Bissell v. Mata, 6:21-cv-00924

Plaintiff Tiffany Bissell, mother of two minors, sued four Texas Department of Family and Protective Services employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the temporary removal of her children.
The removals followed child welfare investigations into alleged domestic violence and neglectful supervision.
Defendants obtained a court order for removal based on reports and affidavits, and the children were removed temporarily.
The underlying allegation of neglectful supervision against Bissell was ultimately dismissed.
Both sides moved for summary judgment; defendants asserted qualified immunity, arguing no clearly established constitutional violation.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Violation of right to family integrity	Defendants violated Bissell’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by knowingly presenting false evidence and removing children without valid cause.	Right to family integrity is not clearly established in this factual context; protected by qualified immunity.	Right is not clearly defined under these facts; qualified immunity for defendants.
Substantive due process violation	Temporary removal without proper justification violated Bissell’s substantive due process rights.	No specific, clearly established substantive due process right was violated.	No evidence of violation of clearly established substantive due process right.
Procedural due process violation	Seizure of children without proper due process (notice and hearing) violated her rights.	Removal was pursuant to a valid court order; thus proper due process given.	Court order provided constitutionally sufficient procedural due process.
Admissibility of certain evidence	Plaintiff’s exhibits should be considered as summary judgment evidence.	Certain exhibits are inadmissible (hearsay, lack of authentication).	Some exhibits excluded (hearsay or lacking foundation); others admitted.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of the right to family integrity via the Due Process Clause)
Hodorowski v. Ray, 844 F.2d 1210 (qualified immunity for child protective workers in removals based on abuse allegations)
Doe v. Louisiana, 2 F.3d 1412 (qualified immunity despite egregious conduct by child welfare workers)
Kiser v. Garrett, 67 F.3d 1166 (qualified immunity where the right to family integrity is not clearly established)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (general recognition of parental rights)
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (absolute immunity for witness testimony in judicial proceedings)