Swartwood v. County of San Diego
84 F. Supp. 3d 1093
S.D. Cal.2014Background
- In May 2011, one-year-old R.S. sustained non‑accidental appearing facial injuries at daycare; parents Steven and Joanna took R.S. (and 3‑year‑old D.S.) to Kaiser ER where attending physicians noted concerns but the parents declined additional testing that night.
- A mandated report led County Child Protective Services (CPS) to send social worker Maya Bryson (with police) to the Swartwood home late that night; Bryson visually examined both children at the home, photographed R.S., refused a parental request to call the daycare, and removed both children to Polinsky Children’s Center without a warrant.
- At Polinsky the children underwent intake medical assessments: urine drug testing (including adhesive/cotton collection for R.S.), and exams of genitalia/rectum and other body areas by a child‑abuse specialist; parents were excluded from the exams and were not given prior notice or an opportunity for a court hearing authorizing investigatory exams.
- Court Intervention social workers (Rollins and Solis) investigated during the following day; Rollins interviewed parents, grandparents, daycare, and physicians and by end of day concluded the injuries likely occurred at daycare; children were released shortly thereafter.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and state tort claims, alleging unlawful warrantless removal, unlawful continued detention, and that the County policy excluding parents from Polinsky exams and conducting exams without notice/consent violated constitutional rights.
- Cross motions for partial summary judgment: Court granted plaintiffs partial SJ against Bryson and Curiel (removal) and against the County (medical‑exam policy); denied defendants’ qualified immunity for Bryson and Curiel; granted qualified immunity to Rollins and Solis for continued detention claim; held individual defendants immune on state‑law claims; County liable under Monell issues left in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless removal by Bryson & Curiel | Removal lacked reasonable cause to believe imminent danger from parents; officials failed to pursue reasonable investigative avenues (e.g., call daycare) | Removal was objectively reasonable given R.S.’s preverbal age, apparently inflicted facial injuries, parents couldn’t explain, delay in treatment, refusal of additional testing, and possible return to daycare | Court: Plaintiffs entitled to partial SJ; removal violated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; Bryson and Curiel not entitled to qualified immunity (law clearly established) |
| Continued detention by Rollins & Solis | Continued detention became unreasonable by end of first day once evidence pointed to daycare and medical staff expressed no parental concerns | Social workers had statutory/administrative time to investigate (claimed 48‑hour window) and acted within CPS practice; released promptly when experts confirmed timing | Court: Raised factual/legal issues but granted defendants qualified immunity on continued‑detention claim (law not clearly established re: 48‑hour interpretation); no liability for federal claims against Rollins and Solis |
| County policy excluding parents from Polinsky exams | Policy categorically bars parents from exam room, violating parents’ and children’s liberty interests; parents have right to notice/hearing before investigatory physical exams and right to be present unless valid reason | Policy serves clinical and confidentiality needs; exams are brief pediatric assessments primarily for child welfare and infection control, not forensic exams; practical difficulties (scheduling, confidentiality) justify exclusion | Court: Policy unconstitutional as applied — parents have right to notice/hearing for investigatory exams and to be present unless specific, valid reasons justify exclusion; County’s blanket exclusion violated rights; plaintiffs entitled to partial SJ against County on medical‑exam policy |
| County’s performance of exams without parental notice/consent or court order | Exams performed without parental consent or individualized judicial authorization (no exigency); consent form did not validly authorize the mandatory 22‑point Polinsky assessment | Exams authorized by prior juvenile court order and Welfare & Institutions §324.5; parents signed consent forms for treatment | Court: 2007 order had expired and did not provide notice/hearing; §324.5 did not displace Wallis; consent forms did not clearly or validly authorize the assessments (parents had not consented to drug testing or skeletal exam); County not authorized to perform exams without notice/authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.) (parents have constitutional right to be present and to notice/hearing before investigatory physical examinations of children)
- Greene v. Camreta, 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.) (Wallis right applies; parental presence may only be limited for valid reasons; exams of private parts raise heightened family‑association interests)
- Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir.) (warrantless removal requires reasonable cause to believe imminent harm; law on exigency for removals clearly established)
- Mabe v. County of San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir.) (Fourteenth Amendment limits on separating parents and children; emergency exception narrow)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two‑step analysis: constitutional violation then clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (district courts have discretion in Saucier sequencing)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom as the moving force)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)