Schwartz v. Booker
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25934
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chandler Grafner, a seven-year-old in foster care, died after years of DHS involvement in Colorado.
- Chandler was moved between placements, with JCDHS placing him with Jon Phillips and Sarah Berry in Denver County.
- DCDHS and JCDHS investigated multiple abuse referrals; in January and April 2007 they investigated but allegedly failed to act promptly.
- Booker and Peagler, DHS officials, were involved in Chandler’s case in investigation and case management roles.
- Plaintiffs allege §1983 claims for violation of Chandler’s substantive due process right to be reasonably safe while in state custody.
- District court denied qualified-immunity defense to Booker and Peagler; this interlocutory appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foster children in a custodial relationship create a special relationship beyond initial placement | Grafner/Norris assert continued duty exists in foster care; responsibility extends beyond placement. | Booker/Peagler contend liability requires participation in initial placement or narrower scope. | Special relationship extends to ongoing foster-custody; not limited to initial placement. |
| Whether a state custodial relationship existed between Chandler and the DHS defendants | Chandler relied on DHS, lived in foster care within state custody, triggering duty to protect. | DHS defendants argue no custody relationship or removal rights attributable to them. | DHS took custodial responsibility; a custodial state relationship existed. |
| Whether the alleged failure to exercise professional judgment and investigate constituted conscience-shocking conduct | Booker/Peagler ignored warnings, failed timely investigation, abdicating professional duty. | No abdication; factual development needed; not clearly conscience-shocking at this stage. | Amended complaint plausibly alleged a conscience-shocking abdication of duty at the pleading stage. |
| Whether the right was clearly established to defeat qualified immunity | Right of foster children in state custody to be reasonably safe was clearly established since 1985. | Right must be clearly delineated under the specific special-relationship theory; not established for their reading. | Right was clearly established; reasonable DHS officials would know their conduct violated it. |
| Whether supervisory liability or aggregate theories affect the outcome | Plaintiffs alleged supervisory responsibility for the actions of subordinate DHS officials. | Issue not properly preserved; district court stated and handle later; not appropriate on appeal. | Question of supervisory liability not properly preserved; not addressed here. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (establishes state duty only when in custody and restraint exists)
- Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. N.M. Dept. of Human Services, 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1992) (protective duties extend to foster care, not limited to placement)
- J.W. v. Utah, 647 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir. 2011) (caseworker duty to consider safety; provides standard for professional judgment)
- Johnson ex rel. Cano v. Holmes, 455 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2006) (abdication of duty evidence; case involved failure to investigate)
- Armijo ex rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Pub. Sch., 159 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998) (conscience-shocking standard for professional judgment abdication)
- Liebson v. N.M. Corr. Dep’t, 73 F.3d 276 (10th Cir. 1996) (special relationship requires involuntary custodial relationship)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (due process rights of involuntarily committed persons to safety)
- Martinez v. Mafchir, 35 F.3d 1486 (10th Cir. 1994) (established framework for clearly established rights in custody context)