the removal and continued removal of J.H., I.H., and
7 J.N.H. Thereafter, Defendants, and each of them acting on aforesaid scheme, did
8 unlawfully remove, and continued to remove J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. from Plaintiff’s
9 care, custody, and control by deceiving the court and these statements and reports
10 containing false statements and allegations was relied on by the courts as their basis
11 for the removal and continued removal.
12 136. In doing the things alleged hereinabove, Defendants and each of them,
13 interrupted and impaired the familial rights of Plaintiff by unlawfully removing and
14 continuing to detain J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. from Plaintiff’s care, custody and control
15 despite their knowledge that J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. were removed and detained based
16 on Defendants’ deliberate and/or reckless lies, suppressions, and fabrications which
17 were material to the judicial proceedings and the findings to detain and continue to
18 detain J.H., I.H., and J.N.H.
19 137. Defendants, and each of them, were acting under color of state law when
20 they deliberately presented materially false evidence in order to meet the substantial
21 danger and no reasonable means to protect the child or that there was exigent
22 circumstances justifying J.H., I.H., and J.N.H.’s removal and continued removal .
23 Defendants’ knowingly deceived the court during the judicial proceedings in order
24 to continue the detention of J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. which but-for these Defendants’
25 malicious actions stated herein J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. would have been returned
26 home. Further, Defendants’ actions were taken with deliberate indifference and/or a
27 reckless disregard as to Plaintiff’s due process rights and/or rights to uninterrupted
28 familial association and/or privacy.
PG. 33
1 138. Defendants, and each of them, maliciously conspired to violate the civil
2 rights of Plaintiff, including violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth
3 Amendment of the United States Constitution, by, but not limited to, removing,
4 detaining, and continuing to detain, Plaintiff’s children from her care, custody, and
5 control without proper or just cause and/or authority; by subjecting Plaintiff’s minor
6 children to physical examinations without consent, authority, or the presence of
7 Plaintiff; by the use of coercion and duress to obtain evidence and testimony; and by
8 maliciously falsifying evidence, presenting fabricated evidence to the court, and
9 maliciously refusing to provide exculpatory evidence during the pendency of the
10 dependency proceedings in violation of Government Code § 820.21, and violating
11 the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
12 139. As the direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ actions, plaintiff
13 has suffered, and will continue to suffer economic, physical, mental, and emotional
14 injury, all to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial.
15 140. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them acted with malice
16 and with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff, or acted with a willful and conscious
17 disregard of the rights of Plaintiff in a despicable, vile, and contemptible manner.
18 Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages only against the
19 individual defendants for the purpose of punishing them and to deter them and others
20 from such conduct in the future.
21 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22 (42 USC §1983)
23 Violation Under The United States Constitution
24 FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION VIOLATIONS against Defendants
25 Ly, Garibay, Subias, Thompson, Martinez-Navarro, Hirota, Santoyo, Borroto, and
26 DOES 1-5, inclusive.
PG. 34
1 142. “[T]he First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an

2 individual to retaliatory actions ... for speaking out.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S.
3 256, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006); see Capp v. County of San Diego ,
4 940 F.3d 1046, 1054 (9th Cir. 2019)(“It is well settled that the activity for which [the
5 plaintiff] was allegedly retaliated against—voicing criticism of the Agency's
6 conduct—is constitutionally protected.”). Clearly, Plaintiff's complaints about
7 DCFS and its employees are constitutionally protected.
8 143. To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plausibly
9 allege "that (1) he was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, (2) the
10 defendant’s actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
11 engage in the protected activity and (3) the protected activity was a substantial or
12 motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct." O’Brien v. Welty , 818 F.3d 920, 932
13 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J , 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th
14 Cir. 2006) ). To ultimately "prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must establish a
15 ‘causal connection’ between the government defendant’s ‘retaliatory animus’ and
16 the plaintiff’s ‘subsequent injury.’ " Nieves v. Bartlett , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct.
17 1715, 1722, 204 L.Ed.2d 1 (2019) (quoting Hartman, 547 U.S. at 250, 259, 126 S.Ct.
18 1695). Specifically, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s retaliatory animus was
19 "a ‘but-for’ cause, meaning that the adverse action against the plaintiff would not
20 have been taken absent the retaliatory motive." Id. (quoting Hartman , 547 U.S. at
21 260, 126 S.Ct. 1695 ).
22 144. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions, as alleged, would chill a person
23 of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity of criticizing
24 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and its social
25 workers, as Defendants removed her children from her care and initiated fraudulent
26 juvenile court proceedings in retaliation for her criticism. This alleged retaliatory
27 conduct would deter others from speaking out against the agency for fear of similar
28 retaliation. Plaintiff further alleges that her protected speech was a substantial or
PG. 35
1 motivating factor in Defendants' conduct, as Defendants were aware of her criticisms

2 and disapproved of her public statements. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges a causal
3 connection between Defendants' retaliatory animus and her subsequent injury, the
4 removal of her children from her care. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendants
5 removed her children and initiated fraudulent court proceedings in retaliation for her
6 protected speech, demonstrating a retaliatory motive for their actions. Finally,
7 Plaintiff's allegations support the conclusion that Defendants' retaliatory animus was
8 a but-for cause of the adverse action against her, as the removal and continued
9 removal of her children would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive.4.
10 In doing the things alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each of them, were acting
11 under color of state law. They engaged in retaliatory actions without proper
12 justification or authority, and without regard for Plaintiff's First Amendment rights
13 to free speech and expression.
14 145. In doing the things alleged hereinabove, Defendants, and each of them,
15 were acting under color of state law. They engaged in retaliatory actions without
16 proper justification or authority, and without regard for Plaintiff's First Amendment
17 rights to free speech and expression.
18 146. Defendants, and each of them, maliciously conspired to retaliate against
19 Plaintiff, including violating her rights under the First Amendment of the United
20 States Constitution, by, but not limited to, removing, detaining, and continuing to
21 detain Plaintiff's children from her care, custody, and control in response to her
22 public criticism of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
23 Services and its social workers; by using coercion and duress to obtain evidence and
24 testimony; and by maliciously falsifying evidence, presenting fabricated evidence to
25 the court, and maliciously refusing to provide exculpatory evidence during the
26 pendency of the dependency proceedings, all in violation of the Constitutional rights
27 of Plaintiff.
28 147. By these retaliatory actions, Defendants, and each of them, interfered and/or
PG. 36
1 attempted to interfere with Plaintiff's Constitutional rights to free speech and

2 expression under the First Amendment.
3 148. As the direct and proximate result of these Defendants' retaliatory actions,
4 Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer economic, physical, mental, and
5 emotional injury, all to an extent and in an amount subject to proof at trial.
6 149. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them acted with malice
7 and with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff, or acted with a willful and conscious
8 disregard of the rights of Plaintiff in a despicable, vile, and contemptible manner.
9 Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual
10 defendants for the purpose of punishing them and to deter them and others from
11 engaging in such retaliatory conduct in the future.
12 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13 Violation of California Civil Code §52.1
14 CA CIVIL CODE §52.1 against Defendants, and each of them.
17 151. Defendant COLA is liable for all of the state law causes of action under
18 respondent superior for the actions of COLA’s employee defendants as set forth in
19 Government Code §815.2(a) and §820(a). Defendant COLA’s employees were
20 acting within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant COLA at all
21 times mentioned herein. Defendant COLA is liable for both the negligent and
22 intentional actions of its employees which were committed within the course and
23 scope of their employment. Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202;
24 Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles, (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 320, 330; Bradford v.
25 California (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 16, 20; Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27
26 Cal.4th 1112, 1127; M.P. v. City of Sacramento (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 121, 129;
27 Ducey v. Argo Sales Co., (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 707, 721.
28 152. The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Stats. 1987, ch. 1277, § 1, p. 4544, as
PG. 37
1 codified in California Civil Code §52.1, authorizes a private cause of action for
2 damages and equitable relief against any person who, “whether or not acting under
3 color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere
4 by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any
5 individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
6 States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state ... ” Civ. Code,
7 §52.1, subd. (a).
8 153. Defendants’ above-described conduct as described in paragraphs 39
9 through 103 constituted interference, and attempted interference, by threats,
10 intimidation, and coercion, with Plaintiff’s peaceable exercise and enjoyment of
11 rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
12 California, in violation of California Civil Code §52.1.
13 154. The defendant COLA AGENTS committed such wrongful actions by
14 wrongfully seizing J.H., I.H., and J.N.H. from Plaintiff without a warrant, probable
15 cause, or exigent circumstances. Their further wrongful actions include the
16 continued wrongful detention of the children after any alleged basis for detention
17 had been negated, the procuring of false testimony, fabrication of evidence, and the
18 refusal to disclose exculpatory evidence in preparing and presenting reports and
19 documents to the Court in relation to dependency proceedings all in violation of the
20 right to familial association and privacy arising under the Fourteenth Amendment.
21 155. The individual defendants acted within in the course and scope of their
22 employment and thereby under color of law when they committed the acts and
23 omissions alleged herein. Supervisory Defendants are liable because they committed
24 the acts and omissions, or have ratified and confirmed the acts and omissions, set
25 forth herein against Plaintiff, acting with knowledge that Plaintiff’s emotional
26 distress would thereby increase.
27 156. These acts, and the others alleged herein above, prevented Plaintiff from
28 exercising and enjoying the legal rights secured by the Constitutions of the United
PG. 38
1 States and the State of California and the statutory laws and ordinances of the United
2 States and the State of California.
3 157. The rights violated by the public employees mentioned herein, and each of
4 them, are protected by California Civil Code sections 43, 49, 51, and 52.1, which
5 entitle Plaintiff to compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, statutory
6 civil penalty (where applicable), as provided for by the laws and the Constitution of
7 the State of California, and are requested herein.
8 158. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence, Defendants, and each of
9 them, directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages, including but not limited
10 to nightmares, anxiety, fear, and frustration.
11 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 Monell Related Claims
13 By Plaintiff against COLA, Garibay, Subias, Hirota, and Borroto, and DOES 6-10,
14 inclusive.
17 160. Defendant COLA, including through its entity Department of Children and
18 Family Services, established and/or followed policies, procedures, customs, usages
19 and/or practices (hereinafter referred to collectively as “policy” or “policies”) which
20 policies were the moving force behind the violations of plaintiff’s constitutional
21 rights as alleged hereinabove, including those arising under the First and Fourteenth
22 Amendments to the United States Constitution, by and through, but not limited to,
23 the following policies, practices, customs, and/or procedures:
24 a. the custom of disciplining, reprimanding, or punishing social workers
25 who are known to have lied or misrepresented facts;
26 b. the custom of removing children from their family and their homes
27 without first obtaining a warrant or other court order when no exigency
28 exists.
PG. 39
1 c. the custom of removing and detaining children, and continuing to detain

2 them for an unreasonable period after any alleged basis for detention is
3 negated;
4 d. the custom of using trickery, duress, fabrication and/or false testimony
5 and/or evidence, and in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, in
6 preparing and presenting reports and court documents to the Court,
7 causing an interference with the Plaintiff’s rights, including those as to
8 familial relations; and
9 e. by causing with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of
10 inadequate training, and/or by failing to train its officers, agents,
11 employees and state actors, in providing the constitutional protections
12 guaranteed to individuals, including those under the First and
13 Fourteenth Amendments, when performing actions related to child
14 abuse and dependency type proceedings.
15 f. By acting with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of
16 inadequate supervision, and/or by failing to adequately supervise its
17 officers, agents, employees and state actors, in providing the
18 constitutional protections guaranteed to individuals, including those
19 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, when performing actions
20 related to child abuse and dependency type proceedings.
21 g. The policy of recommending to detain children when the harm no
22 longer exists at the detention hearing.
23 h. The policy of recommending the continued detention of children when
24 the harm no longer exists at the disposition hearing.
25 i. The custom of allowing social workers to withhold exculpatory
26 evidence that social workers knew or should have known existed and
27 to omit critical facts in court documents. (Cal. Rules of Court 5.546);
28 See Hardwick v. County of Orange (9th Cir. 2017) 844, F.3d 1112,
PG. 40
1 1119.
2 j. (This list is not exhaustive due to the pending nature of discovery and
3 the privileges and protected records of investigative and juvenile
4 dependency proceedings. Plaintiff reserves his right to amend this
5 pleading as more information becomes available).
6 161. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the above policies and
7 practices are part and parcel of an effort by COLA to fraudulently boost its
8 intervention statistics in order to obtain greater State and Federal funding for its
9 social services programs.
10 162. COLA breached its duties and obligations to Plaintiff by, including but not
11 limited to, failing to establish, implement and follow the correct and proper State
12 and Federal Law; by failing to properly select, supervise, train, control, and review
13 its agents and employees as to their compliance with State and Federal law including
14 Constitutional safeguards with deliberate indifference; and by knowingly, or with
15 deliberate indifference, permitting Defendant Social Workers and DOES 1 through
16 10, inclusive, to engage in the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct as herein
17 alleged.
18 163. COLA knew, or should have known, that by breaching the above-
19 mentioned duties and obligations that it was foreseeable that said failure would and
20 did, cause Plaintiff to be injured and damaged, and her constitutional rights were
21 impaired by the wrongful policies and acts as alleged herein, and that such breaches
22 occurred in contravention of public policy and Defendants’ legal duties and
23 obligations to Plaintiff; and that such policies, practices, customs and procedures
24 were the moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein above.
25 164. These actions, and/or inactions of COLA were the direct and proximate
26 cause of Plaintiff’s injuries as alleged herein; and as a result, Plaintiff has sustained
27 general and special damages, to an extent and in an amount to be proven at trial.
28 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PG. 41
1 Declaratory Relief
2 By Plaintiff against Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
5 166. As stated herein, plaintiff, as a citizen and individual, is protected by the
6 laws of the State of California, as well as those of Federal Law, and the United States
7 Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto.
8 167. As stated herein, Defendants, and each of them, have wrongfully,
9 unlawfully, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff, and with utter
10 disregard of Defendants’ duties and obligations to Plaintiff, acted, practiced and/or
11 adopted policies, practices, procedures, and/or customs which are in violation of the
12 rights of Plaintiff, including those to be free from governmental interference as to
13 her privacy and familial association, and from judicial deception, including those
14 relating to child abuse allegations and related actions and proceedings.
15 168. Defendants have failed to acknowledge their improper, unlawful and
16 unconstitutional actions, conduct and policies at the time of the incidents at issue in
17 the present action, and plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
18 that presently Defendants have not changed or modified such actions, conduct and/or
19 policies to conform law despite several warnings from appellate courts to do so.
20 169. Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful conduct, actions and/or policies, unless
21 and until forced to promulgate policies, by order of this court, will cause, and
22 continue to cause, great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, and other individual
23 citizens, in that Defendants will continue to act in accordance with said unlawful
24 polices, and with deliberate indifference to their duties and obligations under state
25 and federal law, including those under the First and Fourteenth amendments as
26 alleged herein above.
27 170. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that as presently applied
28 by COLA, those portions of the Welfare and Institution Code which County of Los
PG. 42
1 Angeles claims allow the misconduct set out above are unconstitutional in the way
2 they are applied pursuant to the regularly established customs, policies, and practices
3 of COLA.
4 171. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to prevent or prohibit Defendants
5 from continuing, and/or repeating, their unlawful and unconstitutional conduct and
6 policies other than through injunctive relief, and therefore seek an order directing
7 COLA to promulgate policies and implement training to prohibit its social workers
8 from, but not limited to, the following:
9 a. Detain and/or removing children from their family and homes without
10 exigent circumstances (imminent danger of serious physical injury),
11 court order and/or consent;
12 b. Examining children without exigency, need, or proper court order, and
13 without the presence of their proper custodian and/or guardian;
14 c. Removing and detaining children, and not returning them, beyond
15 reasonable period after the basis for detention is negated;
16 d. Using trickery, duress, fabrication and/or false testimony or evidence,
17 and in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, in preparing and
18 presenting reports and court documents to the Court; and
19 e. Acting with deliberate indifference to the constitutional protections
20 guaranteed to individuals to the constitutional protections guaranteed to
21 individuals, including those under the First and Fourteenth
22 Amendments, when performing actions related to child abuse and
23 dependency type proceedings.
24 f. Aiding and abetting in the violation of civil rights guaranteed to
25 individuals, including those under the First (protecting deep
26 attachments) and Fourteenth (protection against invasion of autonomy
27 privacy) Amendments, by engaging in the aforementioned.
28 g. Conspiring to violate civil rights guaranteed to individuals, including
PG. 43
1 those under the First (protecting deep attachments) and Fourteenth

2 (protection against invasion of autonomy privacy) Amendments, by
3 engaging in the aforementioned.
4 JURY DEMAND
5 172. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.
6 PRAYER
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:
8
9 1) For general damages in a sum according to proof;
10 2) As against only the individual defendants, and not any municipality or public
11 entity, punitive damages as allowed by law;
12 3) Injunctive relief, both preliminary and permanent, as allowed by law,
13 (including preliminary injunctive relief based upon a separate application); or
14 alternatively that the Welfare and Institution Code, as applied by COLA in the
15 filing and pursuit of its juvenile dependency petitions be declared
16 unconstitutional as applied;
17 4) Cost of suit incurred herein; and
18 5) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19
20 CERTIFICATION AND CLOSING
21 173. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the
22 best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being
23 pretended for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
24 needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a
25 nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the
26 factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if, specifically so identified, will
27 likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
28 investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the
PG. 44
1 requirements of Rule 11.

2 174. I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address where
3 case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current
4 address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal of my case.
5
6 MARISSA HERNANDEZ
7 PRO SE LITIGANT
8
9
10 DATED: JUNE 8, 2023 _____________________________
11 MARISSA HERNANDEZ
12 PRO SE LITIGANT
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PG. 45

D55 Fifth Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D55 Fifth Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D55 Fifth Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-07858-PA-JC Document 55 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:977

1 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 4. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because

1 in her individual capacity as an employee of COLA.

1 Plaintiff's birthday on September 19, 2020.

1 received a call from law enforcement instructing her to return.

1 charges of child endangerment under CA PEN 273a(a). However, the District

1 knew that Plaintiff complied with the Safety Plan.

1 control of Plaintiff in violation of CA Welf & I C § 3092. There was no reason to

1 in a Safety Plan to prevent the occurrences from continuing.

1 in proceeding with a lawsuit against the Department, to include all

1 support, assist, and encourage one another’s actions.

1 142. “[T]he First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an

1 motivating factor in Defendants' conduct, as Defendants were aware of her criticisms

1 attempted to interfere with Plaintiff's Constitutional rights to free speech and

1 c. the custom of removing and detaining children, and continuing to detain

1 those under the First (protecting deep attachments) and Fourteenth

1 requirements of Rule 11.

You might also like