Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

(520) 790-5600

1983 Claim: Qualified Immunity of Social Worker

Posted by Ted A. Schmidt | Feb 12, 2018 | 0 Comments

Demaree v Pederson, No 14-16207 (9th Cir., January 23, 2018) (Per Curiam)

NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL WORKERS WHO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM HOME WITHOUT WARRANT WHERE THERE IS NO IMMINENT HARM TO CHILDREN AT THE TIME TO JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL

Child Protective Services removed plaintiffs' children from their home without a warrant while investigating a Wal-Mart employee's report to the police concerning family photos left to be developed showing child nudity.  Plaintiffs sued the social workers alleging violation of their constitutional right to family unity and companionship under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 4th & 14th Amends. U.S. Const. The U.S. District Court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to seal the summary judgment order but reversed and remanded the granting of summary judgment.  

The Ninth Circuit held that the social workers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the social workers did not have reasonable cause to believe the children were at risk of serious bodily harm or molestation when they removed the children from their home without judicial authorization. At most, the children might be at risk for being photographed naked again. The panel further held that plaintiffs' constitutional right was clearly established at the time the children were taken. The children were legally and rightfully in the custody and home of their natural parents.

The court held that specific judicial precedent clearly gave notice to the social workers that children could not be removed from their homes without a court order or warrant absent cogent, fact-focused reasonable cause to believe the children would be imminently subject to physical injury or physical sexual abuse.

About the Author

Ted A. Schmidt

Ted's early career as a trial attorney began on the other side of the fence, in the offices of a major insurance defense firm. It was there that Ted acquired the experience, the skills and the special insight into defense strategy that have served him so well in the field of personal injury law. Notable among his successful verdicts was the landmark Sparks vs. Republic National Life Insurance Company case, a $4.5 million award to Ted's client. To this day, it is the defining case for insurance bad faith, and yet it is only one of several other multi-million dollar jury judgments won by Ted during his career. He is certified by the State Bar of Arizona as a specialist in "wrongful death and bodily injury litigation".

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian

Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian is one of the most experienced, successful personal injury law firms in the Tucson area. Established in 1995, our firm has a long history of success, as seen in our many victories.

Menu