Holly Schulkers v. Elizabeth Kammer, 955 F.3d 520

Background

Mother Holly Schulkers underwent a nonconsensual hospital urine test that returned a presumptive positive for opiates; hospital later performed confirmatory urine and umbilical-cord tests that were negative.
A CHFS intake worker opened an abuse/neglect investigation based on the presumptive result; CHFS social workers Kammer and Kara (supervised by Campbell) visited the hospital and presented a handwritten "Prevention Plan" requiring Holly to be supervised around her children 24/7.
Plaintiffs signed the Prevention Plan under threat that refusal would lead to immediate removal of their children; CHFS kept the Plan in place for about two months despite receiving negative confirmatory tests.
Two days after discharge, CHFS social workers conducted warrantless, in-school interviews of four children (ages 8–13) without parental consent; children were removed from class, interviewed behind closed doors, and returned upset.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment seizures (the in-school interviews) and Fourteenth Amendment violations (substantive and procedural due process from the Prevention Plan).
The district court denied qualified immunity; the Sixth Circuit (this opinion) reverses as to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim (for Kammer and Campbell) but holds the Fourth Amendment governs such in-school interviews and requires reasonable suspicion, and affirms denial of qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment claims against Kammer, Campbell, and Kara.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Do warrantless, in-school interviews by social workers investigating abuse violate the Fourth Amendment absent reasonable suspicion or a warrant?	The in-school interviews were seizures and unconstitutional because CHFS lacked any reasonable suspicion.	Social workers contend the law was not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment applies to in-school interviews in abuse investigations.	Court: Fourth Amendment governs in-school interviews; social workers must have at least reasonable suspicion before seizing/interviewing a child without warrant or consent.
2) Were Kammer and Campbell entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim?	Plaintiffs: qualified immunity not available because right was clearly established and was violated.	Defendants: Barber v. Miller and sparse precedent meant no clearly established right in this context.	Court: Reversed district court denial of qualified immunity — right was not clearly established at the time, so Kammer and Campbell get qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim (but court still holds conduct unconstitutional on the merits).
3) Did CHFS's Prevention Plan violate substantive due process (family integrity)?	The Plan arbitrarily interfered with parental rights without a compelling government interest, especially after negative tests.	Defendants: state interest in child welfare; actions were reasonable and within authority.	Court: Plaintiffs stated a viable substantive due process claim; parents have a clearly established fundamental right to family integrity, and CHFS's prolonged restrictions plausibly exceeded any compelling interest.
4) Did CHFS deny procedural due process by imposing and maintaining the Prevention Plan without notice/hearing or voluntary consent?	Plaintiffs: consent was coerced/misrepresented and CHFS refused to lift the Plan despite negative tests, so no adequate pre/post deprivation process.	Defendants: the Plan was a consensual safety plan (Smith v. Williams-Ash), and post-deprivation state remedies apply (Parratt-Hudson).	Court: Denial of qualified immunity affirmed — triable issues exist on voluntariness and on adequacy of process; Parratt-Hudson inapplicable under Zinermon because deprivation was foreseeable/authorized and predeprivation process was practicable.

Key Cases Cited

Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (Supreme Court vacated Ninth Circuit Fourth Amendment holding as moot in in‑school interview case).
Barber v. Miller, 809 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2015) (held right to avoid warrantless in‑school interviews by social workers was not clearly established as of 2011).
Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 724 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013) (Fourth Amendment applies to social‑worker seizures in the home).
Andrews v. Hickman Cty., 700 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (Fourth Amendment governs social‑worker home intrusions).
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (modified reasonableness standard for school searches/seizures).
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (student search protections apply at school).
Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) (social‑worker seizure standard: reasonable suspicion required for some in‑school seizures).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonableness inquiry for seizures under special‑needs/modified standards).
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in child companionship and childrearing decisions).
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (limits Parratt‑Hudson; consider whether predeprivation process could address risk).