A Smithfield man yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against Fayette County Children and Youth Services alleging that the agency removed his children from him -- and has forbade contact with them for nearly a year -- even though there were no allegations of any kind of abuse.

Filed on his behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Pennsylvania, the lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order that would prohibit CYS from placing -- or threatening to place -- his children, who are staying with his parents, in foster care.

A hearing is scheduled before Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose today at 12:30 p.m.

The plaintiff is listed as "John Doe" in the lawsuit to protect his children, who are 8, 6 and 5 years old.

According to the complaint, the problems began in September 2006, after Mr. Doe began a consensual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, identified by the initials "K.K." He was 27 at the time and separated from his wife, who is a psychiatric patient at Torrance State Hospital.

When K.K.'s mother learned of the relationship, she first went to the police. But, the lawsuit contends, there was nothing they could do because the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.

The mother then went to Fayette County Children and Youth Services, alleging sexual abuse of her daughter, who at one time baby-sat for Mr. Doe.

CYS immediately initiated an investigation of Mr. Doe.

"CYS had no basis to believe he was a danger to his own kids based solely on his relationship with a 16-year-old girl," said Sara Rose, one of the ACLU attorneys representing Mr. Doe.

A caseworker called him at home at 10:30 p.m. on Sept. 22, 2006, to ask if there was anywhere his children could stay for the duration of a 60-day investigation, according to the lawsuit.

The caseworker also said if the children continued to live with him, they would be removed and placed in emergency foster care.

The caseworker never told Mr. Doe that he had a right to have a hearing on the matter, or that his children couldn't be removed without a showing that they were in "imminent danger of abuse," Ms. Rose said.

Mr. Doe sent the children to stay with his parents, and he was permitted supervised visits with them. According to the 16-page complaint, each day he went directly from his job to their house and visited with the children until they went to bed.

On Nov. 17, 2006, Mr. Doe received a letter from CYS informing him that the claim of sexual abuse involving K.K. had been substantiated.

He was given 45 days to appeal that finding with the state Department of Public Welfare, which he did, filing the required paperwork in January 2007.

It took the department 11 months before it scheduled the appeal hearing for Nov. 28, 2007. There has still been no decision by the department on the matter.

CYS continued to allow Mr. Doe to have supervised visits with his children until Aug. 1, 2007, when a new caseworker took over.

She went to Mr. Doe's parents' home at 10 p.m. that night with two state troopers. She told them that Mr. Doe had been "indicated as a perpetrator of sexual abuse," and that even supervised visitation was prohibited. She also told them if he had any contact with his children at all, the agency would put them in foster care.

Mr. Doe has not seen or had contact with his children since.

"We're not sanctioning the fact he had a relationship with a 16-year-old girl. But it was consensual, and it's not against the law," Ms. Rose said. "The government cannot take away your kids just because you do something that they don't like."

At that Aug. 1 visit, the caseworker also told Mr. Doe's mother that her son would not be permitted contact with the children unless he successfully completed a sexual offender treatment program.

He attended one class, after which the therapist labeled him "a low risk of sexual abuse with prepubescent children," and learned he would be required to admit to being a perpetrator of sexual abuse.

Mr. Doe refused to do so, according to the lawsuit.

David L. Madison, the administrator of Fayette County CYS, said he could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit because of confidentiality requirements.