Kirk Teets v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio
460 F. App'x 498
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs-Appellants Kirk and Brandy Teets challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment for County, CCDCFS, and individual social workers Spencer and Morus under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Spencer conducted an investigation of A.F.’s allegations, concluded abuse was indicated, and Morus concurred.
- Parma Heights Police conducted its own investigation; a journal obtained later differed, but there is no evidence Spencer knew of it.
- CCDCFSS sought custody of A.F. and obtained a juvenile-court order placing her with the agency; A.F. was adjudicated an abused child.
- Kirk Teets pled guilty to a related misdemeanor in criminal proceedings; a district court order granted summary judgment to the defendants, which the Teetses appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding no substantive or procedural due process violation were proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process right to family integrity violated? | Teetses assert bad faith or malicious investigation. | Defendants contend no bad faith; investigation was reasonable. | No substantive due process violation; arguments insufficient for bad faith. |
| Procedural due process regarding removal of A.F. without predeprivation hearing? | Removal via safety plan was involuntary coercion. | Consent to safety plan was voluntary; no hearing required. | No due process violation; safety plan deemed voluntary. |
| Municipal liability under Monell for policy or custom? | CCDCFS had a 'guilty until proven innocent' policy. | No evidence of official policy or custom; Morus not a policymaker. | No Monell liability; policy/custom not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (parental-rights not absolute; gov’t interest can override for child protection)
- Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 640 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard; misrepresentations in investigations not per se due process violation)
- Eidson v. Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 510 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2007) (due-process rights in child-removal cases require hearings within reasonable time)
- Smith v. Williams-Ash, 520 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2008) (voluntary safety plans may obviate predeprivation hearings)
- Gray v. City of Detroit, 399 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2005) (§1983 claims require constitutional rights and state action)
- Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (Monell liability requires direct causal connection and an official policy or custom)
- Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (official policymaker must establish final policy; liability depends on policymaker)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (local government can be liable for official policy; concurrence of official policy)