Schmidt v. Des Moines Public Schools
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18927
8th Cir.2011Background
- Schmidt and ex-husband have a custody dispute over three minor children within Des Moines Public Schools District.
- Iowa state court orders give Schmidt joint legal custody but primary physical custody to ex-husband, with a visitation schedule that can be modified by mutual agreement.
- In 2006 Schmidt obtained a special visitation order; on November 21, 2006, City Officers prevented Schmidt from approaching the ex-husband's residence to exercise visitation.
- Schmidt sued City Defendants and School District Defendants under §1983 alleging due process and equal protection violations, plus Iowa constitutional claims.
- District court dismissed City claims and granted summary judgment for School District Defendants; Schmidt appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process violation by City Defendants | Schmidt contends one three-hour visitation interruption is liberty-deprivation. | Officers acted within custody mechanisms and did not shock conscience. | No substantive due process violation |
| Procedural due process violation by City Defendants | Procedural due process was lacking before interrupting visitation. | State post-deprivation remedies were adequate and timely. | No procedural due process violation |
| Substantive due process by School District Defendants (school access) | Policy restricting school access violates substantive due process as a fundamental liberty interest. | Liberty interest not necessarily unfettered access; policy reasonable given academic stability and court orders. | No fundamental liberty interest violation; policy reasonable |
| Procedural due process by School District Defendants | Due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard before restrictions on access. | State-law remedies sufficed; Schmidt had avenues to seek modification or contempt in state court. | Procedural due process satisfied |
| Equal protection | Schmidt treated differently than married parents or Michael Schmidt. | Schmidt is not similarly situated to those comparators due to custody arrangement and state law specifics. | No equal protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Zakrzewski v. Fox, 87 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir.1996) (one-time visitation interruption not a liberty deprivation; shocks conscience standard)
- Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982 (9th Cir.2006) (substantive due process limits; de minimis analyses differ from procedural)
- Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328 (10th Cir.1981) (fundamental liberty interests are not always implicated by temporary interferences)
- Swipies v. Kofka, 419 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.2005) (state post-deprivation remedies adequate where visitation temporarily curtailed)
- Crowley v. City of Philadelphia, 400 F.3d 965 (7th Cir.2005) (noncustodial parent equal protection; custodial arrangements affect comparators)
- Pisacane v. Desjardins, 115 Fed.Appx. 446 (1st Cir.2004) (record access can be satisfied by alternative means; no due process violation)
- Meadows v. Lake Travis Indep. Sch. Dist., 397 Fed.Appx. 1 (5th Cir.2010) (scope of liberty interest and school access considerations)
- In re Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 2007) (scope of parental rights in custody disputes under Iowa law)