A 9-year-old boy who begged to be released from an immigration detention center so he could attend his state spelling bee has been freed with his family, their lawyer said Wednesday.

Deiver Henao Jimenez made the plea during a video call this month with children’s entertainer Ms. Rachel, whose real name is Rachel Accurso.

“I don’t want to be here anymore,” Deiver said on the call, which was later shared on Accurso’s social media pages. “Nothing is good here.”

He and his parents, asylum-seekers from Colombia, had been held at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in South Texas since early March, when they were detained during a routine immigration check-in in New Mexico, according to their lawyer, Corey Sullivan Martin.

ICE freed the family on humanitarian parole Wednesday, about a week after Martin filed a request for their release and days after NBC News reported on their case.

His elementary school principal wrote a letter in mid-March supporting the family’s release, which was later delivered to immigration officials, describing Deiver as “a dedicated student with excellent attendance and high marks.”

Sullivan Martin said Deiver is eager to return to school, rejoin his gifted and talented classes and get back to practicing his spelling words.

“I don’t see how it was necessary at all to detain a child who was doing exactly what we want children to do,” Sullivan Martin said.

The family planned to return to New Mexico, she said, where they will continue checking in with immigration officials while their case proceeds.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Deiver was released a day after ICE freed another child whose case drew widespread attention following a video call with Accurso. Gael, a 5-year-old boy with developmental disabilities, had experienced worsening medical issues while he was detained at Dilley, his parents said.

The facility has faced growing scrutiny from immigration lawyers and advocates, who say children there have struggled to access adequate medical care and education in an environment where lights remain on around the clock and officers stand guard. Some families have described poor food and long waits for medical attention.

DHS has disputed those accounts, saying families are provided appropriate care in a facility designed for their needs.

After her video meetings with the children, Accurso — known for her signature pink headband and singsong delivery — called for Dilley to be shut down and for families to be returned to their communities.

During their conversation, Deiver told Accurso he missed his friends and said the food at Dilley made his stomach hurt. But he was most worried about getting out in time to compete in New Mexico’s state spelling bee in May after he earned a spot by placing third at a regional competition.

“We’re trying to get a child out of a jail to do a spelling bee,” Accurso said last week. “I just never thought those words would go together.”

OAKLAND, Calif. – A New Mexico jury found the Meta willfully violated the state’s unfair practices laws, which resulted in child exploitation to the tune of more than a third of a billion dollars. 

What we know:

There are many employees inside social media companies working to make them safer, but insiders say market share and money override much of those efforts. 

The New Mexico judge read from the jury’s decision. “Did Meta violate the Unfair Practices Act by engaging in unconscionable trade practices act? The jury’s answer is yes,” said Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid, a New Mexico justice.

The New Mexico Attorney General’s Office proved its case to a civil jury that awarded $375 million in damages. Meta’s response through a spokesperson: “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal.”

Local perspective:

Larry Magid is a long-time Bay Area tech analyst, journalist, founder of ConnectSafely and a pioneer in online safety, especially for children. “I think that verdict indicates that there was convincing evidence, at least to that jury, that Meta did fail to fully protect children in ways that would guarantee that they would not be approached by predators.” 

Kaitlin Soule is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist as well as an author. “I think it means that we’re entering a new era hopefully where the tech firms are gonna be held more accountable for creating safer spaces just like we would in public spaces,” said Soule.

The days of blaming parents are over. “What we’ve been feeling as parents and I can speak for myself as a parent of three, is like somehow, we’re doing bad parenting and we are getting it wrong when really the system was rigged in the first place,” said Soule.

What they’re saying:

Folks we met at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal said this, “I think especially with the rise of all the advertisements and just like trying to steal other people, like younger generations or data, and just like things to make you scroll and stay on longer and I do think that is a problem in our society like addicting,” said Clementine Glineur a young social media user. 

“I’ve seen a lot of mental health issues, especially compared in our generation compared to  a lot of other ones. And a lot of mental health ones, such as ADHD, which can really affect not being able to focus well,” said Brittanya Green, another young social media user.

Green says fines are in order. “Paying for it is definitely a start to help with the damages,” she said,

The jury surely believed it. “I think the jury system is the only way that we really get to participate in our government. It’s hands-on; you’re in the room, you’re talking to people who make decisions, you’re hearing evidence,” said Amanda Ebey of San Rafael.

Is the punishment significant? 

 But is it really a meaningful penalty?

“This particular financial judgment is not even a slap on the wrist. If a typical Bay Area family were fined this amount, it would basically be $300 out of their pocket, probably not even a traffic ticket,” said Magid.

But, with so many other states suing, an enormous liability bill would be damaging to both its reputation, share price and loss of freedom from regulation.  

“It’s best probably to have federal rules because they’re doing business in every state,” said Ebey.                                                                                                                                                                           

Magid said many people at Meta are working hard to make it safer, but the bad guys with new ways of being bad are winning the battle so far.

A New Mexico jury found Tuesday that social media conglomerate Meta is harmful to children’s mental health and in violation of state consumer protection law.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial. Jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety. The jury determined Meta violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act on accusations the company hid what it knew about the dangers of child sexual exploitation on its platforms and impacts on child mental health.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million.

Attorneys for Meta said the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, while acknowledging that some bad material gets through its safety net.

“We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told CBS News in a statement Tuesday evening. “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”  

New Mexico’s case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

The trial that started Feb. 9 is one of the first in a torrent of lawsuits against Meta and comes as school districts and legislators want more restrictions on the use of smartphones in classrooms.

In a federal court in Southern California, a jury has been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable for harms caused to children on their platforms, in one of three bellwether court cases that could set the course for thousands of similar lawsuits.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in the Los Angeles trial last month, telling jurors that while users under 13 are not allowed on Instagram, it is a difficult rule to enforce because there are “a meaningful number of people who lie about their age to use our services.”

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it’s contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

New Mexico’s case relied on a state undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s response.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also says Meta hasn’t fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction. Meta hasn’t agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at trial acknowledged “problematic use” and say they want people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta’s platforms.

“Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it’s the right thing to do but because it is good for business,” Meta attorney Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments. “Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators.”

Tech companies have been protected from liability for material posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.

New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that can be harmful for children.

“We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids,” prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. “That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids.”

A slated second phase of the trial, possibly in May before a judge with no jury, would determine whether Meta created a public nuisance and may be ordered to change course and pay for remedies.

The New Mexico trial examined a raft of Meta’s internal correspondence and reports related to child safety. Jurors also heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, psychiatric experts and tech-safety consultants.

The jury also heard testimony from local public school educators who struggled with disruptions linked to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.

“What this case is about is one of the biggest tech companies in the world taking advantage of New Mexico teens,” state Chief Deputy Attorney General James Grayson told the jury in closing arguments.

The jury was assembled from residents of Santa Fe County, including the politically progressive state capital city.

In reaching a verdict, it considered whether social media users were misled by specific statements about platform safety by Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis.

In deliberations, the jury used a checklist of allegations from prosecutors that Meta failed to disclose what it knew about problems with enforcing its ban on users under 13, the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide, the role of Meta algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and more.