Siliven v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5140

In January 2008, C.S. sustained bruises; Silivens reported to police and DCS opened an investigation.
DCS case manager Luedike concluded C.S. might be endangered and removed him from the Silivens’ home via emergency detention without a court order due to time constraints.
Teresa was allowed to take C.S. to his grandmother’s house in Ohio; a detention hearing occurred the following Monday.
The court found no probable cause at that time to endanger C.S.’s health and allowed the Silivens to return home with C.S.; the investigation closed later.
Silivens sued Luedike, Suttle, and Indiana DCS; district court granted qualified immunity to defendants on federal claims; state claims largely remanded.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the removal reasonable under the circumstances and denying constitutional violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal of C.S. violated the Fourth Amendment	Siliven argues seizure without order violated Fourth Amendment protections.	Defendants contend probable cause/exigent circumstances justified removal.	Removal reasonable; probable cause supported.
Whether there was a substantive due process violation of familial integrity	Siliven asserts improper intrusion on family rights without sufficient basis.	Defendants contend state has interest in protecting children; evidence supported suspicion of abuse.	No substantive due process violation; intrusion warranted.
Whether procedural due process was satisfied for pre-deprivation removal	Siliven argues removal without a hearing violated due process absent exigent circumstances.	Exigent circumstances justified temporary removal to protect child.	Exigent circumstances supported; pre-deprivation process not required under these facts.
Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Rights were clearly established; defendants violated them.	Rights not clearly established in January 2008; reasonable beliefs shielded conduct.	Qualified immunity applied; rights were not clearly established.

Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (reasonable-seizure standard in child-removal context; balance of interests)
Terry v. Richardson, 346 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2003) (reasonable-suspicion standard for child removal)
Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2000) (probable cause standard in child-protection context)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable cause standard is objective)
Potts v. City of Lafayette, Ind., 121 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 1997) (objective reasonableness in detention decisions)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) ( exigent-circumstances in warrantless actions)
Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) (familial integrity right; balancing with state interests)
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (circumstances delimiting intrusion into family privacy)
Michael C. v. Gresbach, 526 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2008) (court order/probable cause/exigent circumstances framework; adjudicative nuances)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies Saucier by allowing flexibility in prong order)
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (reiterated above)