legal-news

TAMAGNY v. DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY et al

25-cv-00732
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Tamagny is suing the Division of Child Protection and Permanency and other defendants under docket 25-cv-00732. The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) is a state child welfare agency, and federal suits against it typically allege constitutional violations — most often substantive due process claims arising from child removal, placement decisions, or family separation. The presence of multiple defendants alongside the agency suggests individual caseworkers or supervisors may also be named, which is common in Section 1983 civil rights actions. The 2025 filing date places this in early litigation.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • • Section 1983 civil rights claims against state child welfare agency
  • • Substantive due process and family integrity rights
  • • Qualified immunity for individual caseworker defendants
  • • Eleventh Amendment immunity for state agency
  • • Child removal or placement decision at issue
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
info
Other April 20, 2026

2:25-cv-00732 TAMAGNY v. DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY et al

A civil case was filed in federal court captioned Tamagny v. Division of Child Protection and Permanency, docket 2:25-cv-00732. The complaint names a state child welfare agency as a defendant, which typically signals claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations tied to child removal or family separation. No further details appear in the filing record yet.

description View filing open_in_new
Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

1 article
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 1 article

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

4 hours, 20 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.