The case involved the custody of a mother who was the victim of domestic violence. In 1999, Sharlyn Nicholson was a single mother with two young children, Kendell Coles and Claude Barnett. Nicholson was still in a relationship with Claude Barnett, the father of her young daughter, but Barnett lived in South Carolina and traveled to Brooklyn monthly to see her children. On January 27, 1999, while Barnett was visiting, Nicholson ended their relationship. Barnett, who had never previously threatened or assaulted Nicholson, punched, kicked, and threw objects at Nicholson. Nicholson was bleeding profusely from the head as a result of the assault and called 911. She also arranged for a neighbor to care for her children while she was hospitalized. When Nicholson learned that she would be staying overnight at the hospital, she gave the officers the names of relatives who would care for the children while she was away. The next day, an agent from the American Child Services Agency (ACS) called Nicholson in the hospital to inform her that the agency had taken custody of the children the night before. ACS claimed the children were “in imminent danger if left in Nicholson’s care” because Barnett had been beating Nicholson so severely at the time that Nicholson was unable to protect herself or the children. ACS also charged Nicholson with neglect for “involving” her.[ing] Participating in “domestic violence” in front of children.
On February 4, 1999, the Family Court ordered Nicholson’s children returned to her, but Nicholson continued to be listed as the neglectful parent in state records. Nicholson and others filed a class action lawsuit against ACS, alleging that they had been deprived of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process to protect family and parent-child relationships. On March 1, 2001, the district court issued a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified the issue of how to interpret the Family Court Act’s definition of neglect to the New York State Court of Appeals.
On May 3, 2004, the NYCLU filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals in support of the district court’s decision. The amicus brief highlighted the significant gender bias that persists in court and agency decisions that blame abusive mothers for any harm suffered by their children. The amicus brief further argued that the Family Court Act’s “failure to exercise minimal care” standard should be interpreted to require a detailed and specific presentation of facts that adequately assess the non-abusive parent’s personal responsibility for the harm to the child. The amicus brief argued that requiring a case-specific explanation of the non-abusive parent’s responsibility is essential to adequately protect the due process rights of the non-abusive parent, and that removing the child from Ms. Nicholson’s custody on the mere presumption of responsibility would violate these rights.
On October 26, 2004, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a mother’s failure to protect her child from witnessing abuse is not neglect and therefore cannot be the sole basis for removal. The Court further ruled that the decision to remove a child must be weighed against the psychological harm that the removal itself may cause the child and that this decision should only be made without court approval in extremely rare circumstances. On November 29, 2004, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Nicholson v. Williams under the conditions set out in the New York Court of Appeals decision.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 2, 171 (Amicus).