In Dees v. County of San Diego, published May 27, 2020, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's summary judgment ruling, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the court's ruling on post-trial motions. The defendant social worker took part in an investigation of an alleged impropriety concerning a stepfather and his daughter. The social worker initially ordered that the stepfather's two stepdaughters be taken out of the stepfather's custody. A family court then restored custody. The social worker was ordered to wrap up her investigation. Instead, the social worker interviewed one of the stepdaughters, who was nine and suffered from cognitive disabilities, at the stepdaughter's school. The interview lasted five minutes. The social worker advised the stepdaughter that she could have a school district employee present during the interview, and that the stepdaughter could end the interview at any time. The stepdaughter did not request an employee be present, and did not terminate the interview. After the interview, the police told the social worker that their investigation was closed. The social worker then sent a letter to the family court falsely stating that the stepdaughters had been removed from the custody of their mother. The family court never acted on the letter. The mother and stepdaughter sued the social worker and the county, alleging that the letter violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to family association, and that the interview was a seizure of the girl that violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court entered summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim. The Fourth Amendment proceeded to trial, and the jury found that there was no Fourth Amendment seizure. On the plaintiffs' post-trial motions, the district court granted the plaintiffs judgment as a matter of law on the Fourth Amendment claim. It alternatively granted new trial.
The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim. Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that, to establish a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on a minor being separated from his or her parents, plaintiffs must establish that an actual loss of custody occurred; a threat or investigation is not enough. Since the family court did not act on the letter, and the mother did not actually lose custody, there was no Fourteenth Amendment violation. The panel also unanimously ruled that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Because the interview was short, the girl did not ask for the interview to be terminated, and her emotional state after the interview was disputed, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. But the majority affirmed the district court's alternative grant of new trial. It deferred to the district court's ruling that the weight of the evidence was against the jury's decision. A dissenting judge opined that based on the evidence, the district judge abused the judge's discretion in finding the weight of evidence against the verdict.
Comments