684 F.Supp.3d 813
S.D. Ind.2023Background
- Kelli and Charles Moore fostered two of Mr. Moore's sister's children, later filed to adopt them, and obtained decrees of adoption on December 2, 2021.
- DCS received multiple reports of abuse/neglect in early 2021; Henry County DCS repeatedly found those reports unsubstantiated.
- DCS caseworkers and the guardian ad litem filed a Motion to Modify Placement (with a sibling's letter and affidavits) seeking removal of the children on March 31, 2021; the CHINS court granted the motion and removed the children pre-adoption.
- After the adoptions, DCS personnel and the guardian ad litem visited the Moores in December 2021, conducted welfare checks, compelled drug tests and photographs of the children, and otherwise continued investigatory actions while the CHINS case remained open through December 26, 2021.
- The Moores sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations (pre- and post-adoption) and Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure claims (post-adoption). Defendants moved to dismiss and the Moores moved to exclude the CHINS Motion to Modify Placement exhibit.
- The court denied the motion to exclude the CHINS filing, dismissed guardian ad litem Miller with prejudice on absolute-immunity grounds, dismissed all pre-adoption claims against state defendants with prejudice on qualified-immunity grounds, and allowed post-adoption Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims (including against supervisor Balmer) to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CHINS Motion to Modify Placement exhibit | Moores: Court should not consider extra-pleading documents absent conversion to summary judgment | State: Exhibit is referred to in the Amended Complaint and is a public court filing subject to judicial notice | Court: Denied Moores' motion; exhibit may be considered because Complaint references it and it is a public record |
| Absolute immunity for guardian ad litem (Miller) | Moores: Miller exceeded guardian role; actions resembled caseworker conduct and post-adoption she lacked role | Miller: Acted within court appointment while CHINS case remained open; actions were within guardian duties | Court: Miller acted as guardian ad litem while CHINS case remained open; her conduct was within scope and she is absolutely immune; claims against Miller dismissed with prejudice |
| Pre-adoption Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest / qualified immunity | Moores: As relative long-term foster parents pursuing adoption, they had a protected liberty interest that was clearly established | State: No clearly established right for foster parents to keep foster children pre-adoption; qualified immunity applies | Court: Assumed arguendo a right but found no clearly established law; pre-adoption claims dismissed with prejudice on qualified-immunity grounds |
| Post-adoption Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims | Moores: Post-adoption searches, drug tests, photos, and reinvestigations violated rights and were not authorized by court order or probable cause | State: CHINS case remained open; statutory duties required investigation and contact with wards; actions were authorized | Court: Because CHINS case was open and factual timing/details matter, post-adoption claims survive; dismissal denied as to those claims |
| Personal involvement of supervisor Balmer | Moores: Amended Complaint alleges Balmer directed/revived investigations and approved home visits, searches, drug testing, and compelled interviews | State: Complaint lacked factual allegations tying Balmer to misconduct | Court: State failed to respond and thus waived; allegations sufficiently plead Balmer's personal involvement; post-adoption claims against Balmer proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977) (declined to definitively resolve whether foster parents have a federal liberty interest)
- Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009) (guardians ad litem are absolutely immune for acts at the court's direction)
- D.L. v. Huck, 978 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (state appellate decision recognizing a liberty interest for relative preadoptive caregivers in particular facts)
- Dockery v. Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2018) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (clarified 'clearly established' standard for qualified immunity)
- Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (Fourth Amendment applies to child welfare workers)
- Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) (parental/familial rights are not absolute and do not bar child-abuse investigations)
- Spiegel v. Kim, 952 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2020) (courts may take judicial notice of public records such as state-court filings)
- Kyees v. County Department of Public Welfare of Tippecanoe County, 600 F.2d 693 (7th Cir. 1979) (foster parents lacked a federal liberty interest in a long-term foster arrangement)