T.D. v. Patton, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16432

Background

T.D., a minor, was removed from his mother’s home by Denver Department of Human Services (DDHS) and placed in DDHS custody; DDHS recommended temporary custody to his father, Tiercel Duerson.
Duerson had a prior conviction for attempted sexual assault of a minor in his care and a history of noncompliance with sex-offender treatment; DDHS social worker Kelcey Patton reviewed this history and had safety concerns.
Patton omitted detailed information about Duerson’s criminal history and her safety concerns from her juvenile-court report, fearing termination if she objected, and recommended placement and repeatedly recommended that T.D. remain with Duerson.
After placement, indicators of abuse emerged (T.D. reported being hit with a mop handle; school staff observed fear and somatic complaints), but Patton failed to investigate and continued to recommend that T.D. remain in his father’s custody.
DDHS later removed T.D. following reports of sexual contact with a half-brother; a subsequent investigation found severe physical and sexual abuse by Duerson while T.D. was in his custody.
Procedural posture: T.D. sued Patton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation under the state-created-danger (danger-creation) theory; the district court denied qualified immunity to Patton on that claim and Patton appealed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Patton’s conduct violated substantive due process under the state-created-danger (danger-creation) theory	Patton affirmatively created/increased danger by recommending placement with Duerson, withholding material info, and failing to investigate signs of abuse	Patton contends her conduct did not constitute the requisite affirmative acts and that other team members and the juvenile court controlled placement	Held: Patton’s pre- and post-placement recommendations, omissions, and failures to investigate satisfied Currier’s danger-creation elements and violated substantive due process
Whether the relevant right was clearly established at the time of the conduct	T.D. argues Currier clearly established that similar conduct by social workers violates due process	Patton argues Currier does not control or is distinguishable; she also invoked supervisor direction and team process defenses	Held: Currier is controlling and factually parallel; a reasonable official would have known the conduct was unconstitutional, so qualified immunity denied
Relevance of post-placement affirmative conduct and failures to investigate	T.D. argues post-placement recommendations and failures to investigate are actionable when coupled with affirmative acts	Patton argues post-placement conduct is irrelevant per Currier or insufficient here	Held: Post-placement affirmative acts (repeated recommendations to keep child with father) and related investigative failures are relevant and supported liability under Currier
Causation/responsibility for juvenile-court decision when multiple actors involved	T.D. contends Patton materially influenced the court by withholding facts and making misleading recommendations	Patton contends placement was a team decision and court knew of conviction; she argues supervisor directives mitigate her responsibility	Held: Patton’s omissions and affirmative recommendations meaningfully contributed to custody decisions; team membership and supervisor direction did not negate liability under the danger-creation framework

Key Cases Cited

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (Due Process generally does not impose an affirmative duty to protect from private violence; state custody creates special duty only when the state restrains liberty)
Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (recognizing the state-created-danger exception and applying multi-element test to social-worker custody recommendations and investigative failures)
Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2002) (danger-creation preconditions and analysis affirming liability where state actors increased vulnerability)
Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and qualified-immunity framework for § 1983 claims)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity two-part inquiry and courts’ discretion to decide order of prongs)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly-established-law standard: precedent must place the constitutional question beyond debate)
Sheehan v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (2015) (an officer violates clearly established law only if the unlawfulness is apparent in light of pre-existing law)