CONCORD, N.H. — A lawsuit has emerged alleging that Vermont’s child welfare agency engaged in unfounded claims regarding a pregnant woman’s mental health in order to secretly investigate her and assume custody of her daughter prior to the child’s birth. This lawsuit, which claims a pattern of targeting pregnant women deemed unfit for motherhood, has been filed by the ACLU of Vermont along with Pregnancy Justice, a national advocacy group.
On Wednesday, the complaint was lodged against the Vermont Department for Children and Families, a local counseling center, as well as the hospital where the woman delivered her baby in February 2022. The lawsuit seeks an end to what it characterizes as an illegal surveillance operation and is also asking for unspecified financial compensation for the woman, referred to only by her initials, A.V.
The lawsuit details that the director of a homeless shelter, where A.V. had sought refuge in January 2022, reported to the child welfare agency that she exhibited signs of untreated paranoia, dissociative behaviors, and PTSD. This prompted the state to initiate an investigation that involved conversations with A.V.’s counselor, midwife, and a hospital social worker, all conducted without her knowledge and with no legal authority over fetal matters.
It was not until she was in labor that A.V. became aware of the surveillance, as hospital staff communicated various updates to the state, including her cervical dilation progress. This communication led to the state being granted temporary custody of her fetus. At one point, officials sought a court order to mandate A.V. undergo a cesarean section; however, this was resolved when she consented to the procedure. Ultimately, it took A.V. seven months to reclaim full custody of her child.
“This is a deeply distressing situation for our client,” stated Harrison Stark, senior staff attorney at the ACLU. He further noted that this incident is indicative of a broader pattern within the agency, citing multiple confidential sources who revealed that the Department for Children and Families routinely monitors pregnant individuals categorized as ‘high risk’ based on unofficial criteria.
Chris Winter, the commissioner of the Department for Children and Families, indicated that a response would be forthcoming once the lawsuit’s claims are thoroughly reviewed. In an emailed statement, he emphasized the agency’s commitment to balancing child safety with parental rights.
Copley Hospital opted not to comment on the ongoing lawsuit. Meanwhile, representatives from Lund, the counseling center named in the suit, expressed their dedication to investigating the situation, claiming they had only recently become aware of the allegations through media reports.
While the prevalence of such cases nationwide is uncertain, some states permit civil commitment of pregnant individuals to claims involving fetuses. This practice sheds light on how pregnancy is increasingly leveraged as a justification for infringing upon rights, according to Kulsoom Ijaz, a senior staff attorney at Pregnancy Justice. In a report from September, an uptick in criminal charges against women pertaining to pregnancy was noted, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision that revoked the national right to abortion.
Ijaz highlighted that many of these charges relate to child abuse or neglect, with the fetus often cited as the victim, particularly in instances involving alleged substance use during pregnancy. “What DCF did here is profoundly cruel and discriminatory. It exemplifies state-sanctioned monitoring and intrusion, violating Vermont’s newly established right to reproductive autonomy,” Ijaz remarked. She posited that this case presents Vermont a chance to affirm its commitment to such rights, showcasing that they are not merely theoretical but actively upheld.
Given Vermont’s reputation as a sanctuary for reproductive rights, these allegations could be seen as particularly alarming, according to Stark. “Evidence suggesting a state agency is collaborating with healthcare providers to gather information without consent, while unlawfully extending its jurisdiction over personal reproductive decisions, is deeply concerning,” he concluded.
