Parents Win Only $2 for Wrongful Removal of Child

In a mystifying finale to an eight-year court battle, a Utah jury has awarded only $2 in nominal damages to the parents of an ailing 12-year-old boy who sued social workers for illegally removing the child from their home.

The caseworkers from Utah's Division of Child and Family Services, acting on suspicions of child abuse, seized Rusty Roska without a warrant or court order in May 1999. He spent a week in protective custody before a judge ordered the state to return him to his parents.

The removal was so traumatic that Rusty's mother, Connie Roska, collapsed on her front lawn as he was being driven away. While the social workers were at the home, the boy's physician warned them that they would “destroy this family emotionally and Rusty may never recover.”

Connie Roska and her husband -- who turned down a last-minute $100,000 settlement offer from the state -- were seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the violations of their parental rights. A neuropsychologist testified during the trial that they have symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

But in a July 2 verdict, the federal jury somehow found that the Roskas suffered no compensable injury and deserved only $1 each. Nominal damages may be awarded when a plaintiff proves a violation of a substantive constitutional right, but is unable to show the violation caused actual injury.

The defense had portrayed the DCFS workers as caring professionals and pointed out that the plaintiffs had struggled with mental illnesses before their son's removal.

“Folks, you don't get damages just because your constitutional rights were violated,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew Bates argued. “This isn't 'The Price Is Right.' [The Roskas] need to prove they were injured.”

Connie Roska has become a parental-rights advocate and, as a result of the case, the Utah legislature amended the child removal law. But the plaintiffs' attorney believes the meager monetary award will have a chilling effect on future suits.

“I can't imagine anyone wanting to go through this after this trial,” Steven Russell told the Salt Lake Tribune.

The child-welfare agency launched an investigation of the Roskas after school officials expressed concern for Rusty's health. Connie Roska had said he was suffering from kidney failure, but one of the social workers, Shirley Morrison, suspected the mother might be inducing illness in the child to attract sympathy from medical personnel -– a psychological condition known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

Morrison and a colleague, Melinda Sneddon, consulted an assistant attorney general about removing Rusty, but, accompanied by a police officer, entered his Layton home without a warrant and without knocking. He was taken away in his wheelchair.

In an account of the removal posted on a Website, Roska says Sneddon told Rusty, “We're going to take you away to make you feel better. Your mom can't handle you because she does daycare, and she doesn't want you anymore.”

The Roskas filed suit in October 1999, alleging numerous Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted them summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding Rusty's health and safety “were not in immediate danger” and the social workers failed to “provide the Roskas with preventive services to eliminate the need for removal.” Roska v. Sneddon, 437 F.3d 964 (2006).

By Matthew Heller
7/6/07