Schwab v. State of Kansas, 691 F. App'x 511

In April 2015 a county officer placed Raymond and Amelia Schwab’s four minor children into protective custody; the State filed petitions alleging the children were "children in need of care."
The state court placed the children with the Kansas Department for Children and Families and conditioned parental visitation on negative random urine and breath tests. Raymond tested positive at a May hearing; Amelia tested negative. Raymond later refused a court-ordered test, which the state court treated as a positive result.
After an adjudication hearing the state court found the children to be children in need of care; a disposition case plan was approved to work toward reintegration. Raymond’s appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals was unsuccessful, and the Kansas Supreme Court denied review.
In March–August 2016 Raymond, Amelia, and their son Tyeler filed a § 1983 suit in federal court challenging the seizure and loss of familial association and sought a preliminary injunction: (1) stop drug testing, (2) release adjudication documents, (3) remove them from case planning/court proceedings, and (4) permit Tyeler visitation.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding Younger abstention barred federal equitable relief because state proceedings were ongoing, provided an adequate forum, and implicated important state interests; plaintiffs failed to show a bad-faith or harassment exception. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court should enjoin state child‑welfare proceedings	Schwab plaintiffs urged federal intervention to stop drug testing, obtain documents, remove themselves from case planning, and allow visitation	State defendants argued federal court must abstain under Younger and plaintiffs can raise claims in state proceedings	Court held Younger abstention applies and denied injunction
Whether an exception to Younger (bad faith/harassment) applies	Plaintiffs asserted state actors acted in bad faith/harassment to deprive parental rights	Defendants maintained no evidence of bad faith or sham prosecution	Court held plaintiffs failed to meet heavy burden to show bad faith or proven harassment
Whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of success on the merits for injunction	Plaintiffs argued merits of Fourth Amendment and familial‑association claims supported extraordinary relief	Defendants argued abstention prevented merits determination and state forum adequate	Court held there was little or no likelihood of success because of Younger abstention
Whether irreparable harm or public interest justified federal intervention despite abstention	Plaintiffs claimed irreparable loss of familial association and immediate harm from testing	Defendants argued public/state interests in child welfare outweigh federal intrusion	Court held public/state interests and abstention precluded injunction; no extraordinary circumstances shown

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must generally abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings)
Heideman v. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for preliminary injunction decisions)
Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) (review standards for district court factual findings and legal conclusions)
Amanatullah v. Colorado Bd. of Medical Examiners, 187 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1999) (explains Younger abstention and narrow bad‑faith/harassment exception)