T h e H on or abl e Ja mes S. G wi n of t h e U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C ou r t f or t h e N or t h er n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by 1/ d esi gnat i o n. -1 - UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - : DR. ARI ELROSI TA KI

NG, e t al

. , : CASE NO. 11-CV-1124

: Pla int if fs , :

: vs. : OPI NI ON & ORDER : [R esolving Doc. No. 33
. ] THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, et al ., : : De fe nd ants
. : :

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - J AMES S. GW I

N, UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE: 1/ I nt h i s s ad an d u n fo rt u n at e fi gh to v er an i n n o ce n tch i l d , th e c h i l d ’s m o th er , Dr
. Ar i el Ki n g, and g randmother , Dr. Marg o King , alleg e various District of Columbia offic ials and ag encie s have violated the child’s c onstitut ional ri gh t s . R egre ttably , the fig ht has rea ched this Court. For the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , th e Court GR AN TS t he De fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss
. I. Bac kgr ound This c ase stems f

rom the much-litigated issues of custody and car e of a minor child, “Alma.” Alma l iv e s w it

h h e r f a th e r , non-par

ty Dr. Micha el Pfeiff

er—a Ger man citizen—in W ashing ton, D.C.; Alma’s mother, Plaintiff D r. Ariel King—an Americ an citizen—lives in Europe . Alma’s par ents are
e s t r an g e d f r o me a c ho t h e r , an d

a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g i s a

p p ar e n t l y p e n d i n g i nB ayr e u th , G e r m an y. Th e or ig in o f t

he c us tod y dis pute be tw e e n D rs . Pf

e if fe r a nd Kingis n ot b e fo re thi s Co ur t; howeve r, on June 6, 2008, the J uvenile and D omes tic Relations Court of Arling ton, Virg inia,Case No. 1:11-CV- 1124

G w i n , J.

O n A p ri l 24 , 20 1 2 , he P l ai nt i f f s vo l unt ari l y dis m i ss ed t he o t her r em ai ni ng de f end ant , D r. A l i son M
. Jackson. 2/ [D o c . 27
. ] -2 - awa rded the fathe r, Dr. Pfeiffe r, sol e lega l and phy sical custody afte r t he mother, D r. King , abducte d Alma. That c ourt also ruled that Plainti ff Dr
. Ki n g co u l d have no c ontact with Alma “until the mother ava ils herself of

this court and under g oes a c omplete psy cholog ical eva luation.” Since that custody

deter mination, Dr. King has filed a petition f or custody in the Montgome ry County circ uit Court, a petition f or injunctive relief in the D.C. Superior Court, and a n emer g ency mot ion fo r c us tod

y in t he D. C. Su

pe ri or Court . A nd

Dr . K ingha s initi a te d mu lti ple D. C. C hil d Protective Servic es investig ations. [Doc. 33 at 26.] She has preva iled in none
. Acc ordin g t o the Plaintiff, Alma suffe rs from a rare dis ease , Severe Chronic Neutr openia, a nd require s ext ensive treatment and testing
. On Marc h 30, 2012, this Court di smissed the individual de fenda nts f rom the action (le aving only the District of Columbi a as a defe ndant ), order ed, pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 2/ 12(e) , the Plaintiffs to file a more definite stateme nt, and o rdered the pa rties to file supplemental briefingon the issue of the Plaintiffs’ standing
. Subsequently , the Plaintiffs f iled a sec ond amende d complaint, asser

ting nine cause s of action ag ainst various District of Columbia entities: (1) fede ral constitutional substantive due proce ss violations; (2) violations of plaintiff’ s fede ral c onstitut ional d u e p r o c e s s r igh ts ; ( 3 ) d is c r im in a ti o n in v io lati o n o f D C Co d e § 2

- 1 4 0 2
. 0 1 , e t. s e q . ; (4) discrimination in violation of Fifth Amendment, 21 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et. seq.; (5) violations of the Child Abuse and Preve ntion and Treatment Act; (6) violations of the Ame rica n’s with D isabiliti es Act; (7) violations of Procedur al Due Process, the Hea lth I nsuranc e Portability and Acc ountability

Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privac y Act; (8) violations of the V iennaCase No. 1:11-CV- 1124

G w i n , J.

T he P l ai nt i f

f s al l ege co unt s 1 , 6, 8, and 9 o n be hal f of A l m a al o ne; C o unt s 3 , 4, 5, and 7 are o n be hal f of D r. 3/ A rie l K ing a n d A lm a . -3 - Convention on Consul ar Relations; and (9) denia l of rig hts under the United Nations Convention on the R ights of the C hild. Neither Alma nor Alma’s father, Dr. Pfeiffe r, i s a party to this l awsuit—the 3/ Plaintiffs assert that they

have f iled the suit as Alma’s next friends. The District filed a m otion to dismiss , arguing that the Plaintiffs lack ca pacity and standing to sue on Alma’s be half a

nd that case should be dis missed for numerous other reasons. The Plainti ffs op po se d a nd fi le d th e ir

ow n b ri e fi ngon

the iss ue s o f n e xt-f

ri e nd c a pa c ity . T he Di str ic t is c or re c t. II. Legal Stand ard “To survive a mot ion to dismi ss, a complaint must contain sufficie nt fac tual matter, a cce pted as t rue, to ‘state a

claim for r elief that is plausible on its fac e.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (q u o t i n g Be ll A tla nti c v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ). “When there are well-plea ded fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns , a c ourt sh ou ld as sume the ir ve ra c ity and the n de te rm ine wh e the r t he y pla us ibl y g ive rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. And “dismissal unde r Rule 12(b)( 6) is appropr iate whe re the complaint fa ils to allege the eleme nts of a leg ally viable cla im.” Chamberlain v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp. , 931 A.2d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
. III . A nal ys is A. Stand ingto s ue on

Al ma ’s be ha lf The Plaintiffs claim that they can assert either nex t-frie nd or third-pa rty standing on Alma’s be ha lf , a nd the Court mu st con si de r whe the r t he se Pla int if

fs may make the m. T hat’ s b e c a us e “ in
ever y fede ral case, the pa

rty bring ing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the ac tion.” Elk GroveUnified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow , 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004) . The prude ntial sta n ding r equire mentCase No. 1:11-CV- 1124

G w i n , J.

A cc o rd

4/ Fed. R. Ci v. P
. 17(c) (A “g e n e ra l gu a rd ia n ” o r “c o n se rv a to r” " m a y s u e o r d e fen d o n b e h a lf o f a m ino r,” but “ [ a] mi nor . . . wh o do es not ha ve a dul y appo i nt ed r epre s ent at i ve may s ue by a n ext f r i end or by a g uar di an ad l i t em. ”)
. H er e, t hat ’ s D r. P f ei f f er . And “ [ a] s a g ene r al r ul e, a f eder al cour t ca nn ot appo i nt a g uar di an ad l i t em i n a n act i o n i n whi ch t he i nf

ant or i nco m p et ent al read y i s represent ed by s o m eo ne who i s co nsi d ered ap p rop ri at e und er t he l aw of t he f oru m st at e. ” 6 A W rig h t, M ill e r, & K a n e , F e d e ra l P ra c tice a n d P ro c e d u re : C ivil § 1 5 7 0 (3 d e d .)
. -4 - “enc ompasses the g ener al prohibition on a litiga nt’s raisinganother

person’ s leg al rig hts,” Id. at 12 (interna l quotation marks omitted). Al thou gh th is c a se is c omp lic a te d b y the c us tod

y battl e Al ma ’s mot

he r i s w a g inga g a ins t Alma’s father, one thin g i s cl ea r: pare ntal status is determined by state law, see Id. at 16 , and Dr
. Pfeiffe r wa s g rante d “sole leg al and phy sical custody” of Al m a b y a Vi rgi nia cour t. District of Columbi a cour

ts “ac cord f

ull faith and cr edit to . . . [ child-custody ] order[s] issued b y a court of another state.” D.C. Code § 16-4603.13 (2001) . Indeed, the District of Columbia S u perior c ourt denied Dr . King ’s motion for emer gen cy cu s t o d y i n 2009. [Doc 33 at 26-35 (de nying D r. King ’s complaint for ne g lige nt treatment and inj unctive relief).] In the District of Columbia as in Virg inia, Dr. Pfeif fer has sol e lega l and phy sical custody of Alma. And unde r District of Columbia law that means he has the e x clusive rig ht to make decisions reg arding [t he] c hild’s he alth, education, a nd g ener al welf

are , the rig ht to acce ss the child’s educ ational, m edica l, psy cholog ical, denta l, or other rec ords, and the rig ht to speak with and obtain infor mation reg ardingthe child from sc ho ol o ff ic ia ls, he a lthc are pr ov ide rs , co un se lor s, or oth e r p e rs on s in te ra c tin g wi th the child. D.C. Code § 1 6 -9 1 4 (a)(1)( B) (2001) . Alma, there fore , alre ady has an a ppropriate repr esentative: Dr. Pfeif fer
. 4/ Moreove r, “[u]nder D.C. law [only ] a custodial pare nt may bring a next friend suit . . . , and p la inti f f s h av e n o t p r o d

u c e d an y a u th o r it y in d ic a ti n g th a t th e n o n - c u s to d ia l p ar e n t m ay s u e a s n e xt friend.” Foretich v. G lamour , 741 F.Supp 247, 249 (D.D .C. 1990) (empha sis a dded) ( denying non-Case No. 1:11-CV- 1124

G w i n , J.

-5 - custodial fathe r the rig ht to sue as his child’s next friend). Acc ording ly , this case is func t i o n al l y equivalent to Elk Grove , wher e the Supre me Court
c on c lud e d th a t a

min or ’s fathe r “ la c k[e d] pr ud e nti a l st and ing ” to b ri nga fe de ra l la ws uit to e njo in h is daug hter’s school from daily rec itation of the Pledg e of A lleg iance
. 542 U.S. at 18 . In Elk Grove , the min o r ’ s mo th e r h a d b e e n g r an te d le g a l c u s to dy ; th e f a th e r w a s “ s e e k in g to r e a c h o utside the private pa rent-c hild sphere to re strain the ac ts of a third party
. . . but the [ state court’s custody ] order ha[d] deprive d [t he F ather ] of that right.” Id. at 17 . The Supreme Court’s cautioned that it is i mproper f

or the fe dera l courts to enter tain a claim by a plainti ff whose standing to su e i s founded on f

amily law rig hts that are in dispute whe n prosec ution of the lawsuit may

have an adverse effe ct on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’ s cl ai m eds t an d i n g. Id. Sa d th ou g h th e fa c ts m ay be , p art ic ula

rl y if the re is truth to D r. Ki ng ’s a sse rt ion s, thi s c a se prese nts “h ar d q u es t ions of domestic relations . . . sure to aff ect the outc ome,” a

nd “the pr

udent
course is for the fe dera l course to stay its hand . . . .” Id. Neither Alma’s mother nor

g randmother has prude ntial standing to br ing claims on Alma’s behalf , and the Court dismisses all claims broug ht on Alma’s beha lf. B . D r. Ar ie l K ing ’s Cla ims Th e Di str ic t a lso mov e s to dis mis s the re ma ind e r o f t he c a se , a nd Dr . K ing ’s c la ims a g a ins t it. Dr. King asser

ts five claims ag ainst the District: (1) violations of fe dera l constitutional due proce ss rig hts; (2) discrimination in violation of DC Code § 2-1402.01, et. seq.; ( 3) discrimination under the Fifth Amendment, 21 U.S.C. § 1981, a nd 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et. seq.; (4) violations of the Child Abuse and Preve ntion and Treatment Act; and (5) violations of Proc edura l Due Proce ss, theCase No. 1:11-CV- 1124

G w i n , J.

-6 - Hea lth I nsuranc e Portability and Acc ountability Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privac y Act. [Doc. 29
. ] I n order to a ssert standing on her own behalf , Dr. Kingmust show that “(1) [she] has suffer ed an ‘injury in fac t’ that is (a) c oncre te and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hy po the tic a l; ( 2) the inj ur

y is f a ir ly tr a c e a

ble to the c ha lle ng e d ac tio n of the de fe nd ant; and (3 ) i t is likely , as opposed to mer ely speculative, that the injury will be redr essed by

a fa vorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, In c. v. Laidl aw Envtl. Servs., Inc

. , 528 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2000) . As to Dr. Ki ng ’s du e pr oc e ss, state -l aw d isc ri min a tio n, e qu a l pr ote c tio n, HI PPA , a nd F ERP A c la ims (C ounts 2, 3, 4, and 7), she cannot show that her injuries a re tra cea ble to the District’s ac tions. Rather, Dr. King ’s complaints—for e x ample, discrimination “in ac cess to Alma’ s information,” a nd “ fa il[ ure] to pr ovide educ ational information, [Doc. 29 ]—result from Virginia giving Dr. P feiff er the sole leg al and phy sical custody of Alma. Fur thermore , Plaintiff D r. King does not e stablish that heral l eged injuries will be redr essed by a favor able decision by this c ourt: Dr. Pfeiffe r will still ha ve sole leg al and phy sical custody

of Alma, Dr. Pfeiffe r will still make all medical a nd educational decisions for Alma, and Dr . King will sti ll be restric ted from acc ess t o and control over Alma. Ac cording ly , Dr. Ki ngdo e s n ot h ave sta

nd ingto a sse rt

the se c la ims
. And as to C o u n t 5—violations of the Child Abuse and Preve ntion Treatment Ac t (“CAPTA” ), fa ilure to “c omply with LaS ha wn v Fe nty , an d D C Co d e Ch a p te r 1 3 , ” [Doc 29 a t ¶ 34]—Dr. King ha s not de scribed that she has bee n actua lly injured by

the District’s conduc t. Rather, her g oal is to “protec t District of Columbia children, including AL MA, from a buse and ne g lect.” [Doc 29 at ¶ 1 1 2
. ] An ad m i rab l e po s i t i o n t o b e su re , b u t n o t o n e th at co n fe rs s t an d i n g o n Dr
. Ki n g. What’s more, the Plaintiff ha s not spe cifica lly alleg ed any fac ts givingrise to a violation ofCase No. 1:11-CV- 1124

G w i n , J.

-7 - her r ights unde r these sour ces, nor has she offe red any persua sive argument that any one of CAPTA, LaS ha wn , or the D.C. Code Chapter 13 g ives her a private r ight of

action. See, e .g. , Doe by

Fein v. Di str ic t of Colum bia , 93 F.3d 861, 865 (a ff ir min g dis tr i c t

c ourt ’s c on c lus ion

that CA PTA“ imp os e [s] only g ener alized duties an d en v ision[ s] t hat the Secr etar y of He alth and Human Ser vices, not ind ivi du a l be ne fi c iari e s, wo uld e nf or c e state s’ c omp lia

nc e .” ). In the e nd , Dr . K ingmay no t us e thi s forum to attac k Virg inia’s custody order or to blame the District for its effe cts: all claims Dr. King
a sse rt s o n h e r o wn

be ha lf fa il. IV. Conclusion F or the re a so ns state d, the Court GR AN TS t he Di str ic t’ s mo tio n to DI SMI SS. I T I S SO ORDERED.

Date d: Jul y

18 , 2 01 2 s/ Jame s S. Gwin J A M E S S
. G W IN UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE