Megan Exel v. Nichole Govan
708 F. App'x 82
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Social workers Janay Taylor and Nicole Govan removed two children (A.R. and E.V.) after concluding Megan Exel and Joseph Radcliffe violated an existing Safety Protection Plan that gave temporary custody to David Exel (grandfather).
- Appellants (Megan, Joseph, and David Exel) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional seizure and due process violations stemming from the removals.
- District Court granted Govan qualified immunity and dismissed various claims; appellants appealed and sought leave to amend the complaint.
- Appellants relied on Croft’s “reasonable and articulable evidence” standard to argue the removals were unconstitutional.
- The record showed an operative Safety Protection Plan and that Govan removed the children because the parents had violated that Plan.
- Appellants also argued the court should have sua sponte directed amendments to add injunctive relief and an individual-capacity claim against Taylor; the District Court did not do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Govan violated Fourth Amendment by removing children without “reasonable and articulable evidence” | Croft requires such evidence; removal lacked it | Qualified immunity; Croft is distinguishable and too broad for qualified-immunity purposes | Affirmed: no clearly established law put official on notice; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether procedural due process required warnings (consequences, counsel, hearing) before removal | Parents should have been informed of consequences, right to counsel, and right to hearing | No clearly established due-process rule required those specific warnings in this context | Affirmed: no clearly established law; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether appellants should have been allowed to amend complaint | Court erred by not allowing amendment to add injunctive relief in official-capacity claims | District Court did not deny opportunity; plaintiffs had chance to amend; court not required to sua sponte direct amendments | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court need not guide amendments |
| Whether Govan is absolutely immune for alleged pre- or post-removal misconduct | Plaintiffs assert Govan misled or mishandled case beyond removal | Defendant argues absolute immunity for investigative/administrative actions | Affirmed: Govan entitled to absolute immunity on those allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Croft v. Westmoreland Cty. Children & Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) (discusses “reasonable and articulable evidence” standard for child removals)
- Mammaro v. New Jersey Div. of Child Protection and Permanency, 814 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2016) (limits Croft for qualified-immunity analysis)
- Ernst v. Child & Youth Services of Chester County, 108 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1997) (absolute immunity for certain child-welfare functions)
- Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014) (qualified-immunity summary-judgment standard)
- Carpenters Health v. Management Resource Systems Inc., 837 F.3d 378 (3d Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review standard)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for amendment decisions)