Rоbert W. KING; Linda Bandel King, individually and on behalf of Nathaniel King and Jacob King; and Wesley J. King and Paul W. King, individually, Appellants, v. OLMSTED COUNTY; Olmsted County Social Services Department; Mark Barta, individually and in his official capacity as а case worker for the Defendant County; Joan Kindem, individually and in her capacity as a case manager for the Defendant County, Appellees.
No. 96-3107.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 1997. Decided June 26, 1997.
117 F.3d 1065
Gregory J. Griffiths, Rochester, MN, for Appellees.
Before WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and REASONER,1 District Judge.
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Robert W. King and his wife, Linda Bandel King, individually and on behalf of their sons Nathaniel and Jacob King, together with their sons Wesley and Paul, appeal from the district court‘s2 grant of summary judgment in favor of Olmsted County, thе Olmsted County Social Services Department (Social Services), and Mark Barta and Joan Kindem, individually and in their capacities as Olmsted County social workers (collectively, the defendants). We affirm.
Between October of 1992 and March of 1993, Mrs. King contacted Social Services several times to request help with her son Paul. Paul was then sixteen years old and had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyрeractive Disorder (ADHD). Paul was skipping school, leaving home for hours, refusing to take medication for his ADHD, physically harming himself, and making suicidal statements.
Mr. Barta met with Paul once in November of 1992, but no significаnt action was taken until March 22, 1993, when Mr. and Mrs. King met with Barta and again requested assistance with Paul. At that meeting, Mr. and Mrs. King agreed with Barta that Paul would be admitted to the Von Wald shelter in Rochester, Minnesota, a shоrt-term residential facility for troubled adolescents. Mr. and Mrs. King signed a voluntary placement form and releases authorizing Social Services to obtain Paul‘s medical, psychiatric, and educatiоnal records.
Mr. and Mrs. King and Barta subsequently disagreed regarding the proper course of treatment for Paul upon his leaving the Von Wald shelter. Mr. and Mrs. King wanted Paul to receive evaluation and treаtment in a hospital setting, whereas Barta thought foster placement would be more appropriate.
On April 5, Barta filed a Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petition in state court, рursuant to
Following a May 21 hearing, the court ordered that Paul would remain at the Wilson Center or any other place agreed upon by the parties. Paul was discharged from the Wilson Center and returned home on June 18. The county attorney‘s motion to dismiss the CHIPS petition was granted on July 27.
The Kings then filed suit under
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the section 1983 claim and declined to exercisе supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
II.
We have recognized a right to familial relations, which includes the liberty interest of parents in the custody, care, and management of their childrеn. See Thomason v. SCAN Volunteer Servs., Inc., 85 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting Manzano v. South Dakota Dep‘t of Soc. Servs., 60 F.3d 505, 509-11 (8th Cir.1995)). The Kings do not claim (indeed, could not claim) that Social Services wrongly became involved in their lives, for Social Services intervened only at Mr. and Mrs. Kings’ behest. Nor do the Kings claim they were аctually deprived of familial relations, for Nathaniel and Jacob were never taken from Mr. and Mrs. Kings’ custody or care. The Kings claim instead that Social Services unconstitutionally interfered with their right tо familial relations by coercing and manipulating them with threats that Social Services would take Nathaniel and Jacob unless the Kings “cooperat[ed] with what the government wanted to do to Paul,” and by promising Paul an apartment, a car, clothes, and a new school.
“Generally, mere verbal threats made by a state-actor do not constitute a § 1983 claim.” Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir.1992). “The Constitution does not protеct against all intrusions on one‘s peace of mind. Fear or emotional injury which results solely from verbal harassment or idle threats is generally not sufficient to constitute an invasion of an identified liberty intеrest.” Pittsley v. Warish, 927 F.2d 3, 7 (1st Cir.1991) (police‘s threats to children that they would not see their stepfather again did not constitute violation of children‘s right to familial relations); see Emmons v. McLaughlin, 874 F.2d 351, 353-54 (6th Cir.1989); Lamar v. Steele, 698 F.2d 1286, 1286 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam). We have held that a threat сonstitutes an actionable constitutional violation only when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience, see Hopson, 961 F.2d at 1378-79, or if the threat exerts coercive pressure on the plaintiff and the plaintiff suffers the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Bishop v. Tice, 622 F.2d 349, 354 (8th Cir.1980).
We conclude that the alleged threats made by Barta and Kindem, although seemingly inappropriate, do not risе to the level of a constitutional violation. Barta and Kindem did not exhibit any conduct suggesting that
Furthermore, the Kings have failed to show that they were coerced by Social Services’ statements. No threats were mаde prior to the March 22 hearing, at which Mr. and Mrs. King signed a voluntary placement form agreeing to place Paul in the Von Wald shelter. Although two of the alleged statements may have occurred before April 7 (the only time subsequent to March 22 when Mr. and Mrs. King made a decision regarding Paul‘s treatment), Mr. and Mrs. King gave no indication at the April 7 hearing that their cooperation was being coerced. Rаther, the Kings’ attorney stated at the May 10 hearing that Mr. and Mrs. King had on April 7 “voluntarily agreed to place [Paul] at a foster home.”
Moreover, Mr. and Mrs. King retained legal custody of Paul at all times. Social Services’ only intrusive action was placing Paul in foster care, an action which the state court found, and the Kings do not contest, was supported by probable cause. Because therе is no showing that Mr. and Mrs. King were effectively deprived of their free choice, they have failed to show that they were unconstitutionally coerced. See Angarita v. St. Louis County, 981 F.2d 1537, 1544-45 (8th Cir. 1992) (county employees’ resignations were accomplished by unconstitutional coercion where totality of circumstances revealed that employer‘s conduct deprived employees of free choice); Cooper v. Dupnik, 963 F.2d 1220, 1248 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc) (plaintiff states claim of unconstitutional coercion where police conduct deprives plaintiff of his “free and unconstrained will“).4
Similarly, Mr. and Mrs. King have failed to show how Barta‘s promises to Paul were unconstitutionally coercive. They neither allege that these promises were communicated to them, nor do they explain how these comments could have been an аttempt to manipulate or coerce them into cooperating with Social Services. In sum, while Barta‘s and Kindem‘s alleged conduct, if it in fact occurred, may have been unprofessional, the Kings have failed to demonstrate that that conduct constituted a constitutional violation. Compare Bishop, 622 F.2d at 354.
The judgment is affirmed.