A federal judge determined last month that two child welfare workers in Denver will stand trial in a civil negligence case over the 2007 death of a boy at the hands of his guardians, and indicated on Tuesday he would not reconsider his decision.

Chandler Grafner was 7 years old when he died in May 2007 following starvation and neglect. His guardians, Jon Phillips and Sarah Berry, are serving prison sentences for their roles. In 2009, Chandler’s biological parents and his personal representative filed suit against various government entities and employees alleging they failed to protect Chandler from child abuse.

For 15 years, the lawsuit has been in limbo as related proceedings unfolded in state court. But on July 25, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez ruled Margaret Booker and Mary Peagler would face a jury trial.

Unusually, Martínez sided with the women on the plaintiffs’ claims that the two human services supervisors violated Chandler’s constitutional rights, but he declined to follow the typical practice of dismissing the related state-law negligence claims. Martínez, who was first assigned the case when he was appointed to the bench more than a decade ago, deemed it preferable to see the proceedings through to completion.

“The Court also notes the tragic nature of this case and the need for closure for all involved parties,” he wrote. “The undersigned is well-versed in the relevant facts and issues at hand and concludes that given the extensive pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are best served by this Court retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action.”

Although the government is typically not liable for constitutional violations based on the violence of third parties, it can be when there is a “special relationship” with the victim. One such relationship is a child in the state’s custody.

In 2006, a Jefferson County court placed Chandler in the county’s custody following his mother’s arrest. Shortly afterward, Chandler entered Phillips and Berry’s temporary custody. In January 2007, Phillips gained permanent custody. From January until Chandler’s death, there were multiple reports from his Denver school of alleged abuse or neglect. Booker and Peagler, who were supervisors in the human services department, ultimately allowed Chandler to stay with Phillips and Berry.

While the federal lawsuit was pending, Chandler’s father, Joshua Norris, attempted to overturn the series of orders originally declaring Chandler neglected and granting custody to Phillips. The Court of Appeals ruled in his favor in 2022, prompting Martínez to resume the civil proceedings.

The defendants moved to end the case in their favor without a trial, arguing Booker and Peagler could not have violated Chandler’s constitutional rights because the government had no “special relationship” with the child after Phillips took custody.

“It is absolutely required. Without state custody there is no special relationship. And absent a special relationship, there is no legal duty to protect,” wrote their attorneys. Further, “the Defendants utilized their professional judgment, even if, in hindsight, they would have liked to have made some decisions differently.”

Martínez agreed with them. At the time the state court granted Phillips temporary custody in mid-2006, one year before Chandler’s death, the necessary link was broken.

“However, even if there were some doubt as to whether the ‘temporary’ nature of that order called into question the status of a special relationship — which the Court determines there is not — the Jefferson County District Court’s January 25, 2007 Order Allocating Parental Responsibilities puts any such doubt to rest,” he wrote.

Martínez added that the Court of Appeals’ 2022 decision vacating the original orders leading to Phillips’ custody made no difference, as the orders were still in effect at the time of Chandler’s death.

Although he acknowledged the “general rule” is to decline to adjudicate a plaintiff’s claims under state law when there are no more live claims under federal law, Martínez faulted the defendants for using only three sentences to explain why Booker and Peagler should prevail on the negligence aligations. Because they “failed to meaningfully develop their argument,” Martínez green-lit those claims for trial.

The defendants subsequently asked Martínez to reconsider, citing the rule that applies when judges have “misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Booker and Peagler acknowledged they could have alleviated any confusion by providing a better argument, but maintained they were not negligent in responding to the child abuse allegations.

Martínez responded on Aug. 27 that he took “a dim view” of the belated attempt to alter the outcome.

“Defendants did not take advantage of the opportunity to develop their arguments regarding the state law claims, and the Court will not allow them yet another bite at the summary judgment apple,” he wrote.

The case is Schwartz et al. v. Booker et al.