On Nov. 3, 2009, plaintiff Rafaelina Duval, 34, had her baby, Ryan, 15 months old, seized from her custody by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Duval claimed that DCFS social workers falsely accused her of general neglect, and for willfully and intentionally starving Ryan. As a result, Duval was only allowed monitored visitation for a few hours, two times per week. Duval sued the operator of the DCFS, the county of Los Angeles; Muzeyyen Balaban; Wendy Crump; Melissa Egge M.D.; Karen Hanna; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center; Candis Nelson; Susan Pender; Kimberly Rogers; Tika Smith; To Thrive Clinic Melissa Egge M.D.; and several social workers. William Fujioka, Victoria Scheele, and Elba Pinedo were later added as defendants. Duval alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted unwarranted seizure in violation of her civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. Duval claimed that Ryan was taken from her without a warrant, and only after her father called the social workers “white trash” and accused them of racism. She also claimed that the social workers falsely accused her of suffering from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a rare mental illness, and form of child abuse where the primary caretaker exaggerates or fabricates illnesses or symptoms of the child. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that it was falsely claimed that Duval had MSBP and, hence, that Duval could not safely parent her child. Counsel contended that MSBP is treatable and that if Duval did, indeed, have it, the defendants had a legal obligation to offer treatment in order to assist her in reunifying with Ryan. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants did not do so and, in fact, treated Duval disparately based on the false allegations of MSBP, which was one of the reasons Ryan was removed from Duval’s care. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the county has an official custom and/or practice of seizing children from their parents without a warrant. Counsel also contended that the county failed to enact an official policy or procedure when it should have done so, and knew, because of a pattern of similar violations, that its official customs or practices were likely to result in the violation of parents’ rights to be free of unwarranted seizures of their children. Nearly all of Duval’s claims were dismissed before the case went to the jury by way of voluntary dismissal, summary judgment, or on directed verdict. All of Duval’s judicial deception claims were dismissed on directed verdict. Thus, the case went to the jury regarding the civil rights claims as to the county and two social workers, Pender and Rogers; the disability claims as to the county for allegedly treating Duval disparately based on the alleged false allegations of MSBP; and the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress as to Scheele. Defense counsel argued that exigent circumstances caused the DCFS to remove Ryan from Duval without a warrant. Specifically, counsel contended that Ryan was diagnosed as failure to thrive from non-organic circumstances and that Duval refused to follow the recommendations of Ryan’s pediatrician and a nutritionist on what to feed Ryan. Counsel contended that as a result, Ryan weighed only 14 pounds at 15 months old. Defense counsel argued that the DCFS did not discriminate against Duval on the basis of any disability and that the reference to MSBP stemmed from Duval herself, who reported to an independent therapist that she was being framed by Ryan’s father’s family, who allegedly accused her of having the disability after Ryan had already been removed from Duval’s care and placed with the father. Counsel contended that when it learned of the claim, the DCFS reported what Duval told the therapist to the Juvenile Court in a report requesting that Duval undergo a psychological evaluation, which the Juvenile Court denied. In addition, defense counsel argued that Ryan was properly removed from Duval’s care and that Duval’s rights were not violated because she had due process. Counsel asserted that Duval had legal representation and a trial in Juvenile Court, where she presented evidence and witnesses, including two medical experts to testify on her behalf. Defense counsel noted that the Juvenile Court made a finding that it was in the best interest of Ryan to remain with his father, and for Ryan’s mother to have supervised visits, and that Duval appealed the decision, which was affirmed., Ryan is now 8 years-old, and Duval is still fighting for custody of him to be reinstated to her. Duval claimed that the incidents stalled her in life and work and that she is still treating with counseling. Thus, Duval sought recovery of emotional distress damages and punitive damages against the individual social workers. Defense counsel noted that Ryan has been in the care of his father since the removal and that his placement has not been under the county’s jurisdiction. Custody was not an issue in the civil case, as it’s a family issue between the parents in family court.