SAUNDRA JUDD, SOCIAL WORKER; WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant Saundra Judd, Social Worker being hereby named in both her individual and official capacities, is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional district, is a county employee and was at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto, employed by Wake County Human Services in Wake County, North Carolina. Current mailing address is; c/o Wake County Human Services, 220 Swinburne Street, Raleigh, NC 27610. The Defendant was in fact, acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims occurred in that while in her official capacity as a social worker for WCHS her execution of Wake County Human Services’ “customs” and/or “policies” were the moving force behind her unconstitutional acts, and that personally, her individual unconstitutional acts violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs of which a reasonable official would have known, Davis v. Scherer (1984). In addition, acting personally and individually she did act under the authority or color of state law when she acted in concert with other local officials, including but not limited to, other WCHS social workers, their supervisors, county attorneys and others, causing harm to the Plaintiffs in effecting the deprivation of rights, Dennis v. Sparks (1980).
Our Family’s first contact with Saundra Judd was when WCHS assigned her to investigate another fabricated complaint on January 14, 2010, this time alleging neglect, once again initiated by a disgruntled family member, Kelli-Ann Reale my estranged sister who I had not had any real contact with in over 25 years. On January 24, 2010 after a few phone calls Saundra Judd came out for a scheduled visit to our home. She too was very polite and cordial at that time. She explained the allegations pertaining to the family’s homeschool program and allegations of the children being outside without the proper clothing. She further stated that this was not anything to do with allegations of abuse. As she proceeded to interview each child she questioned them about their schooling and if they wear jackets outside when it is cold. They confirmed that they do wear their jackets when they want/need to. A couple of them even found the question funny. The children were playing outside at the time so they came inside one by one to talk with her. She also asked questions about abuse even though she had already made it clear that she was there for other reasons. Once again no disclosures of abuse were made by any of the children, myself or my wife Debra. Saundra Judd observed the sleeping areas and had the opportunity to observe our family’s classroom setup with 4 school desks a dedicated TV and DVD player, among other things. She also question TRB (15) specifically regarding his comfort level while being home alone with the children from time to time. Not only did he describe his comfort level he also described his knowledge of family discussions regarding safety and the family safety plan for him and the other children in the case of an emergency. Saundra was very impressed with this. He also mentioned that he and SRR (11) both had cell phones to contact either me or their mom at any time. Saundra Judd was very impressed with the home and each of the children much like the previous visit by Jill Green and her supervisor Richard Hayner back in October. Saundra Judd also issued the required Safety Assessment circling “No” for ALL indicators of Neglect or Abuse. She too couldn’t say enough about how impressed she was with the home and all the children. She even spent another 10 minutes with my wife and I making small talk about church and other miscellaneous topics.
COUNT I; VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – Both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause
Later, on March 8, 2010 when my wife Debra left the family home and recalling her recent contact in January with WCHS, she decided to enlist Saundra Judd’s help in preventing me from executing my Ex Parte Temporary Custody Orders. Without investigating, requiring any complaint in writing from Debra, or even bothering to contact me, Saundra Judd immediately agreed to help suggesting my wife obtain a Temporary Restraining Order in California to prevent me from picking up the children. Saundra Judd also sent a letter in support of my wife’s desire to keep the children with her. The letter’s sole intent was to mislead the California Court into believing that there was an active investigation of abuse against me in North Carolina, which of course was a bold-faced lie. She stated the following in her letter dated April 14, 2010; “As you know we had an active case in 10/19/09, which was unsubstantiated because neither you nor the children would confirm the allegations. Another CPS Case was opened in 1/14/10. This case is currently open as the investigation has not been completed.” This is where the systematic, blatant lies began. Saundra Judd is claiming that a CPS case of 91 days (initiated on January 14, 2010) is still being investigated? Impossible! According to the State Social Services Policy, case decisions (whether the county department concludes that the report is substantiated or not substantiated) should be made within thirty days of the receipt of a report (January 14, 2010). The documentation of a case decision must list the participants in the decision, the legal basis for the decision, a description of the actions taken, a description of the services provided, and the rationale for agency involvement and service delivery on an ongoing basis. The agency must notify any parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker who was alleged to have abused or neglected the child, any other person with whom the child resided at the time the investigation was initiated. This notice must be in writing and should be given within five days of the case decision. Saundra Judd is also implying that the case involved allegations of abuse against me when in fact; the January case was a single erroneous allegation of neglect against both my wife and I involving more harassment than anything else, inquiring about such things as homeschooling and the children wearing the proper clothing outside. The letter sent to California further states; “Thus far the information gathering in this investigation supports the allegations of physical and emotional abuse of your children while in the care of Mr. Ronald Reale.” What investigation? She must mean the Safety Report from the visit in January that she signed indicating a “SAFE HOME” Because that’s the extent of investigating that was done on the matter and according to state law the case is closed! FRAUD! People like this are a danger to the community, Period!
COUNT II; VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT – Searches and Seizures as to the minor children, and THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – Due Process Clause as to both me and my wife
Additionally Saundra Judd has been instrumental in fabricating accusations, deliberately making false statements on official court documents, and saying whatever she needed to advance the agenda of WCHS in their efforts to remove my 7 minor children from our family home since my wife and I attempted reunification in June. Some of the documents in question are the Original Abuse, Neglect, Dependency Juvenile Petition, the court Summary dated July 28, 2010 in preparation for the Adjudication and Disposition, and her earlier testimony at the unlawful hearing held by Judge Christian on May 3, 2010. One of the first statements in the Petition for Non-Secure Custody was submitted by Saundra Judd and states; “they (the minor children) have witnessed Mr. Reale Assaulting the mother.” There was never even any allegations of assault on my wife from the beginning of this entire process. Also submitted to the petition by Saundra Judd; “In January 2010, the agency responded to another report by providing services to the family. The mother and the children cited many instances of domestic violence and abuse of the children that have occurred over the years.” No services were provide, offered, or even needed as a result of either visit. No instances of domestic violence were ever cited, because none ever existed. A first report and visit in October, 2009 alleging abuse was deemed safe, unsubstantiated abuse, and the case was closed, signed and dated by Jill Green on October 15, 2009, and follow-up letter closing the case with a finding of “no abuse” signed and dated by Jill Green and Richard Hayner (supervisor) on October 29, 2010. A second report and visit in January, 2010 alleging neglect was also deemed safe, unsubstantiated neglect, and the case was closed, safety report, signed and dated by Saundra Judd on January 24, 2010. The Safety Report signed by Saundra Judd herself on the day of her visit in January is “proof positive” that she is clearly very comfortable with fabricating statements to advance her agenda with regard to the Petition for Non-Secure Custody. These statements are patently false and simply a case of Saundra Judd saying whatever need be to get the Judges signature ordering the removal of the children. Fabricated, inflammatory, and blatant lies are the best terms to describe such acts and such false statements. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. An ex parte hearing based on misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. Procurement of an order to seize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or omission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Parents may assert their children’s Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own Fourteenth Amendment claim. Malik v.Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services, (10th Cir. 1999)
COUNT III; VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – Both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause
Saundra Judd also contributed to fabricating accusations, supporting false accusations, and making her own deliberately false statements in the court report dated July 28, 2010 which was prepared for the hearing on Adjudication and Disposition. She states the following as her contribution to the Court Report dated July 28, 2010; “They are all somewhat timid and the oldest five tend to hold their bodies in a position with their heads down and their shoulders turned inward.” While a much different description is found in stark contrast in the next paragraph on the very same document; “These children are very polite and generally easy to engage in conversation.” In all his years I have never even heard such a description of any child, much less my own children. It’s despicable to say the least. I can state with confidence that it will be quite easy to present collaterals at trial to refute such statements about me children and to declare without hesitation that none of them have ever displayed such characteristics as being “timid” or “with their heads down” and “shoulders turned inward.” Is she writing a novel! It’s quite shameful.