Susan Parker v. Henry & William Evans Home
18-1133
| 4th Cir. | Mar 1, 2019Background
- Parents Parker and Funkhouser had two children who were treated for C. difficile infections; a Clarke County caseworker (Austin) had earlier investigated truancy and suspected Parker of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP).
- After an ER physician (Dr. Folsom) and Austin reported concern, Shenandoah County DSS (DSS Defendants) conducted an emergency removal of the children (July 25, 2012) and placed them with Evans Home, a nonprofit foster-care charity.
- The DSS filed an ex parte emergency removal petition two days later; the JDR court granted temporary custody to DSS, and later returned the children to the parents after dismissing the petitions and an administrative finding that allegations were unfounded.
- While at Evans Home, one child (J.F.) suffered an ankle fracture that allegedly went untreated for weeks; plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments), for false imprisonment, and for negligence against Evans Home.
- The district court dismissed the constitutional and false-imprisonment claims and later granted summary judgment to Evans Home on negligence; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Were the children's warrantless initial seizures Fourth Amendment violations (and is qualified immunity unavailable)? | Parker/Funkhouser: Austin and DSS lacked probable cause/exigent justification for removal based on unsubstantiated MSBP allegations. | Austin/DSS: No clearly established Fourth Amendment standard for child removals; actions were at least reasonable under circumstances; qualified immunity applies. | Court: Rights not clearly established for such removals; qualified immunity for Austin and DSS; dismissal affirmed. |
| 2) Did continued detention at Evans Home (pre- and post-court order) violate Fourth Amendment? | Plaintiffs: Continued detention was unlawful once children were diagnosed with C. difficile and because of delays in seeking court approval. | Defendants: Once DSS obtained a court order (and relied on statutory emergency authority initially), Evans Home lawfully held the children; brief pre-order detention was reasonable. | Court: One day pre-order was justified by DSS statutory authority; post-order custody was lawful; Fourth Amendment claims dismissed. |
| 3) Did removal and continued detention violate substantive due process (family integrity — "shocks the conscience")? | Plaintiffs: Austin concocted allegations without investigation; conduct was abusive and conscience-shocking. | Defendants: Removal was based on reports from mandatory reporters and some evidence of abuse; subsequent actions did not shock the conscience. | Court: Allegations at most negligent; defendants had "some evidence" and acted to protect children; no conscience-shocking conduct; claims dismissed. |
| 4) Are state-law claims (false imprisonment; negligence) viable against DSS/Austin and Evans Home? | Plaintiffs: False imprisonment flows from unlawful seizure/detention; negligence claim against Evans Home for untreated ankle injury. | Defendants: Virginia statutory immunity shields mandatory reporters unless bad faith/malice; Evans Home entitled to charitable immunity as a beneficiary organization. | Court: False imprisonment barred by statutory immunity (no bad faith alleged) and lawful placement; Evans Home entitled to charitable immunity; claims dismissed/summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established rights standard)
- Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. exigency standard for child removals)
- Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. exigent-circumstances rule for child seizure)
- Wolf v. Fauquier County Bd. of Supervisors, 555 F.3d 311 (4th Cir.: statutory immunity and conscience-shocking test in child-protection removal cases)
- Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.: emergency removals not conscience-shocking when based on some evidence)
- Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 833 (negligence vs. constitutional violation — conscience-shocking standard)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest in custody and control of children)
- Ola v. YMCA of S. Hampton Rds., Inc., 621 S.E.2d 70 (Va. 2005) (elements and scope of charitable immunity)