After the Denver-based federal appeals court found she improperly dismissed the lawsuit, a federal judge last week agreed that a father’s claims may proceed against a Douglas County child welfare worker who allegedly violated his constitutional rights while investigating suspected child abuse.

Originally, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney dismissed the due process and unlawful seizure claims against Camille Gadziala and Joi Johnson. The women were involved in the 2021 removal of a child from the home of his father, Dennis Mundt. Mundt alleged Gadziala deceived a state court into granting the removal and that Johnson failed to meet with him as required.

However, in December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit faulted Sweeney for relying on materials submitted by the defendants with their motion, rather than basing her decision on Mundt’s allegations as she was required to do. The court observed the mistake “permeated” her analysis and reinstated Mundt’s lawsuit.

After taking a second look, Sweeney agreed that Mundt’s allegations described a credible constitutional violation by Gadziala alone.

“Defendant Gadziala did not have probable cause to petition for (the child’s) emergency removal, so Plaintiff Mundt adequately pleaded a constitutional violation,” she wrote in a Feb. 28 order.

Mundt’s lawsuit alleged that on Jan. 5, 2021, his ex-spouse contacted Gadziala, who was employed with Douglas County’s human services department. The message alleged Mundt had taken the couple’s child, D.J.M., to unauthorized medical appointments and potentially gave D.J.M. amphetamine.

Gadziala allegedly spoke with a nurse at the facility where D.J.M. received treatment, learning that Mundt had done nothing improper from the medical office’s point of view. She also reportedly reviewed records tending to undermine the accusations against Mundt.

The following day, Mundt’s ex-spouse asked Parker police to make a welfare check on D.J.M. The responding officer spoke with D.J.M. at Mundt’s house and found nothing amiss.

However, Gadziala obtained an emergency order from a state judge to remove D.J.M. from Mundt’s home. As reflected in the judge’s order, Gadziala made multiple statements Mundt considered false, including that he was “unnecessarily seeking medical care” for D.J.M., that D.J.M. “became tearful” during a home visit and that Gadziala had spoken with medical professionals beyond the one contact with the nurse.

The county then sought temporary custody of D.J.M., also using allegedly false representations. As a result, an order prevented Mundt from having contact with D.J.M. for multiple months.

Mundt further claimed Johnson, the permanency caseworker for D.J.M., was supposed to meet with Mundt at least once per month. Instead, she failed to meet with him at all.

Initially, Sweeney found the defendants were immune from lawsuit. She determined Johnson, as the permanency caseworker, was “an official aid of the judge,” which shielded her from any liability. Sweeney further wrote that Gadziala was entitled to rely on the ex-spouse’s allegations in her work, and any discrepancies about D.J.M.’s actual circumstances did not rise to the level of judicial deception.

The 10th Circuit subsequently found Sweeney was wrong about Johnson’s entitlement to immunity through the judicial process, and ordered her to redo the analysis of Gadziala’s actions.

In her revised order, Sweeney concluded Johnson was still entitled to immunity — not from her involvement in the judicial process, but because Johnson’s alleged failure to meet with Mundt, as Colorado regulations require, was not equivalent to a violation of Mundt’s constitutional rights.

As for Gadziala, Sweeney determined the allegedly false statements made in the Douglas County proceedings caused the removal of D.J.M., and what Gadziala actually knew would not have established probable cause. Moreover, it was not reasonable for Gadziala to rely on the accusations of Mundt’s ex-spouse because of her alleged credibility issues.

Sweeney permitted the constitutional claims to proceed against Gadziala alone.

The case is Mundt v. Gadziala et al.