Washington: A US federal court has cleared the way for a lawsuit filed by New York-based parents who allege negligence and emotional distress after their minor daughter was removed from Pakistan and brought to the United States without their knowledge, rejecting the government’s effort to have the case dismissed.
In an order issued on December 11, Senior US District Judge Frederic Block denied a motion by the United States seeking reconsideration of an earlier ruling that allowed the parents’ claims to proceed.
“The United States’s motion is DENIED,” Judge Block said in his memorandum and order issued by the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The case was brought by Mussarat Bano and Bashir Rahee against the United States, the City of New York, senior officials of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), and a private child welfare agency. The parents allege that officials mishandled their daughter’s case and kept them in the dark for weeks after she left Pakistan and returned to the United States.
According to the court record, the girl, identified as FB, was a minor and a US citizen who was in Pakistan with her parents in June 2020. While there, she contacted US consular officials, alleging that her family was abusing her and preventing her from returning to the United States.
With assistance from US officials, FB fled her family on June 23, 2020, while still in Pakistan. She boarded a flight and arrived in the United States on June 26.
For several days, the parents said they had no information about what had happened to their daughter. On June 29, the government informed them that FB had left Pakistan and was safe. The parents allege they were not told where she was. It was not until July 20, 2020, that they learned from New York State police that their daughter was back in New York.
After her return, child welfare authorities in New York became involved. The case later included ACS and Little Flower Children and Family Services, a private foster care provider, indicating that FB’s care was handled through New York’s child protection system rather than by her parents.
The Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying a motion to dismiss, arguing that the parents’ claims were barred under exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and that the complaint failed to state valid claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Judge Block rejected all three arguments.
Reconsideration, the court said, is an “extraordinary remedy” that cannot be used simply because a party disagrees with an earlier ruling. To succeed, the government had to show a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error that would result in manifest injustice. It failed to do so, the judge wrote.
The government argued before the court that the FTCA’s foreign country exception applied because the relevant conduct occurred in Pakistan. The court disagreed, reaffirming its earlier finding that the parents had plausibly alleged tortious acts that took place in the United States.
“The government may disagree with this conclusion,” Judge Block wrote, “but it fails to identify any legal basis for reconsideration.”
The court also rejected the government’s claim that federal officials were protected by the FTCA’s due care exception. The government argued that officials were required by the Privacy Act to withhold information about the child’s whereabouts after she returned to the United States because she refused to consent to disclosure.
Judge Block found that the Privacy Act did not mandate that course of action. While the law generally restricts disclosure of personal records, it also allows a parent to act on behalf of a minor. As a result, the statute permitted — but did not require — officials to withhold information.
“The government had discretion to share information with the Plaintiffs,” the court held, concluding that the due care exception did not apply. The judge also rejected the government’s argument that the parents failed to state valid legal claims.
“The government fails to establish any legal basis for reconsideration and instead merely seeks to relitigate the merits,” the judge wrote in the order that allowed the lawsuit to move forward against the federal government and other defendants.
(IANS)
