HENRY A. v. Willden
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9150
9th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are foster children in Clark County alleging systemic failures in foster care by county and state officials.
- Alleged failures include inadequate training, lack of case plans and medical records, insufficient medical care, and failure to investigate abuse.
- Plaintiffs claim these failures violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights and federal statutes (CWA, CAPTA, IDEA).
- District court dismissed several counts under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs appealed challenging due process and statutory claims.
- Court reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for amendment and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special relationship due process rights for foster children | Plaintiffs allege state custody created duties to protect safety and medical care. | Defendants contend rights were not clearly established for damages. | Rights clearly established; no qualified immunity for injunctive/damages against County. |
| State-created danger theory in foster care placements | Defendants exposed children to known risks by placing in unfit homes. | Placement risks do not meet the doctrine's requirements. | Count Two revived; state-created danger doctrine applies. |
| Supervisory liability of state officials | Willden and Comeaux personally responsible for violations via supervision. | Insufficient personal involvement pleaded for supervisory liability. | Remand for amendment; possible liability for supervisory conduct. |
| CWA case plan provisions privately enforceable via §1983 | Case plan provisions create individual rights enforceable through §1983. | No private right enforceable under these provisions. | Counts Eight and related records provisions enforceable; reversed dismissal. |
| CAPTA guardian ad litem and early intervention provisions privately enforceable | CAPTA and IDEA require GAL appointment and early intervention entitlements via §1983. | CAPTA and IDEA do not create privately enforceable individual rights; exhaustion issues apply to IDEA. | Guardians ad litem not privately enforceable; early intervention claims not privately enforceable; IDEA relief via exhaustion not addressed here. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (custodial duty to protect safety and well-being when state takes custody)
- Tamas v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2010) (foster child right to supervision; deliberate indifference standard)
- Lipscomb v. Simmons, 962 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1992) (state owes reasonable safety and care to wards)
- Norfleet v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs standard)
- Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (state-created danger doctrine involves affirmative actions creating danger)
- ASW v. Oregon, 424 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2005) (rights-creating language under CWA; private enforcement)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 624 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010) (CWA case plan/records provisions privately enforceable; Suter fix)
- 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2003) (case review system as private right focus)
- Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2002) (rights-creating language; unambiguous conferment)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1997) ( Blessing test for private rights under federal statutes)
- Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2007) ( IDEA private enforcement limits; exhaustion considerations)