Tamas v. Department of Social & Health Services
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26009
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Fabregas molested his foster daughters Monica, Ruth, and Estera; plaintiffs sue DSHS and nine employees under §1983 for negligence and rights violations.
- DSHS received ~30 complaints over ~10 years regarding Fabregas; multiple CPS referrals and license applications followed.
- Kneser, Kleinhen, Drake, Loeffler, Walker, Lipson, Kairoff, Baker, and Payne approved or supervised licenses for Fabregas despite concerning referrals.
- Monica was adopted by Fabregas; the state continued to license him, creating a danger the state had a duty to protect against.
- Plaintiffs allege the state failed to protect foster children after assuming wardship, raising Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.
- District court denied summary judgment on immunity; Ninth Circuit vacates and remands for correct standard and individualized liability analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute immunity for licensing decisions? | Appellees argue no absolute immunity for investigations/placements. | Appellants contend licensing/placement powers are quasi-judicial under absolute immunity. | Not entitled to absolute immunity. |
| Qualified immunity standard applied to deliberate indifference? | District court used wrong standard; requires objective substantial risk and subjective awareness. | Appellants rely on some version of a duty to act defense under immunity standards. | District court erred by not applying the proper deliberate indifference standard; remand for individualized analysis. |
| Whether foster children have a clearly established right to state protection in 1996? | Yes; right established by multiple circuits that state has affirmative duties in foster care. | Right not clearly established in 1996 for foster children. | Yes, clearly established in 1996 that protected liberty interest exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipscomb v. Simmons, 962 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1992) (state owes safety and care after wardship begins)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (no constitutional duty to protect child from private violence absent state-created danger)
- Gibson v. Merced County Dept. of Human Resources, 799 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1986) (deliberate indifference standard in foster care context)
- Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference not gross negligence)
- Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2010) (objective and subjective components of deliberate indifference analysis)
- Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798 (3d Cir. 2000) (clear duty when state places a child in foster care; duties on state)
- Meador v. Cabinet for Hum. Res., 902 F.2d 474 (6th Cir. 1990) (state protection rights extended to foster children)
- Taylor ex rel. Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791 (11th Cir. 1987) (analogizes foster care duty to state guardianship obligations)
- Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. N.M. Dep't of Human Servs., 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1992) (foster children have a right to protection)