“Happy Mother’s Day”: $1,353,000 Settlement Approved for Migrant Parents Separated from Minor Kids at Border
by Matthew Thomas Clarke
On July 2, 2024, the federal court for the District of Arizona approved settlement of a lawsuit brought against the United States by former immigration detainees under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671, et seq., for separating them from their minor children while in immigration detention. The eight plaintiffs accepted $1,353,000 to resolve the suit.
According to court documents, the Plaintiffs were four mothers and the children of each mother, who came to the U.S. over land from Guatemala in 2018. The children ranged in age from 5 to 12. At least one spoke neither English nor Spanish but an indigenous language. For the misdemeanor crime of entering the U.S. between official ports of entry, they were taken into custody by federal Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents, who separated the children from their parents—forcibly, if necessary—under a “zero tolerance” policy implemented the year before by Pres. Donald J. Trump (R).
When “C.M.” and her five-year-old son “B.M.” were apprehended, they were taken to Yuma Station, where an immigration official allegedly told the migrant that they would be separated and laughed sarcastically, “Happy Mother’s Day!” As the district court later recalled, the child was then “pulled” from his mother “by force” on May 11, 2018. Though she wasn’t prosecuted or even taken into custody, she and her child were not reunited until July 26, 2018—after 74 days apart.
The other parents and children were also separated: “V.C.” from her six-year-old son “G.A.” for 77 days; “O.A.” from her five-year-old daughter, “L.A.” for 123 days; “L.G.” and her six-year-old daughter “B.G.” for 64 days. None of the women was ever prosecuted or taken into custody. Meanwhile, the children were flown to detention camps and held by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. However, the parents were not kept informed of their status.
Worse, the parents were often taunted by CBP officials and others with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for their obvious mental distress over being separated from their children. Most were told that they were going to be deported without their children and would never see the kids again. At least one parent was told by an immigration judge during a court appearance that she would be removed from the country without her child as he signed her deportation order.
But none of the mothers were deported because a judge in another federal court in California enjoined deportation of any migrant parents without their minor children, as reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, Mar. 2025, p.25.] That gave these Plaintiffs sufficient time to be reunited with their children—and enough time to fully present their claims to immigration officials, who determined that they had a credible fear of persecution in Guatemala and allowed them to remain in the U.S. and pursue an asylum case.
Plaintiffs then obtained representation from attorney David B. Rosenbaum and fellow counsel with Osborn Maledon in Phoenix, as well as attorneys from Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer in New York; Washington, D.C.; and Los Angeles. Additional representation was provided by attorneys with Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg and Lin in Philadelphia; the American Immigration Council and the National Immigration Council, both in Washington, D.C.; the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago; and the National Immigration Alliance in Brookline, Massachusetts. Together, they filed suit for Plaintiffs under the FTCA in September 2019, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.
The government moved to dismiss their claims, arguing that CPB agents were not exercising a discretionary function, so no exemption was conferred to the government’s immunity from suit. But the district court rejected that argument and denied the motion on October 24, 2023, saying that the agents who decided the children were unaccompanied and sent them to ORR did not make decisions that were “‘bound up’ in or ‘indivisible’ from the decision to refer the parent” for prosecution—because none of them was referred, and “the possibility of facing prosecution did not make parent Plaintiffs unavailable to provide care and custody.” See: C.M. v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 3d 809 (D. Ariz. 2023).
The parties then proceeded to reach their settlement agreement. Under its terms, plaintiff “L.G.” and minor plaintiff “B.G.” each received $108,000; the other six plaintiffs—plaintiff “C.M.” and minor plaintiff “B.M.”; plaintiff “O.A.” and minor plaintiff “L.A.”; and plaintiff “V.C.” and minor plaintiff “G.A.”—each received $189,500, for a total of $1,353,000. The settlement payments included costs and fees for Plaintiffs’ attorneys. See: C.M. v. United States, USDC (D. Ariz.), Case No. 2:19-cv-05217.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login