In Momox-Caselis v. Donohue, published on February 3, 2021, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant county and its employees. The plaintiffs are the natural parents of a deceased infant. The county removed the infant from the plaintiffs' custody due to long-term neglect. After the county received a report that the infant's foster parents had abused another foster child, the county removed her from that placement and placed her with new foster parents. The new foster father accidently gave the infant an overdose of allergy medication, and the infant passed away. The parents alleged that the infant was wrongfully removed from their home, wrongfully removed from the initial foster placement, and placed in a neglectful foster home, in violation of state and federal law, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence to support their claims, and that there was not a genuine dispute of material fact that would rise to the level of deliberate indifference by the county. It granted the defendants summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs had waived several of their appellate arguments, either by not raising them in the district court, making arguments inconsistent with those in the district court, or failing to support the arguments. The plaintiffs alleged that the county removed the infant from their home in violation of Due Process, but failed to address the Fourteenth Amendment case law governing removal of a child from her parents, or how the manner of removal violated Due Process. The plaintiffs therefore failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on that claim. They alleged that county official or unofficial policy led to improper licensure of the second foster family, improper placement of the infant into its custody, or failure to supervise the placement. But the plaintiffs failed to point to a specific county policy or practice that violated the infant's Due Process rights. They also inconsistently argued that the county failed to follow its policies and that it failed to discipline employees who flouted policies. They therefore failed to present a viable Monell claim against the county. Instead, the county provided voluminous evidence of the licensing and training the foster family had to undergo. Any factual disputes on narrow issues did not raise genuine disputes of fact that would save this claim from summary judgment. Most important, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence raising a genuine issue of fact that the county acted with deliberate indifference, which would be necessary for a "special relationship" or a "state-created danger" exception to overcome the rule that the Due Process clause does not confer an affirmative right to governmental aid or impose a duty on the state to protect individuals from third parties. The various pieces of information the plaintiffs pointed to did not show that the county had notice of a danger relevant to the harm the infant suffered, or were deliberately indifferent to that danger.
Comments