Slaven v. Engstrom, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10312

Slavens parents of minor children C.S., A.S., J.S.; live in Plymouth, Minnesota.
On Aug. 18, 2009, C.S. suffered an injury in a car-seat fall; hospital CTs showed chronic bilateral frontal lobe blood not consistent with a fall.
North Memorial Hospital reported suspected child abuse; Dr. Hudson raised concerns but found no single diagnostic finding of non-accidental injury.
Hennepin County social worker Bartley opened a child protection investigation; the 72-Hour Health and Welfare Hold restricted the Slavens’ access to C.S.
EPC Hearing on Aug. 25, 2009 ordered placement with grandparents and a plan for gradual return; Judge Quaintance held a prima facie case and ordered ongoing supervision.
Following parenting assessments favoring return, the case was continued, and in Dec. 2009 the court dismissed and terminated juvenile court jurisdiction; in 2011 the Slavens filed § 1983 suit against the County and officials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CHIPS trial timing violated due process	Slavens: delay beyond 60 days violates due process	Defendants: state policy, not county policy; delay permissible	Count II dismissed; delay not unconstitutional; no Monell policy shown
Whether EPC Hearing notice and process were meaningfully due	Slavens: lack of notice and cross-examination violated due process	Bartley acted as court designee; immunity and Minnesota rule framework apply	Count I dismissed; no county liability; no due process violation by Hennepin County
Whether Hennepin County can be liable under §1983 for state court decisions	County policy/custom caused violation	Judicial decisions immune; no county policy shown	Summary judgment for Defendants; no Monell policy shown
Whether Cork or Bartley’s actions constituted a policy or custom of depriving due process	Misleading petition and persistent prosecution	No evidentiary policy or custom; actions isolated	No §1983 Monell liability; summary judgment for Defendants
Whether declaratory or injunctive relief proper	Standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief	Lack of standing	Dismissed without discussion

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (factors for due-process balancing in pre/post deprivation hearings)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents' liberty interests in care, custody, and control of children)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (standard for official-capacity §1983 suits; Monell framework)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing violation)
Moore v. Warwick Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 29, 794 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1986) (pre-deprivation vs post-deprivation process in emergencies)