937 F.3d 514
5th Cir.2019Background
- Parents Christina Romero and Gary Cruz lived with seven children; allegations arose that Cruz abused Romero and a child reported seeing Cruz assault Romero. DFPS opened an investigation and ordered Cruz to move out; he complied.
- Social worker Amanda Brown (with supervisor Nicole Mouton) conducted visits; Brown later returned and, the next day, with two police officers seized three young children from Romero’s car and a DFPS employee seized four children at school. No court order was obtained.
- Brown threatened Romero with arrest to obtain a signed Notice of Removal; all seven children were placed in foster care overnight.
- A state court held a hearing the following day, found no justification or exigency for the removals, rebuked Brown for taking the children without an order, and ordered immediate return of the children (and allowed Cruz to return).
- Parents sued Brown, Mouton, the officers, and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourteenth Amendment due process violations; the district court dismissed. The Fifth Circuit reviews dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown violated substantive due process (parental right to familial association) | Removal was an unconstitutional interference with parental rights | Brown acted during an ongoing domestic-violence investigation and removal was temporary; no clearly established substantive violation | Dismissal affirmed as to substantive due process — no clearly established violation given ongoing investigation and single-day removal |
| Whether Brown violated procedural due process by removing children without court order or exigency | Brown removed children without court order and without exigent circumstances | Defendants argue exigency existed or that Due Process should not duplicate Fourth Amendment protections | Dismissal reversed as to procedural due process — claim survives because Gates clearly requires a court order or exigency and complaint plausibly alleges neither existed |
| Whether supervisor Mouton is liable under §1983 for supervisory liability | Mouton approved/implemented the unlawful seizure | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory and lack pattern or deliberate indifference | Dismissal of Mouton affirmed — allegations too conclusory to establish affirmative participation or deliberate indifference |
| Whether police officers are liable for assisting the removal | Officers participated in seizure of three children and assisted Brown | Officers reasonably relied on DFPS assessment and had no reason to believe removal was unlawful | Dismissal of officers affirmed — qualified immunity applies because reasonable reliance on social worker was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parents’ rights to custody and care are fundamental liberty interests)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2008) (child removal requires court order or exigent circumstances; governs procedural due process in removals)
- Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2009) (procedural due process claim can survive where seizure without court approval or emergency is alleged)
- Wooley v. Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2000) (removal without judicial authorization or safety threat violated clearly established rights)
- Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1999) (framework balancing family privacy against state’s interest; liability more likely where non-social-worker actors remove children)
- Hodorowski v. Ray, 844 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1988) (temporary removals and social-worker context affect substantive-due-process analysis)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity protects officials unless law was clearly established)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (limits on substituting generalized due process claims where specific constitutional protections exist)