Barber v. Miller
809 F.3d 840
6th Cir.2015Background
- In Jan 2011 Michigan CPS social worker James Miller interviewed minor J.B. at school twice without a court order or parental consent after a family member reported suspected neglect.
- Miller petitioned the family court for a protective-custody order; the court issued an ex parte order and Miller removed J.B. from school pursuant to that order.
- After a brief hearing, the juvenile court found probable cause on at least one allegation but returned J.B. to his father James Barber with conditions (drug abstention, testing, supervision).
- Barber sued Miller under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: false/misleading statements in the custody petition, unconstitutional warrantless in-school interviews (Fourth Amendment) and violation of parental substantive due process (Fourteenth Amendment); he also sought a declaratory judgment challenging Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.628(8)-(9).
- The district court dismissed: it found absolute immunity for petition statements, qualified immunity for the interviews and removal, and Barber lacked standing to seek declaratory relief.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller is immune for allegedly false statements in the protective-custody petition | Barber: Miller deliberately included false/misleading facts in the petition, so no immunity | Miller: statements were made as a legal advocate initiating court proceedings and thus absolutely immune | Court: Absolute immunity applies (Pittman controls) |
| Whether warrantless in-school interviews violated J.B.'s Fourth Amendment rights | Barber: interviewing a child at school without order/consent violated the child’s Fourth Amendment right | Miller: no clearly established right prohibiting such interviews in 2011; qualified immunity protects him | Court: Qualified immunity; right was not clearly established in this circuit at the time |
| Whether in-school interviews violated Barber’s parental substantive due process rights | Barber: interviews intruded on parental right to custody/management of child requiring strict scrutiny | Miller: mere investigation does not violate parental rights; no clearly established law proscribing interviews | Court: Qualified immunity; no clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation |
| Whether Barber has Article III standing to seek a declaratory judgment invalidating Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.628(8)-(9) | Barber: statute authorizes future school access to children and CPS has ongoing interest, so future injury is likely | Miller/State: Barber cannot show a certainly impending future injury or repeated proceedings | Court: Barber lacks standing to seek declaratory relief (no substantial risk of imminent future harm) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 2011) (social workers have absolute immunity when acting as legal advocates in initiating juvenile-court proceedings)
- Andrews v. Hickman County, 700 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry into the home implicates strong Fourth Amendment protections; guidance on qualified immunity for social workers)
- Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 724 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013) (warrantless removal of children from home can violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights)
- Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (investigation alone does not violate parental right to custody; family-integrity right does not bar abuse investigations)
- Kolley v. Adult Protective Servs., 725 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2013) (juvenile/tribunal is the ultimate decisionmaker; misrepresentations to court do not convert tribunal’s decision into the social worker’s deprivation)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework; courts may address the clearly established prong first)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (situation-specific analysis of constitutional rights in qualified-immunity context)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires likely, not speculative, redressable future injury)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (plaintiff seeking injunctive/declaratory relief must show threatened injury is certainly impending or substantial risk)