Immunity Is Not Permission to Lie: What the Ninth Circuit Held in Hardwick v. Vreeken
Hello, my name is Morris Patrick. Today, I want to discuss an important published precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Hardwick v. Vreeken, 844 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2017).
Government officials may receive certain immunity protections when they lawfully perform their official duties. However, immunity is not permission to lie, fabricate evidence, use perjured testimony, or maliciously suppress evidence that could protect a family.
In Hardwick, a daughter filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against social workers. She alleged that they maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure her removal from her mother, violating her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their protected familial relationship.
The Ninth Circuit held that the social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity from those claims. The court explained that absolute immunity may protect social workers when they legitimately perform functions closely connected to presenting the government’s case. However, fabricating evidence during an investigation and making false statements fall outside that protected role.
The court also rejected the social workers’ claim to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage. Qualified immunity can protect government officials who make reasonable mistakes while performing their duties. It does not protect officials who knowingly violate clearly established constitutional rights.
The Ninth Circuit recognized that parents and children have a well-established constitutional right to live together without unjustified governmental interference. Government officials cannot knowingly use false or fabricated evidence to destroy that relationship and then automatically hide behind immunity.
The court stated:
“There are no circumstances in a dependency proceeding that would permit government officials to bear false witness against a parent.”
California law reinforces this principle. California Government Code § 820.21 provides that the civil immunity of juvenile-court social workers and certain other public employees does not extend to malicious perjury, fabrication of evidence, failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence, or obtaining testimony through duress, fraud, or undue influence.
The distinction is important. Hardwick does not hold that social workers never receive immunity. It holds that immunity does not automatically protect alleged misconduct merely because it occurred during a dependency proceeding. Legitimate professional judgment is one thing. Knowingly fabricating evidence or maliciously concealing material evidence is entirely different.
At this procedural stage, the Ninth Circuit did not conduct a trial or finally decide every disputed allegation. It reviewed the denial of immunity at summary judgment, considered the supported facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and concluded that sufficient admissible evidence created a genuine dispute requiring the action to continue.
No government employee should be above the Constitution. A government position carries authority, but it also carries responsibility. When officials possess the power to separate parents and children, honesty, due process, and accountability are not optional.
Why are more families not told about this published Ninth Circuit precedent? How often are allegations of fabricated evidence independently investigated? Who holds officials accountable when material evidence is knowingly concealed? Should parents involved in dependency proceedings receive written information about their constitutional rights? How can the public demand greater transparency while protecting children’s privacy?
Immunity may protect lawful public service. It must never become permission to lie.
Related Video
Watch the related discussion on YouTube:
Published Authority
Disclaimer
This article provides public education and commentary about a published judicial decision. It is not legal advice. It does not claim that every mistake, inaccurate statement, or disputed decision defeats immunity. Whether immunity applies depends on the conduct alleged, the supporting evidence, the applicable law, and the procedural posture of each case.
Comments