Former Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris Younge. (Courtesy photo)

A Philadelphia public defender sued for allegedly conspiring with officials to have a couple's child removed from their home without allowing them to present a defense in court has claimed in court papers that the judge was the problem.

In response to a lawsuit against her, Patrice Langenbach of the Defender Association of Philadelphia said in preliminary objections filed Monday that former Philadelphia Family Court Judge Lyris Younge ultimately made the final decision to send plaintiff N.W.M. to foster care. Langenbach represented the child in the matter.

Younge has since been removed from the Family Court bench and awaits sanctioning after admitting to violating the rights of parents who appeared before her, including in this case.

The Legal previously reported that N.W.M.'s parents, the Martinezes (whose names were changed to protect their child's privacy), were accused of child abuse after bringing their infant daughter to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for apparent discomfort. The child was diagnosed with fractured ribs and a social worker recommended that she be removed from the parents' custody. The Martinezes said they did not know for certain how their daughter was injured, but guessed it was from the girl's younger brother running into her.

However, Langenbach and the Defender Association claimed in court papers that the parents were given fair treatment during the case. "The defender then listened to the parents' testimony in this case. The infant, they said, was never out of their care or sight and had suffered no trauma. They had no explanation for the broken bones."

A yearslong courtroom battle ensued, and N.W.M. was sent by the court to live with a convicted felon even though the parents petitioned to have her stay with her grandmother. Her brother, then a toddler, was allowed to stay with the Martinezes. But for the duration of the case the parents, who maintained their innocence of child abuse, never got the chance to tell their side of the story in court.

They were reunited with their daughter roughly two years later, after the Superior Court admonished Younge for "overreaching, failing to be fair and impartial, evidence of a fixed presumptive idea of what took place, and a failure to provide due process to the two parents involved."

In their preliminary objections, Langenbach and the Defender Association pointed to Younge's behavior as the cause of the drama.

" The defender was appointed as guardian ad litem and advocate for the children on the same day the motion was heard by Judge Lyris Younge. Judge Younge ordered the infant into foster care and the toddler into kinship care," court papers said. "The toddler was quickly reunited with his parents, but Judge Younge terminated parental rights with respect to the infant approximately a year and a half later. Subsequently, on appeal, the Superior Court reversed and criticized several of Judge Younge's rulings in this matter."

Court papers continued, "Judge Younge is no longer a judge in Family Court. Her Honor is subject to a recent, well-publicized Judicial Misconduct Board proceeding. Comments made by Judge Younge from the bench in this case were among those cited in the Judicial Misconduct Board complaint. Judge Younge is not a party to this proceeding for one reason: immunity."

Additionally, the defendants denied the existence of a conspiracy.

"The fact that throughout most of these proceedings Judge Younge, DHS, social workers, and the children's own guardian and advocate saw things one way—that the parents were not explaining what happened to their injured baby and were not otherwise accepting responsibility for her condition—does not amount to a conspiracy," they said in court papers.

Andrew Thomson of Edelstein Law in Philadelphia represents the plaintiffs and said the defendants' objections were procedurally deficient.

"We just received this filing, which, for almost the entirety of its 60-plus pages, is untethered from the PA Rules of Civil Procedure, as Ms. Langenbach and the Defenders assert their own set of facts and include prayers for relief in preliminary objections that are unavailable under both the facts and the law," Thomson said. "We will respond in due course."

Reached for comment, the defendants' attorney, William Leonard of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, referred to the brief.