Cox v. Warwick Valley Central School District, 654 F.3d 267

Raphael Cox, a Warwick Valley Middle School student, exhibited persistent misbehavior including violence, vandalism, and bringing dangerous objects to school, leading to multiple suspensions and a probationary behavioral contract.
In March 2007 Raphael wrote the essay Racing Time describing violent and suicidal content; teacher showed it to Kolesar, who then removed Raphael from class to the in-school suspension room for the rest of the day, determining no immediate threat.
The following morning Kolesar consulted with counselors and reported to the district superintendent, triggering a mandatory report to the state’s Child and Family Services (CFS) about suspected abuse or neglect.
Kolesar called CFS and stated concerns that Raphael’s parents were not adequately caring for him; the CFS narrative described dangerous ideation and recommended psychiatric evaluation for Raphael.
Raphael underwent a hospital psychiatric evaluation; the parents subsequently home-schooled him for the remainder of the year; the CFS investigation ultimately found Kolesar’s concerns unfounded and no further action was taken.
The parents filed a §1983 suit against Kolesar and Warwick alleging First Amendment retaliation and a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process custody claim; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the parents appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kolesar’s actions constitute First Amendment retaliation	Raphael’s essay was protected speech; removal to ISS and CFS report were retaliatory	Actions were protective, not punitive, and not adverse to speech	No adverse action; retaliation not shown
Whether Kolesar’s report to CFS violated the parents’ substantive due process right to custody	Report to CFS infringed custody by coercively separating the family	No actual loss of custody occurred; actions aimed at protection	No due process violation; district court affirmed

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (school speech limits; not automatically coextensive with adults' rights)
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (Sup. Ct. 1969) (student speech protected unless it substantially disrupts school)
Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (school editing control over curricular speech)
Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (schools may punish lewd or disruptive student speech)
Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 1995) (protective actions by officials; ambiguity in actions taken)
Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999) (due process requires conscience-shocking conduct for custody claims)
Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2003) (brief deprivation of custody not enough for due process claim)