Blythe v. Schlievert, 3:16-cv-00097

Molly Blythe’s premature twin KB and LB were born Nov. 12, 2013; KB was hospitalized Jan. 16, 2014 with bilateral subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages, diagnosed as non‑accidental head trauma.
ProMedica Toledo Hospital physicians reported suspected child abuse to Lucas County Children Services Board (CSB) pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.421; CSB opened an investigation.
CSB caseworker Jason Wegman notified Molly that LB would be removed; LB was placed temporarily with maternal aunts Erin and Amy; later CSB directed LB be brought to the hospital for a protective medical examination, which found no injury.
Plaintiffs allege CSB failed to train hospital staff, causing false abuse reports that led to separation of Molly and the children, and allege Beal and Wegman violated LB’s Fourth Amendment rights by arranging the nonconsensual exam.
The district court granted defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing claims against CSB, its employees (Beal, Wegman), and various physician defendants (in separate orders). Plaintiffs’ CSB Doe defendants also dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether CSB’s alleged failure to train hospital staff caused a constitutional violation	CSB failed to train medical personnel; that failure caused doctors to fabricate a false §2151.421 report and thus deprived plaintiffs of custody rights	Any alleged failure to train is not causally connected to a constitutional injury because claims against the diagnosing physicians fail	Dismissed — plaintiffs’ failure‑to‑train claim fails because the court dismissed physicians’ constitutional claims, severing the causal link to CSB liability
2) Whether arranging LB’s hospital exam without Molly’s consent violated LB’s Fourth Amendment rights	The exam was a warrantless, nonconsensual search of LB that violated her and Molly’s Fourth Amendment rights	Erin (temporary custodian) had actual or apparent common authority to consent; even without consent the exam was reasonable under the circumstances; qualified immunity applies	Dismissed — no Fourth Amendment violation; consent/third‑party consent doctrine and reasonableness support defendants’ actions; alternatively, qualified immunity protects Beal and Wegman

Tucker v. Middleburg‑Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for Rule 12(c) same as Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (materials proper for consideration on Rule 12 motions)
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third‑party consent and common authority doctrine)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority for consent searches)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (limits of co‑occupant consent when objecting occupant present)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (scope of warrantless searches tied to purpose)
U.S. v. Caldwell, 518 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying Matlock/Rodriguez in consent contexts)
Walsh v. Erie Cty. Dep’t of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N.D. Ohio 2003) (contrasting facts where entry and removal without consent raised Fourth Amendment concerns)