932 F. Supp. 2d 1123
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Edward Olvera and Carla DeRose are licensed therapists and CHD-O, RD-O, SD-O, COD-O, GD-O, AGD-O, AND-O, and others are involved as minor plaintiffs in the adoption context.
- CPS conducted an investigation into December 2008 interviews at the Olvera/DeRose home and a January 2009 entry by Wendy Christian; CHD-O was removed under a protective custody warrant on February 5, 2009.
- Morrison and Miess were listed as the prior unrelated adoptive/possible parental figures; Olvera and DeRose sought adoption of CHD-O, with an August 2009 Sacramento filing resulting in a 2010 adoption order.
- Plaintiffs alleged eight § 1983 and state-law claims, including Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and IIED; defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiffs moved for guardian ad litem for the minor children.
- The court granted guardian ad litem nunc pro tunc to the filing date and narrowed/denied some claims while denying others; key issues centered on consent, due process rights of parents and prospective/de facto parents, and the validity of the PCW.
- The court ultimately denied summary judgment on CHD-O’s Fourth Amendment claim against several defendants and granted others, and dismissed Monell claims and several familial-association theories, while addressing trial-appropriate issues for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guardian ad litem appointment | DeRose should be appointed for the minor plaintiffs nunc pro tunc. | No opposition to appointment; no prejudice in delaying appointment. | Guardian ad litem appointed nunc pro tunc to filing date. |
| Consent and Fourth Amendment searches/interviews | DeRose did not consent to December 19 interviews; consent was coerced or invalid; January 6 entry by Christian also not voluntary. | Conversions show consent or voluntary entry under totality of circumstances; no coercion. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; summary judgment denied for first and eighth claims against specific defendants; further analysis required at trial. |
| Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association – de facto/prospective adoptive parents | Olvera/DeRose had de facto or prospective-adoptive status with protected liberty interests. | Under California law such status does not confer a cognizable federal due-process liberty interest; no clearly established right. | Claims granted for Olvera/DeRose; granted for Morrison/Miess; but court granted summary judgment on third and fourth claims for all except certain theories; overall limited recognition of rights. |
| CHD-O’s Fourth Amendment claim and personal participation/qualified immunity | Lopez, Schrage, Cullivan, Jones, Travis, Guillon participated in PCW and violated CHD-O’s Fourth Amendment rights; misrepresentations/omissions occurred. | Some participants did not participate; qualified immunity should apply; some defendants liable for misrepresentations. | Partial denial of summary judgment; Lopez, Schrage, Travis, Guillon potentially liable; others granted/denied as to certain defendants; material issues remain for trial. |
| Monell claims and county training | County’s training inadequacies caused violations; deliberate indifference; pattern of violations not shown but single-incident theory viable. | No pattern; training adequate; no deliberate indifference; County counsel involvement mitigates risk; no Monell liability. | Monell claim granted only to the extent tied to deficient PCW-related issues; court grants Monell motion overall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clarifies both steps of qualified immunity analysis)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step approach to clearly established rights)
- Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2008) (immunity and evidentiary omissions in warrants)
- Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2009) (probable cause and omissions in warrant affidavits)
- Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 1997) (materiality of omissions in warrant affidavits)
- Burke v. County of Alameda, 586 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of contact with guardians; Wallis extension)
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (imminent danger framework for removal without prior judicial authorization)
- Baby Girl B., 74 Cal.App.4th 43 (4th Dist. 1999) (prospective adoptive parents' rights and hearing rights in California)
- R.H. v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.App.4th 364 (4th Dist. 2012) (prospective adoptive rights are limited under state law)
- Jinny N. v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.3d 967 (4th Dist. 1987) (agency adoption context and prospective adoptive status)