Mammaro v. New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2850

In July 2011 Mammaro was treated for injuries from domestic violence; her 1½‑year‑old child D.M. was not injured. The Division learned of alleged drug use and child neglect.
Mammaro twice submitted to drug tests after Division pressure; both showed marijuana (one lower level on second test). A later hair follicle test was negative for cocaine under Division thresholds.
While a petition for temporary guardianship was pending, Mammaro and D.M. were placed in Division‑approved supervised housing; when Mammaro moved D.M. out without Division approval, police removed the child.
New Jersey Superior Court returned D.M. to Mammaro within days and later dismissed the guardianship petition, finding no abuse or neglect.
Mammaro sued Division employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a substantive due process violation for temporary removal of her child. The District Court denied qualified immunity for several caseworkers; they appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Division caseworkers are entitled to qualified immunity for temporarily removing D.M.	Mammaro: removal violated her substantive due process parental right because there was insufficient evidence of past or imminent abuse.	Caseworkers: no clearly established law put them on notice that removal under these facts was unconstitutional.	The court held caseworkers are entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established precedent required the result alleged.
Whether Croft v. Westmoreland supports a clearly established right to be free from this removal	Mammaro: Croft requires "reasonable and articulable evidence" before separation and thus put caseworkers on notice.	Caseworkers: Croft is factually different and does not create a robust consensus covering these facts.	The court held Croft is distinguishable and insufficient to clearly establish a constitutional violation here.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law standard)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (scope of qualified immunity protection)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective legal reasonableness standard)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (context‑specific framing of clearly established rights)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest protected by Due Process Clause)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) ("shocks the conscience" standard for substantive due process)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (procedural protections for termination of parental rights)
Croft v. Westmoreland Cty. Children & Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) (caseworker must have reasonable and articulable evidence before separating parent and child)
McLaughlin v. Watson, 271 F.3d 566 (3d Cir. 2001) (need for factually similar precedent to clearly establish right)