City settles 2006 child removal suit

Costa Mesa and Orange County have agreed to pay $70,000 to a mother and grandmother who alleged that their child was removed without due legal process in 2006.

Debbie and Angeline Balsitis, the child’s mother and grandmother, claimed that officials lacked probable cause when they detained the child for nine days in August 2006. Their suit also alleged that social workers intentionally mishandled evidence in an attempt to prolong the child’s detainment.

Costa Mesa police officers mistakenly entered the apartment of Debbie and Angeline Balsitis three years ago to serve an arrest warrant for the previous tenant, who shared no relationship with the Balsitis family. Upon their arrival, they deemed the living conditions unsuitable for the infant, so they contacted county social services. Soon, social service workers illegally removed the child without a warrant, said attorney Shawn A. McMillan.

“They should have gotten the warrant — which they had time to do,” he said.

According to McMillan, the Constitution prohibited social services from seizing the child.

“You have a fundamental constitutional right to raise your family without inference. The only time the government can interfere is [when it’s] in the best interests of the child — but they can’t do so on a whim. The child has to be in immediate, severe bodily danger. That’s the mistake they made here.”

The suit alleged that there were no pressing dangers to the welfare of the child. But according to assistant attorney Krista MacNevin Jee, who is representing the city, the police officers saw potentially hazardous objects in the room with the child.

“One of the officers initially saw the child through the door as he was knocking,” she said. “He did not get any response, and through the window, he saw the child sleeping on the floor with sharp objects and tools nearby . . . He couldn’t tell whether the child was sleeping or if something was wrong.”

Officials later removed the child.

After a series of meetings and struggles, the child eventually ended up back in the hands of Angeline Balsitis.

The lawsuit also alleges that social service authorities skewed the evidence in an attempt to keep custody of the child.

“The city misrepresented statements in court reports and made allegations in court reports that were not true,” McMillan said.

The case was eventually settled out of court, and neither side admitted any liability.

“There are pros and cons in deciding out of court, especially in federal court,” Jee said. “I’m sure each side evaluated the risks they faced in going to jury.”

Due to the limited involvement of the city, officials hoped to save money by settling out of court.

“The city had no involvement in the interactions with social workers or case workers, or anyone working for county dependency court. . . . [And] trials can be expected to be costly,” Jee said.

McMillan hopes to see the city and the county adopt more regulated procedures for the removal and detainment of children.

“I would expect them to promulgate a warrant policy that requires the police and the social workers to get a warrant, unless the child is in immediate danger of suffering severe bodily injury,” he said. “I think you will see the child removal rate drop if they promulgate a removal policy that comports with law.”