US: A judge has dismissed a claim about a teenager who was transported from Pakistan without their parents’ consent

US: Washington A US federal court rejected the government’s attempt to have the case dismissed, allowing New York-based parents to file a lawsuit alleging negligence and emotional distress after their young daughter was taken from Pakistan and brought to the US without their knowledge.

Senior US District Judge Frederic Block rejected the United States’ request to revisit a previous decision that permitted the parents’ claims to go forward in an order dated December 11.

In his letter and decision, Judge Block of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York said, “The United States’s motion is DENIED.”

Mussarat Bano and Bashir Rahee filed the lawsuit against the United States, the City of New York, top officials from the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in New York City, and a private child welfare organization. After their daughter fled Pakistan and returned to the United States, the parents claim that authorities handled her case improperly and kept them in the dark for weeks.

The court document states that in June 2020, the girl, known as FB, was in Pakistan with her parents. She was a child and a citizen of the United States. While there, she made contact with US consular officials, claiming that her family was mistreating her and keeping her from going back to the US.

On June 23, 2020, while still in Pakistan, FB left her family with the help of US authorities. On June 26, she boarded a plane and reached the United States.

The parents claimed that they were unaware of their daughter’s whereabouts for a number of days. The authorities notified them on June 29 that Facebook was safe and had left Pakistan. The parents claim they were not informed of her whereabouts. They didn’t find out that their daughter was back in New York until July 20, 2020, when they received word from New York State police.

New York child welfare officials took notice when she returned. ACS and Little Flower Children and Family Services, a private foster care agency, were subsequently named in the case, suggesting that FB’s care was managed by New York’s child protection system instead of her parents.

Asserting that the parents’ claims were barred by Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) exceptions and that the complaint lacked sufficient allegations of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Justice Department requested that the court reexamine its previous ruling rejecting a motion to dismiss.

All three arguments were rejected by Judge Block.

The court ruled that reconsideration is a “extraordinary remedy” that cannot be used just because one party disagrees with a previous decision. The government needed to demonstrate a change in the governing legislation, fresh information, or a glaring mistake that would cause obvious unfairness in order to prevail. The judge wrote that it didn’t.

Before the court, the government contended that because the relevant activity took place in Pakistan, the FTCA’s foreign country exemption applied. The court disagreed, reiterating its previous conclusion that the parents had made credible claims of tortious activities that occurred in the United States.

Judge Block said, “The government may disagree with this conclusion, but it fails to identify any legal basis for reconsideration.”

The government’s argument that federal officials were shielded by the FTCA’s due care exemption was similarly dismissed by the court. The government claimed that since the kid declined to provide permission for disclosure, authorities were obligated under the Privacy Act to keep information about her location secret once she returned to the United States.

According to Judge Block, the Privacy Act did not require such action. The legislation permits a parent to act on behalf of a child, even though it typically limits the disclosure of personal data. Therefore, the legislation allowed authorities to suppress information, but it did not mandate it.

The court determined that the due care exception did not apply, holding that “the government had discretion to share information with the Plaintiffs.” The government’s contention that the parents did not make legitimate legal claims was likewise dismissed by the court.

In the ruling that let the action against the federal government and other defendants to proceed, the court said, “The government fails to establish any legal basis for reconsideration and instead merely seeks to relitigate the merits.”