Barbara Marks v. Wanda Hudson
933 F.3d 481
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Marks (mother) and her three minor children sued two Texas Department of Family and Protective Services employees (Hudson and supervisor Dentaen) after an ex parte temporary removal order removed the children from Marks’ custody for ~4 months.
- The removal followed a report that child GWF had a black eye; Hudson investigated, interviewed GWF (who said his mother hit him), and filed affidavits; an emergency removal order issued December 21, 2015.
- Plaintiffs allege Hudson fabricated and omitted material facts in her affidavit (e.g., falsely claimed someone ignored her at the door, mischaracterized injury severity, omitted alternative accounts from another child and the father) and that Dentaen knowingly testified to the same falsehoods.
- The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss (qualified immunity, absolute immunity, failure to state a claim). Defendants appealed the qualified immunity denial.
- The Fifth Circuit evaluated whether the complaint, taken as true, alleged a violation of clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights (false affidavit/false testimony leading to child seizure). The panel concluded no constitutional violation and reversed, instructing dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a false affidavit/omission to obtain temporary removal violates constitutional rights | Plaintiffs: Hudson’s alleged fabrications/omissions caused an unlawful seizure of children in violation of Fourteenth Amendment (and Fourth Amendment-like protections) | Defendants: No actionable familial association right beyond existing law; no constitutional violation because affidavit, even corrected, supported removal; entitled to qualified immunity | Held: Actionable claim exists in principle (Franks-style claim), but alleged fabrications/omissions, when corrected, would still support probable cause — no constitutional violation |
| Whether social workers’ investigatory conduct is governed by Fourth Amendment standards | Plaintiffs: removal here implicates privacy/liberty protections akin to Fourth Amendment seizure standards | Defendants: (implicit) their conduct complied with statutory standards and was not constitutionally deficient | Held: Fourth Amendment procedures govern social-worker investigations; those procedures protect parents’ Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest; but they were satisfied here |
| Whether supervisor Dentaen is liable for testimony and approvals | Plaintiffs: Dentaen knowingly testified to falsehoods and approved the affidavit, creating Napue-style due process violation | Defendants: Dentaen lacked personal involvement; therefore no liability; alternatively absolute immunity for testimony | Held: Plaintiffs pled only conclusory allegations about Dentaen’s knowledge; absent well-pled personal involvement, claim against supervisor fails |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Plaintiffs: Rights were clearly established; defendants acted recklessly/knowingly | Defendants: Rights were not clearly established as applied; actions were objectively reasonable | Held: Because no constitutional violation was adequately alleged, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; reversal and dismissal instructed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (false statements/omissions in affidavits can invalidate warrants)
- Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386 (Fourth Amendment governs social workers’ investigations)
- Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404 (Fourth Amendment procedures protect parents’ due process interests)
- Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657 (family integrity as Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest)
- Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104 (material omissions in affidavits and reconstructed affidavit analysis)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (use of known false evidence at proceedings violates due process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (procedural due process required before depriving parents of custody)