The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of federal civil rights claims brought by two North Carolina families against Guilford County and its Department of Social Services. The court issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on Jan. 16, 2026, in *Ginger Rhoads v. Guilford County, North Carolina* (4th Cir. 2026).
The case involved Ginger Rhoads, Scott Rhoads, Waylon Ethridge, and Ashley Ethridge, who filed suit against Guilford County, the Guilford County Department of Social Services, and multiple DSS officials and employees. The defendants included Sharon Barlow, who serves as Director of Guilford County Department of Social Services, along with DSS employees Gail Spinks, Christina Haik, Karen Williamson, Lori Gershon, and Rachel Cooley. The complaint also named unidentified DSS supervisors and social workers.
The families sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities as employees of the Guilford County Department of Social Services. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro, where District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder presided over the matter.
The district court dismissed the families' amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) allows for dismissal when a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The specific grounds for dismissal were not detailed in the available portions of the Fourth Circuit's opinion.
The families appealed the district court's dismissal to the Fourth Circuit, which heard the case as Appeal No. 24-2035. The case was submitted to the appeals court on Dec. 30, 2025, and decided approximately two weeks later. The Fourth Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Toby Heytens and Stephanie Berner, along with Senior Circuit Judge William Traxler.
Representing the families on appeal was Deborah A. Ausburn of Taylor English Duma LLP in Atlanta, Georgia. The defendants were represented by multiple attorneys from Fox Rothschild LLP's Greensboro office, including Patrick M. Kane, Kip D. Nelson, Ashley B. Chandler, and La-Deidre D. Matthews.
The Fourth Circuit issued its decision as an unpublished per curiam opinion, meaning the ruling was unanimous and unsigned by any individual judge. The court's brief order stated simply that it "affirmed" the district court's dismissal. Unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, though they may have persuasive value in future cases involving similar legal issues.
While the available excerpts from the opinion do not detail the specific claims brought by the families or the reasoning behind the dismissal, the case appears to involve allegations related to the conduct of social services officials. Such cases often arise from disputes over child welfare investigations, custody determinations, or other interactions between families and social services agencies.
The involvement of multiple DSS employees as defendants suggests the families' claims may have concerned systemic issues within the department rather than isolated incidents. The inclusion of both individual capacity and official capacity claims indicates the plaintiffs sought both personal liability from the employees and institutional accountability from the county and department.
The procedural posture of the case shows the families filed an amended complaint, suggesting they had an opportunity to cure deficiencies identified in their initial filing. However, the district court ultimately found the amended pleading insufficient to survive the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The case reflects ongoing tensions between family rights and child protection efforts that frequently result in federal litigation. Families who believe their constitutional rights were violated during social services interactions often turn to Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
For the families involved, the Fourth Circuit's affirmance represents the end of their federal court challenge unless they seek further review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Such petitions for certiorari are rarely granted, particularly in unpublished decisions from circuit courts.
The ruling may provide guidance for similar future cases involving challenges to social services actions within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. While not binding precedent, the decision suggests the circuit courts continue to apply existing standards for constitutional claims against social services agencies.
The case demonstrates the challenges families face when attempting to hold social services agencies accountable through federal civil rights litigation, where plaintiffs must meet demanding pleading standards and overcome qualified immunity defenses for individual defendants.