Rachel Scanlon v. County of Los Angeles, 92 F.4th 781

Parents of a severely autistic child (K.X.) began medical marijuana therapy for her, following a doctor's recommendation, after other treatments were ineffective.
An anonymous complaint triggered Los Angeles DCFS to investigate; social workers (Olarte et al.) obtained a warrant and removed both children (K.X. and G.X.) to foster care.
Parents alleged that DCFS misrepresented facts to the dependency court, especially regarding the medical supervision of K.X.'s treatment and her behavior at school.
After summary judgment for defendants on most claims and a jury trial resulting in a defense verdict for remaining claims, Parents appealed the district court's decisions.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part (as to qualified immunity on certain Fourth Amendment claims and jury instruction challenge), but reversed in part (as to claims of judicial deception, Monell liability, and IIED).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial deception in warrant application	DCFS misrepresented/omitted material facts, such as medical oversight.	No material misrepresentations; all key facts disclosed.	Reversed; jury to decide if judicial deception occurred.
Qualified immunity for school interview	Social worker's school interview of G.X. without parental consent violated Fourth Amendment.	No clearly established right regarding such interviews at the time.	Affirmed; qualified immunity bars claim.
IIED claim (intentional infliction of emotional distress)	DCFS’s conduct in removal and statements was outrageous and caused distress.	Conduct not outrageous; no underlying constitutional violation.	Reversed; IIED claim remanded for further proceedings.
Monell liability for failure to train/practice	DCFS had an unofficial policy don’t include exculpatory facts in warrants.	No evidence of such policy; formal procedures existed.	Reversed; sufficient evidence to go to jury.
Jury instruction response	Judge’s response to juror question on lockbox evidence was inadequate.	Instructions given were sufficient and legally correct.	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parents’ fundamental right to make decisions regarding care and custody of their children)
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (right to familial association and removal of children from parents)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (procedures required before state interferes in family affairs)
Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228 (standards for child removal under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments applied equally)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal failure to train as basis for Monell liability)
Hardwick v. County of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112 (right to be free from judicial deception in child-custody proceedings)
Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d 965 (affidavit omissions and misrepresentations in warrants)