A federal lawsuit claims that state child welfare officials removed three children from their long-term caregiver without legal justification, raising questions about the protection of family integrity and due process in child welfare proceedings. The complaint was filed by Kristopher Adam Whittle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, on March 25, 2026, naming the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and Investigator Bret Addison as defendants.
According to court documents, Whittle alleges that he is the de facto parent of three minor children who have lived with him for most of their lives. He states that since December 2022 he has held notarized Authorization Agreements for Non-Parent Caregivers under Texas Family Code Chapter 34, granting him legal authority to care for the children. The complaint outlines a series of events beginning with an April 14, 2023 home visit by DFPS Investigator Bret Addison. During this visit, DFPS documented that all three children were healthy, appropriately dressed, free from concerning marks or bruises, and receiving adequate care from Whittle.
Despite these findings, Whittle asserts that Addison later submitted an affidavit to obtain an ex parte removal order without naming Whittle as the children’s de facto parent or disclosing that they were living safely in his home. The affidavit allegedly created a false impression that the children were in danger or in someone else’s custody. Whittle claims this omission misled the court into authorizing removal without proper grounds.
The filing further alleges that on Easter weekend following this affidavit submission, Addison removed the children from Whittle’s home despite there being no emergency or immediate danger present. According to Whittle’s account in court records: “Plaintiff’s daughter was not inside the home, was not present on the property, and posed no threat to the children. DFPS knew this.” He also contends that Addison told the court a “kick-out order” would not work—a statement Whittle says was false because there was no individual posing a threat in his household at that time.
After removal took place, Whittle reports full cooperation with DFPS caseworkers including allowing repeated access to his home and addressing any concerns raised by staff. He states that caseworkers assured him repeatedly that placement with him would be completed but never followed through. The complaint suggests these delays may have been intentional so statutory timeframes could lapse—potentially enabling DFPS to pursue Permanent Managing Conservatorship over the children instead.
Whittle also points out inconsistencies in DFPS’s documentation regarding his status as caregiver and notes procedural irregularities such as denial of access to court orders or affidavits related to removal decisions. A summary attached to his filing cites internal DFPS records acknowledging he was already established as caregiver—contradicting statements made during removal proceedings—and admits entry onto his property occurred without consent: “CA stated unlawful entry to his property, without access being granted.”
The complaint brings three main legal claims under federal law: violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights against both Addison individually and DFPS institutionally; violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure; and ongoing interference with fundamental familial rights recognized by law. Specifically:
– Against Addison: Submitting false or misleading statements leading to removal without exigency or lawful basis;
– Against DFPS: Failing to ensure truthful affidavits or proper training regarding removals; failing to honor valid caregiver agreements; ignoring completed kinship assessments;
– Against Addison again: Entering property without warrant or consent; seizing children absent emergency circumstances.
Whittle requests several forms of relief from the court including:
1) Declaratory judgment confirming violations occurred;
2) Injunctive relief preventing further interference with familial rights;
3) Any necessary measures for children’s safety and placement;
4) Costs and other appropriate remedies deemed just by the court.
He has requested a jury trial on all triable issues related to these claims.
Kristopher Adam Whittle is representing himself (pro se) in this matter. No attorney names are listed for either party within this filing. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 4-26-cv-00363-Y.
Source: 426cv00363_Kristopher_Adam_v_Texas_Department_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Texas.pdf
