Lawsuit upheld in seizing of newborn
A mother's lawsuit against a Lawrence County youth services agency and a hospital can move forward, a federal judge ruled on Monday.
Eileen Bower of New Castle is suing the county's Children and Youth Services and the Jameson Health System because a hospital report that she tested positive for opiates just before her delivery led the agency to take custody of her newborn son for 75 days. Bower had eaten a salad containing poppy seeds just before going into labor.
U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry refused to toss Bower's two civil rights claims against the county agency, the caseworker who obtained the custody order and the hospital.
He cited a ruling by U.S. District Judge David Cercone that refused to dismiss the constitutional claims in a similar case. Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez are suing the same agency and hospital for taking their daughter shortly after she was born because Mort tested positive for opiates two hours after eating a bagel with poppy seeds.
Cercone dismissed their negligence claim against the hospital, but McVerry refused to dismiss Bower's. McVerry, however, agreed to dismiss Bower's negligence claims against the agency and the caseworker and her invasion-of-privacy claim against the hospital.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.