seek counsel may appease a court good morning jeff morris for a k a thirteen year old child at the time of these events when she was force of the forcibly removed and continued to be detained from her mother and kids who also represent here today i would like to reserve a couple minutes of time for rebuttal please this case is about arizona child protective services social workers who took the most extreme actions under the circumstances where those actions of violated the constitutional rights of mother and daughter under the first fourth and fourteenth amendments in our brief we have discussed four sets of circumstances that each and dependently give rise to a casa to tional violation today a plan to start discussing the two of those the first of which that i'll discuss is actually those set of facts that occurred last in time and that is when c p s unlawfully and without justification continued the detention of the daughter from her mother who is a fit parent and continued to detain her for four months for an unjustifiable reason the supreme court long ago established understand the specific allegations that have the level of a of a violation of fourteenth and fourth amendment so under this set of facts the continued detention so just just moving back in time at the point where there was a dependency petition was was submitted to the court and they had the complaint doesn't reflect that there was a court order issue d assume that the court issued an order approve the petition anything after they had time it is that is there any violation that could be raised after the court has has ordered a k into the custody of c p s so there are two parts your question or that i'd like to answer first is whether there was a court order and i believe that there was a order  sexual abuse allegation that a medical provider it said and there was a petition filed and they kept the children for two and a half months and then another medical provider said that report is incorrect there is  the records show that there was no sexual abuse at that point the court said that the caseworker correctly immediately took action to return the child to a parent or parents in that case that is the type of situation that did not occur here here when aurora discharged the child as having only a low risk of suicide the department have an opportunity to make a placement decision and instead of returning her to her mother they placed her and she ended up going through four months of hell until she was finally removed or taken back to her mother so the law lets says that the city says it couldn't be held liable for question whether anything that happened after the apple i i well i think there are really two parts there to the statement you just read from wallace one was that there was that they recognized whether there was a constitutional violation but on top of the constitutional violation in that case there was a manila claim against the city and so the remained was about whether or not the city had a policy that is not there's not that wrinkle in this case and i think is instructive because it said there that the state cannot provide an alternative placement unless it can show that the parent cannot or will not provide a capable home was there a court order and sandusky i don't recall yes and just not sure what the effect is of the court order can you talk about what happened before the court order whether anything had happened before the court order supports the argument that the defendant here were liable under the fourteenth and fourth amendment yes your honor so the very first set of facts that give rise to a claim is that the case workers from s interfered with the companionship between mother and daughter at a time when daughter needed her mother the most and what specifically are you referring to what allegation and the complaint the allegation in the complaint was c h phoenix children's hospital had told mom that she can go home about one o'clock or two one to two o'clock in the morning and that they would reassess the child again that morning around eight mom went home and when she called back at eight and talk to phoenix children's they told her that c p s had cut off all communication of every kind between mother and daughter there was no justification for that kind of extensive an overbroad a cut off of communication and we have that and morrison tha this state actor cannot cut off all access unilaterally without justification we also have in wallace when they talk about the scope of the intrusion they said that when a child is going in for medical evaluations that child is entitled as a constitutional right to the support of a parent unless there is some showing that that parent is causing harm to the child and that it is not in existence here and that is what we have ledge in the complaint that mother was the support for her daughter the daughter needed her mother for support and instead they cut off all communication when phoenix children's discharge her later that day and c p s took their daughter to aurora a other than they were working with c p s around the time that the violations were no other facts how can that possibly give rise to liability individual liability under an integral participation theory thank you your honor and i'll start with your question first since a little more specific and if i may go to judge smith's so for jenkins and gomez we have alleged that they were participants in the decisions that occurred as far as the timing of when that happens that really occurs later in the case and in that situation it's a bit of a black box where we don't know who it is it's exactly making the decisions for the continued detention we just know that some that there's a group of c p s caseworkers who are making those decisions and preventing daughter from returning home those good of you could have taken the approach of having john doe defendants in that instance but you feel you've alleged individual liability for specific people what this what's the allegation with respect to gomez and jenkins and then secondarily with respect of a c p s team that was working that night when they cut off communication we don't know who it was from c p s that made this statement to phoenix children's to cut off all communication and they have  knowledged that those people they were active in the case but we have alleged enough on these facts in this past you're to get to discovery to determine what it is that they're not away from gomez and jenkins and focused instead on these other three but i don't see how any of these five under the integral participation theory are than the same position as the all the police officers who were all participants in the challenge search and knew that the flash bomb was going to be used they're not in the same position they were watching they're watching you just don't know if they had any involvement and with gomez and jenkins you have zero allegations and the i think requires involvement in some meaningful way what's the meaningful way that these five individuals were involved so that they should go through the burden of an individual liability case well your honor and i would like to answer your the conceivable to the possible that they were working on the case and making decisions when these constitutional violations occurred and the nature of the constitutional violations is that their decisions unlike cases where as throwing a was a supervisor for kohli and approved it that is correct for the allegations concerning the initial interference by c p s the initial contact was as in the records and we alleged it was between vanessa rountree inland and then when the temporary order was issued or the temporary custody notice we have also alleged that the individuals also participated in the deceased decision to issue here's what happened we went down we removed to what we believe was an emergency in effect support an emergency situation remove the child then under our statutory scheme we must within seventy two hours of that file the petition with the court which was f pointed out once the court gets involved we have seventy two hours of the petition the court then under arizona's statutory scheme has between seven to five days to hear have this polygamy are we hearing at that hearing the court one advises the parents that they have a right to counsel and counsel is appointed to them if they don't afford it they have a right at the policeman every hearing process to give any relevant testimony so the position is all these things are saying that we withheld or may have withheld from the court again again i guess the position of the state has been and continues to be yes at that point it was enough because at that point frankly the court at arizona's statutory scheme then makes decisions on where the child should be placed whether it has to make a specific finding whether or not to continue dependency of the child out of placement or out of home that court makes that decision not to c p s any longer the courts making that decision based on what we tell them and what the parents and whatever else for their attorneys might say the complain me first also answer the question of why we got to this point here's what it is in the complaint as you said this is a motion to dismiss we are stuck and by the way so is plaintiff stuck with the information that they pledged in their complaint here's what we knew or here's what coyly knew at that point that a k had a history for the last six four to six months leading up to the point that we were asked to get involved of depression she had gone to  which is a relatively low cost or maybe free clinic because of her depression one of the folks noticed in the lobby being a crying and why and what not so she that individual asked what do you know are you ok she's you know  i'm depressed and after some discussion they immediately said you need to go to an emergency room which is at children's hospital at children's hospital the doctors and evaluators there said look this girl is severely suicidal or severely depressed she had suicidal i did it ideations that there was a report apparently coming from the christ care clinic that she'd actually attempted suicide the previous day that's what the that's what the children's hospital what the doctors say c p s got involved because the hospital's children's hospital at this young lady needs to be admitted she needs to be in a in patient mental health facility where she can be evaluated and observed and the mother at that point said no i don't believe you she doesn't need any services you're just trying to make money and the hospital became extremely concerned that mom might come in remove the child from the hospital if there wasn't some some way to prevent that that's when c p s was called and they got involved now they had that information it was about mobile evan o'clock in the morning when they moved quietly actually interviewed ms a k a and at that point she said well i don't i'm not suicidal now i've had depression suicide ideation in the past but i'm ok right now the decision was made between mr chorley and his supervisor and after discussion with the people at the hospital there we needed to move immediately and so that's why we did the temp right if they need to movement immediately but because the currents are we have a tri risk the risk to the child was in imminent risk of serious bodily harm she did from  process in a situation like this the way in arizona under arks statutory scheme that a c p s worker can remove a child with a court order they have to go get a dependency file a dependency and then they can apply for what's called a pick spender did not have that process of they were able to them and still to this day do not all the lawyers on is working on pass legislation starting next year they will have a process like that but at this time they had nothing to go to they had no to get a warrant the other reason they didn't have a reason a time to go get a warrant they're free of free to the trial that she might harm herself but they're afraid of the mother may lead to this because she's denying that the child has any mother was gone professionals getting this information seeing that mom not only was the killing of the child wasn't in need of any help so the hospital i thought according to the allegations in the complaint the hospital told th mother that she could not have any contact with the child and this was before any temporary custody of his or anything had issued it am i reading that wrong well here in by the way in this was something else that counsel brought up about this child protective services exchange name so i apologise back and forth because child protective services at the time again plaintiff has to live by the complaint what the complaint alleges the only thing to clean complaint alleges relating to that was that ms sheets was told by somebody apparently a child or children's health that coley had said she should not have any contact with a c as long as she's staying at children's hospital which is a relatively short time because what happened is that they made a decision to do temporary custody notice before they did that then the girl took any other measures i heard him are you today that once you get to a war that the state indicated that she was in to have any contact with her daughter but that's not in the complaint that's the complaint has that one allegation the only other time they talk about some reference of restricting contact with the family was in their element they have another element in here where they're claiming that we lied or made a false information to the court and somewhere they've indicated i don't recall where in the minute complaint they said it but they said something to the effect that well we told the court there was no restriction on mother when in fact we know that mr coyly back on the twenty first of may told the hospital mom shouldn't have any more contact with her during the  eighty three which is when they they make the second allegation that after the intake and they mr chorley instructed them as keith was not allowed to seventy two was the only reference where they said we restricted it but yes my in my position of the record and again the court can read that complaint just was i can't i'm sorry did doesn't i don't think change that analysis but even if it did again she's only get that hospital and an inpatient situation for i think about five seven days i'm sorry were there were there other questions that i haven't answered it i was going to harm she was in the hospital under suicide watch piece fit phoenix children's doesn't have their kids on suicide which suicide watch committing suicide just doesn't happen is common sense and the other thing is  they claim that mom to come pick her up but she's following what is albeit an unlawful order to not go to the hospital and yet they're going to penalize her and say that because she theoretically could  then there's an imminent risk but recall that there are at least three and a half hours after mom has been told don't come to the hospital she doesn't come to the hospital and your h