Hood v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
2:22-cv-00265
| S.D.W. Va | Jul 28, 2023Background
- Mary and Stephen Hood were legal guardians (later adoptive parents) of J.H.; M.D. was born to J.H.’s mother, Jessica Smith, who had ongoing substance-abuse issues.
- Fayette County CPS learned Ms. Smith tested positive for drugs at M.D.’s birth and reported that she used drugs while living in the Hoods’ home; CPS opened an investigation.
- On September 9, 2020 a prosecutor filed a Petition to Institute Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings naming the children; the Fayette County Circuit Court issued an initial removal order that day.
- That evening CPS workers Farmer and Frame removed J.H. and M.D. to DHHR custody; plaintiffs later had the prior CPS substantiation against Ms. Hood reversed, regained custody, and ultimately adopted both children.
- Plaintiffs sued alleging federal constitutional claims (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and related conspiracies) and state torts; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment to Farmer and Frame on all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment seizure (Count I) | Removal was unlawful because Hoods held a valid guardianship for J.H. and CPS/defendants failed to verify it | Removal was lawful because a court removal order issued Sept. 9 and defendants had probable cause based on Ms. Smith’s admissions and prior CPS history | Judgment for defendants; seizure reasonable and defendants entitled to immunity |
| Substantive due process (Count III) | Defendants interfered with custodial/guardianship rights by ignoring the guardianship and failing to investigate | The seizure is governed by Fourth Amendment; in any event conduct did not "shock the conscience" | Dismissed with prejudice; no due-process violation |
| § 1983 conspiracy (Counts II & IV) | Defendants conspired to deprive plaintiffs of constitutional rights | No deprivation of constitutional rights occurred; conspiracy fails without underlying violation | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims | Plaintiffs seek to proceed in federal court on negligence, IIED, abuse of process, etc. | Defendants argued for dismissal after federal claims resolved | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2015) (qualified immunity standard for public officials)
- Gedrich v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 282 F. Supp. 2d 439 (E.D. Va. 2003) (reasonableness standard for child seizures)
- Brokaw v. Mercer Cnty., 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (exigent-circumstances test for seizures)
- Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (probable cause judged by information known to officer)
- Massey v. Ojanit, 759 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2014) (prosecutorial/intervening acts can insulate investigators unless they mislead prosecutors)
- Vosburg v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 884 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1989) (absolute immunity for filing removal petitions in certain contexts)
- Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process requires conduct that "shocks the conscience")
- Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990) (child removal on some evidence of abuse does not shock the conscience)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (if specific constitutional provision covers claim, substantive due process not appropriate)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (federal courts ordinarily decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed)