1 Christina Illsley 2 5209 W.

Carsons St Torrance, CA 90503 3 In Pro Se 4 310-579-1518 5 6 7 8 9 10 CHRISTINA ILLSLEY, 11 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES 14 COUNTY, JERRY BROWN AS GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, KAMALA HARRIS AS 15 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, 16 JOHN A. WAGNER AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARMENT OF SOCIAL 17 SERVICES 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT B. A. Plaintiff CHRISTINA ILLSLEY, complains and alleges: JURISDICTION AND VENUE This action for damages and equitable relief arises under the laws of the United States of America, in particular, Title 42 of the United States Code sections 1983; and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 United States Code sections 1331, and 28 United States Code sections 1343(a). Defendants. v. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF ARISING OUT OF TORT AND VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Judge: John F. Walker Discovery Judge: Carla Woehrle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under pertinent law, including, inter alia, 28 United States Code sections 1391(b) and (c). PARTIES

1.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff CHRISTINA ILLSLEY (CHRISTINA), the mother of minor J.I., was and is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

2.

At all times applicable herein, Defendant the SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (SUPERIOR COURT) was and is a subdivision or entity of the State of California.

3.

At all times applicable herein, Defendant JERRY BROWN represents the office of the GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA (BROWN).

4.

At all times applicable herein, Defendant KAMALA HARRIS represents the office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA (HARRIS).

5.

At all times applicable herein, Defendant JOHN A. WAGNER represents the office of the DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (WAGNER).

6.

At all times applicable herein, the SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (SUPERIOR COURT) was and is a subdivision or entity of the State of California.

7.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants are responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and were the legal and/or proximate cause of injury and damages to Plaintiff as herein alleged. NATURE OF ACTION

8.

This is a civil rights action arising from the warrantless and illegal removal of the Plaintiffs minor son, J.I., then six at the time of his removal, by force by Social Workers of the County of Los Angeles, from his home while residing with the Plaintiff, and the subsequent persecution of the Plaintiff without just cause or adequate due process resulting in the termination of her parental rights under a mere preponderance of the evidence and without her presence at trial, all in violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be secure from warrantless searches and seizures, the right to familial association and substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the United States Supreme Courts holdings in Santosky v. Kramer

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9.

requiring at minimum the clear and convincing standard of proof prior to the termination of parental rights. COMMON ALLEGATIONS In October 2005 without a warrant, court order, consent, exigency or probable cause, a social worker from the Children and Family Services of Los Angles, seized Plaintiffs minor son from his home and care of the Plaintiff. For the following two years the Plaintiff was denied due process of law and adequate visitation as a consequence of discrimination against her based on her physical handicap, her class and her social status as a struggling physically disabled single parent of meager financial means. On December 14, 2006, the SUPERIOR COURT terminated the Plaintiffs reunification services without the presence of the Plaintiff and under a mere preponderance of the evidence, thereby denying the Plaintiff procedural and substantive due process of law. Counsel for the Plaintiff never challenged this termination by way of writ, nor did Plaintiffs counsel file a Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) section 388 petition on her behalf requesting reinstatement of services and/or return of the child. On or around May 1, 2008, while in jail for alleged welfare fraud, of which the Plaintiff was soon after acquitted due to lack of any evidence by the prosecution, and which Plaintiff believes, and on that basis alleges, was instigated by the Department of Children and Family Services in order to interfere with Plaintiffs exercise of her First Amendment rights to pursue her complaints and claims against the department and to prepare for her parental rights termination hearing, the SUPERIOR COURT held a parental rights termination hearing against the wishes of the Plaintiff and without permitting the Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to prepare for the trial with her new attorney or to subpoena witnesses. The SUPERIOR COURT refused to delay the proceedings by a few days and as a consequence of which Plaintiff was denied procedural as well as substantive due process of law. Without any further proof of unfitness, the SUPERIOR COURT terminated the rights of the Plaintiff to her minor son and consequently his rights to any familial association or property interests as to the Plaintiff and all his other family members. COMPLAINT 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

Further, the SUPERIOR COURT refused to allow the Plaintiff to represent herself at various stages of the proceedings and denied her effective assistance of counsel.

17.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that she has no adequate remedy at law to restore her parental rights and that any attempt to file a motion to set aside and vacate the adoption of the minor will likewise be rejected both in the family or juvenile court as well as on appeal, because these state courts have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to protect the rights of the Plaintiff and her son on numerous occasions, and because this matter must be resolved expeditiously because lives are at stake and every lost moment of familial association cannot be compensated for and is forever gone.

18.

Further, the Plaintiff cannot file a federal habeas because the United States Supreme Court has ruled that federal habeas is unavailable for children in the custody of private parties, see Lehmanv v. Lycoming County Children's Serv, 458 U.S. 502 (1982).

19.

The Plaintiff demands declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that the termination of her parental rights was unconstitutional and a denial of her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights, see Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), and that any subsequent adoption of her minor son is consequently illegitimate under the laws of the United States and the United States Constitution and must be set aside, nullified and vacated. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. 1983) Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment By Plaintiff Against All Defendants

20.

Plaintiff realleges, and to the extent applicable, incorporates herein as if set forth in full, paragraphs 1 through 19.

21.

Defendants, and each of them, were acting under color of state law when they acted, agreed, and/or conspired to deny the Plaintiff equal protections of the laws and her substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

22.

Defendants were unable or unwilling to protect the state and constitutional rights of the Plaintiff during the pendency of the proceedings, as a result of which the Plaintiff incurred irreparable harm to her rights to familial association and her rights to privacy.

23.

The State of Californias Welfare and Institutions Code statutes and laws and rules of court were an inadequate or misapplied remedy for protecting the rights of the Plaintiff under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the termination of parental rights under a mere preponderance of the evidence in violation of Santosky, supra and the Due Process clause of the Untied States Constitution.

24.

By these actions, Defendants interfered and/or attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as those rights under applicable California Law rising to the level of a constitutionally protected right, and the state remedies were inadequate or misapplied, resulting in an interference with Plaintiffs federal, constitutional and state rights.

25.

By these actions, Defendants interfered and/or attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process, familial relations, privacy, and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as those rights under applicable California Law rising to the level of a constitutionally protected right, and the state remedies were inadequate or misapplied, resulting in an interference with Plaintiffs federal, constitutional and state rights.

26.

As a direct result of Defendants violation, and in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Plaintiffs civil rights have been violated in that she has suffered, and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, physical and/or mental anxiety and anguish, as well as to incur, and continue to incur, attorneys fees, costs and expenses in the underlying case and in this matter, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 in an amount not yet ascertained, all of which shall be shown according to proof at trial.

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5

27.

Defendants wrongful conduct was done with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff. As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover equitable relief as requested in her Prayer below. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DECLARATORY AND EQUITABLE RELIEF By Plaintiff Against All Defendants Plaintiff realleges, and to the extent applicable, incorporates herein as if set forth in full, paragraphs 1 through 19. As stated herein, Defendants have wrongfully, unlawfully, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff, and with utter disregard of Defendants duties and obligations to the Plaintiff, acted, practiced and/or adopted policies, practices, procedures and/or customs which are in violation of the rights of the Plaintiff, including those to be free from governmental interference as to their familial associations, including those relating to child abuse allegations and related actions and proceedings. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to restore her parental rights and/or reinstate visitation with her son. Because Plaintiff lost all rights to her son as a direct or proximate result of Defendants actions or lack thereof, Plaintiff hereby requests a declaration that the termination of Plaintiffs parental rights is unconstitutional and that the adoption of the minor is likewise unconstitutional and on that basis both must be nullified and voided. See, e.g., Davis v. Page, 640 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) affirming the District Courts declaratory relief nullifying the state decree determining the minor a dependent child; see also Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194 (9th 15 Cir.1975) (A court of competent jurisdiction may entertain a suit to remedy a deprivation committed by an unconstitutional exercise of discretion in the same manner as a suit to remedy any other act violative of constitutional rights Id.). PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: As to all causes of action: 1. A Declaration that the termination of Plaintiffs parental rights is unconstitutional; 2. A Declaration that the adoption of the minor is unconstitutional; COMPLAINT

6 28. 7 8 29. 9 10 11 12 13 14 30. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3. Annulment and reversal of the adoption of the minor; 4. Annulment and reversal of the termination of Plaintiffs parental rights; 5. The immediate return of the minor to the Plaintiff, or, if such a remedy is unavailable by this Court, reinstatement of reunification services and the placement of the child with a family of Plaintiffs choice; 6. Attorneys fees pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Section 1988, and any other appropriate statute; 7. Any other Injunctive and/or Declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate and just; 8. Costs of suit incurred herein; and 9. Such relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: March 21, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________ CHRISTINA ILLSLEY In Pro Se

COMPLAINT

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION AND GOOD-FAITH INTENT

2 I declare under penalty of perjury, that the above Complaint is true and correct to the best of my 3 knowledge, is not intended to harass the Defendants, and is filed with good-faith belief that a viable 4 cause of action exists and that this Court can provide an adequate remedy to correct the aforementioned 5 constitutional wrongs. 6 7 Dated: March 21, 2011 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT 8 _______________________________ CHRISTINA ILLSLEY In Pro Se Respectfully submitted,