Preslie Hardwick v. Marcia Vreeken
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In February 2000, social workers employed by Orange County removed minor Preslie Hardwick (and her sister) from their mother Deanna Fogerty‑Hardwick’s custody after juvenile dependency proceedings; Preslie alleges the removal was secured by perjured testimony, fabricated evidence, and suppressed exculpatory evidence.
- The dependency court initially ordered removal; although custody was briefly authorized to return to the mother, social workers placed the children in foster care until May 2000.
- Preslie sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association based on the social workers’ alleged malicious conduct.
- The district court denied the social workers’ summary‑judgment claims of absolute and qualified immunity; the social workers appealed the interlocutory denial.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: absolute immunity did not cover the alleged fabrication and perjury (conduct outside quasi‑prosecutorial advocacy), and qualified immunity was unavailable because the right to be free from deliberate fabrication/perjury in dependency proceedings was clearly established by preexisting law and state statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for alleged perjury/fabrication in dependency proceedings | Preslie: alleged lies, fabricated evidence, and suppression of exculpatory material were investigative/administrative misconduct, not protected advocacy | County: social workers performing quasi‑prosecutorial functions are absolutely immune | Denied: absolute immunity does not cover alleged fabrication/perjury because that conduct falls outside prosecutorial/advocacy functions (Beltran/Miller) |
| Whether social workers are entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged misconduct | Preslie: preexisting law clearly established a right to be free from deliberate fabrication/perjury in child‑removal proceedings | County: the right was not clearly established in civil dependency context as of Feb 2000 | Denied: the right was clearly established by prior federal cases and state law; reasonable officials would know perjury/fabrication in court is unlawful |
| Whether prior state court findings collaterally estop defendants from relitigating immunity | Preslie: California proceedings and findings preclude re‑litigation of immunity issues here | County: collateral estoppel does not apply to bar federal defenses | Court: did not need to decide collateral estoppel because it reached same result on the merits; preclusion issue left unresolved |
| Whether Costanich controls (limits applicability of prior law to civil context) | County: Costanich shows lack of clear precedent for civil dependency rights analogous to criminal context | Preslie: fundamental parental/familial liberty interests differ from foster‑care/licensing interests in Costanich | Held: Costanich is distinguishable; parental/family liberty is long‑established and on fair notice to officials |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (governmental officials entitled to qualified immunity unless law was "clearly established")
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. en banc) (absolute immunity for social workers applies only to quasi‑prosecutorial/advocacy functions)
- Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.) (no absolute immunity for fabrication/false statements in dependency proceedings)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.) (right to be free from deception in protective custody/child‑removal proceedings was clearly established)
- Devereaux v. Perez, 218 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.) (constitutional prohibition on knowing presentation of false evidence recognized)
- Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir.) (social workers who fabricated evidence to secure civil removal order not entitled to qualified immunity)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (general constitutional rules and obvious cruelty can provide fair warning that conduct is unconstitutional)