Andrew Lennette, Individually and on behalf of C.L., O.L. and S.L., Minor Children v. State of Iowa, Melody Siver, Amy Howell, and Valerie Lovaglia, 20-1148

Background

In a hostile divorce, the couple’s daughter S.L. gave a forensic interview alleging sexual abuse by father Andrew Lennette; DHS caseworker Melody Siver observed the interview, deemed it credible, and filed an affidavit.
On January 16, 2015 the juvenile court issued an ex parte order removing Lennette from the family home and imposing no-contact with the children.
DHS later made a “founded” abuse determination (March 13, 2015); criminal investigators declined to charge; the juvenile court ultimately adjudicated the allegation "unfounded" and expunged the finding on December 23, 2015.
Lennette sued the State and three DHS employees asserting tort claims (tortious interference with parent–child relationship; intentional infliction of emotional distress) and Iowa constitutional claims (INALIENABLE RIGHTS art. I §1; search & seizure art. I §8; substantive & procedural due process art. I §9).
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on multiple grounds (immunities and on the merits); the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed on the merits and therefore did not reach immunity questions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tortious interference with parent–child relationship	Siver’s affidavit and DHS actions effectively deprived Lennette of custody and induced the children’s separation.	The tort targets extralegal abductions or inducements, not judicially mediated custody actions.	Claim fails as a matter of law: tort does not reach judicially approved removals/submissions to court.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress	DHS acted outrageously and recklessly in presenting false/withheld information, causing severe distress.	DHS investigation was at worst negligent or overzealous, not the extreme, outrageous conduct required.	Summary judgment affirmed: conduct not sufficiently outrageous to meet the legal standard.
Unreasonable search & seizure (art. I §8)	Affidavit and ex parte order amounted to an unlawful seizure of Lennette’s person/rights; some statements were false/omitted.	Affidavit accurately relayed the child’s interview and Siver’s credibility finding; no showing of knowing/reckless falsehoods and order would have issued on interview alone.	Claim fails: no evidence of material knowing or reckless falsehood and Franks-type challenge would not change issuance of order.
Substantive due process (art. I §9)	DHS conduct arbitrarily deprived Lennette of family liberty rights.	DHS had some basis (forensic interview, therapist concerns); conduct does not shock the conscience.	Claim fails: conduct did not “shock the conscience”; removal and procedures here were not egregious enough for substantive-due-process liability.
Procedural due process / inalienable rights	DHS failed to investigate and withheld exculpatory information, denying meaningful process.	Juvenile procedures (ex parte relief followed by prompt adversary process) were available and used; Lennette waived/ delayed immediate hearing.	Claim fails: adequate procedures existed and were available; Lennette used them to clear his name; inalienable-rights argument treated as due process and rejected.

Key Cases Cited

Minor v. State, 819 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 2012) (DHS worker immunity and ITCA analysis in child-removal context)
Wood v. Wood, 338 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1983) (recognizing tortious interference with custody per Restatement §700)
Wolf v. Wolf, 690 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 2005) (elements of intentional interference with custody)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standard for attacking affidavit truthfulness used to obtain court orders)
Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2016) (Fourth Amendment requires judicial authorization for child removals absent exigency)
Marks v. Hudson, 933 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2019) (knowing/reckless false statements to obtain orders can violate Fourth Amendment)
Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (removal with reasonable basis and prompt post‑removal hearing negates substantive due process violation)
Stanley v. Hutchinson, 12 F.4th 834 (8th Cir. 2021) (no conscience‑shocking behavior where find‑true later doubted but not fabricated)
Maddox v. Stephens, 727 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2013) (substantive due process requires more than negligence; gross negligence or arbitrariness needed)
Godfrey v. State, 898 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2017) (state constitutional tort doctrine discussed in concurrences/dissent)
F.K. v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Polk County, 630 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2001) (upholding ex parte removal with reasonably prompt adversary hearing as satisfying procedural due process)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (federal Bivens damages remedy for constitutional violations discussed in concurrence)
Girard v. Anderson, 257 N.W. 400 (Iowa 1934) (historic Iowa recognition that constitutional search/seizure violations could give rise to damages)