Richland County meeting hears public allegations of CPS procedural failures; resident signals federal civil-rights action

Kevin Hoffman addressed the Richland County Community and Health Services standing committee during public comment on Dec. 4, saying Wisconsin Child Protective Services violated state procedures in an investigation involving his son and that he intends to pursue a federal civil-rights action if the issues are not resolved.

Hoffman said he has been his son's primary caregiver for four years and described an Oct. 20 interaction in which, he said, CPS workers arrived at his home, removed his son and placed the child temporarily with the speaker's mother. "This occurred without a court order, without due processes," Hoffman said, and later alleged that CPS contacted the other parent in Michigan and directed her to travel and take custody without conducting the background checks he says are required.

Hoffman named procedural failures he said occurred during the case, including what he described as a fabricated supervisor consultation and an improperly handled drug test. "Jessica Tisdale documented she determined present danger and consulted with her supervisor…However, I have security cameras in my home that indicate that she did not do this," he said. He also said a contested drug test "was never sent to a lab" and that the testing cup was discarded.

He framed the conduct as potential constitutional violations: "My Fourth Amendment rights were violated for procedural due process," Hoffman said, adding that his Fourteenth Amendment family-integrity rights had been infringed. He told the committee he is preparing a formal federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked staff to accept a written complaint for routing.

Committee staff and the chair halted the speaker when his allotted public-comment time ended. The chair invited Hoffman to send his written statement to the Richland County administrator so staff can route it to the proper reviewers; members indicated they would add his material to the meeting packet after submission.

The committee did not take any investigative or adjudicative action on Hoffman's allegations during the meeting. No county staff provided detailed responses to the substance of the claims on the record; staff instead instructed Hoffman on how to file written correspondence. The committee's next steps will depend on any written complaint Hoffman submits and any staff review that follows.

Hoffman recommended committee members review publicly available court records; he asserted warrants for the other parent could be viewed through state court search pages. The meeting record does not show that staff verified his court-record assertions during the session.

The committee's administrative staff said they would add Hoffman's letter to the meeting packet once he forwards it to county staff.