Jamie Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21925
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Newborn B.W. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth; mother Whitworth had a history of drug abuse and two other children in DSS custody.
- Hospital notified Washoe County DSS; DSS placed an informal hospital "hold" and planned to seek protective custody.
- DSS social worker Wilcox (directed by supervisor Kennedy) removed the two-day-old from the hospital into DSS custody on July 17, 2008 without a warrant; a protective custody hearing occurred the next day.
- Biological father Kirkpatrick learned of the removal, sought paternity testing (which confirmed paternity), visited the child, and later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants; Ninth Circuit: affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded — holding social workers entitled to qualified immunity but denying summary judgment as to municipal (Monell) liability based on failure-to-train evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kirkpatrick had a Fourteenth Amendment parental-rights claim at time of seizure | Kirkpatrick argued his parental liberty interest was violated by the removal | Defendants argued he had no enforceable parental rights immediately after birth | Affirmed for defendants — Kirkpatrick had negligible due-process rights at seizure time |
| Whether removal of B.W. without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Removal was unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances | Removal was justified by imminent danger to infant; social workers acted reasonably | There is a triable issue whether exigency existed; social workers likely violated B.W.’s Fourth Amendment right |
| Whether social workers are entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless seizure | Kirkpatrick argued right was clearly established and immunity inapplicable | Social workers argued law wasn’t particularized enough to give fair warning; entitled to qualified immunity | Social workers entitled to qualified immunity — right not clearly established as applied to these facts in 2008 |
| Whether Washoe County can be liable under Monell for failure to train/policy permitting warrantless removals | Kirkpatrick argued County maintained an unofficial practice and failed to train resulting in constitutional violations | County argued no policy of unconstitutional removals and any training was consistent with exigency standard; no pattern shown | Reversed summary judgment for County — factual disputes (testimony that warrants were not standard practice) preclude dismissal; Monell claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step and discretion to consider prongs in any order)
- Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) (warrantless child removal permissible only if reasonable cause to believe child likely to suffer serious bodily harm in time required to obtain a warrant)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment protections for parent-child separation; tests are equivalent)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (failure-to-train municipal liability requires deliberate indifference; pattern ordinarily required but narrow obviousness exception)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal liability for failure to train where omission reflects deliberate indifference)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-prong framework)
- Mabe v. San Bernardino Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (warrant requirement for child removal absent exigency)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (biological relationship alone does not immediately create full parental constitutional rights)