You feel a knot when you learn that an 18-month-old who nearly died from respiratory failure was sent back to an ICE family detention center and — according to a federal lawsuit — denied prescribed medications and nutritional support. This piece explains what happened to Amalia, why advocates say the return to custody matters, and what the legal fight could mean for detained families.
The next sections break down the timeline of Amalia’s illness and hospitalization, the claims that staff confiscated her medicines and nutritional drinks after discharge, and the government’s statement that the child received clearance and care. You will also see how lawyers and policy experts frame the case and what it could trigger in court and public debate.
Amalia’s Medical Crisis and Return to Detention
Amalia suffered a serious respiratory collapse that required intensive hospital care. After discharge, officials returned her to Dilley where advocates say staff withheld the medications doctors prescribed.
Timeline of Detention and Medical Emergency
Amalia and her parents were transferred to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center after being taken into custody in December 2025. The family had been checking in with immigration officials while awaiting asylum processing, then were moved to Dilley more than 500 miles from their El Paso community.
In early January, the 18-month-old developed fever, vomiting and difficulty breathing. Her oxygen levels dropped into the 50s—a life‑threatening emergency—and she was rushed to a children’s hospital on Jan. 18. She spent 10 days in the hospital under constant ICE supervision before discharge on Jan. 28.
Details of Hospitalization and Diagnoses
Hospital records and the federal lawsuit say doctors treated Amalia for multiple respiratory conditions: pneumonia, COVID‑19, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and viral bronchitis. Clinicians placed her on supplemental oxygen and administered intensive respiratory support while her lungs recovered.
Medical staff documented severe respiratory distress and marked hypoxemia during admission. They prescribed nebulized breathing treatments (albuterol) and nutritional supplements to support weight gain and lung recovery. Treating physicians described the toddler as medically fragile at discharge and warned against immediate return to congregate detention.
Denial of Prescribed Medications Post-Hospitalization
After discharge, ICE transported Amalia and her mother back to Dilley instead of to their prior community placement. At Dilley, detention medical staff reportedly confiscated her nebulizer, albuterol and nutritional supplements. The family was forced to wait in an outdoor “pill line” and allegedly received only PediaSure instead of the prescribed respiratory medications.
Advocates and lawyers filed emergency court papers after repeated refusals to provide the hospital‑ordered treatments. DHS later disputed claims that medication was withheld; the lawsuit asserts that access was effectively denied and that medication dispensing procedures at Dilley were inadequate for a recently hospitalized infant.
Impact on Amalia’s Health and Recovery
Clinicians warned the family that returning a recently hospitalized toddler to a detention center increased the risk of reinfection and medical decompensation. RSV and other viral illnesses can cause rapid relapse in young children who remain oxygen‑dependent or underweight after hospitalization.
Advocates said Amalia’s condition worsened without consistent access to nebulized treatments and nutrition. Lawyers filed an emergency habeas petition; the family was released hours after that filing. Medical reviewers who examined her records warned of ongoing vulnerability and the potential for long‑term respiratory consequences from the episode at Dilley.
Legal and Policy Implications
This case raises urgent legal questions about custody decisions, medical care in detention, and advocacy role in challenging government action. It highlights how legal filings, public pressure, and medical testimony intersect when a child’s health is at stake.
Emergency Habeas Corpus Petition and Family Release
Lawyers filed an emergency habeas corpus petition on behalf of the family to challenge continued detention after the toddler’s hospitalization. The petition argued that holding a medically fragile 18-month-old in ICE custody violated constitutional protections and posed an immediate risk to life and health. Federal judges can order release when detention becomes unlawfully punitive or dangerous; here the court’s action resulted in the family’s prompt release.
The petition relied on hospital records, physician affidavits, and documentation that prescribed medications and nebulizer treatments were withheld or confiscated after discharge. That evidentiary focus is central to emergency habeas strategies in immigration matters where immediate medical harm is alleged.
Criticism of ICE Detention Practices
Critics argue that ICE detention centers, including the Dilley facility, lack reliable systems to provide continuity of care for vulnerable populations like infants and asylum seekers. Reports cited repeated failures to deliver prescribed medication, long outdoor “pill line” queues, and removal of medical devices — practices that raise legal liability and policy scrutiny.
Policy debates now center on whether family detention is appropriate for asylum applications and how ICE should implement medical protocols. Lawmakers and oversight bodies may press ICE to adopt clear medical custody transfer rules, mandatory medical releases for high-risk patients, or alternatives to detention for families with young children.
Role of Advocates and Medical Experts
Immigration advocates and medical experts played a decisive role by documenting the child’s condition and pressing for judicial relief. Clinicians provided affidavits warning of “high risk” for decompensation, while advocates compiled records that formed the factual basis for the habeas filing.
This combined strategy — legal action supported by clinical evidence and public advocacy — is increasingly used to challenge immigration enforcement policies. It pressures ICE to follow medical guidance and can catalyze administrative changes, influence policy debates about mass deportation programs, and shape how future asylum applications involving vulnerable individuals are handled.
More from Decluttering Mom: