10
- 12 09
- cv

E .D . v. T u ff

a re lli
U

N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER R U L IN G S BY SU MMA R Y ORD E R

D O N OT HA V E PRE C E D E N T IA L E FFE C T . C IT A T ION T O A SUMM ARY O RDER FI LED ON OR AF TER JA N U A R Y 1 , 2 00 7, I S PE R

MI T T ED AND IS GOVERNED B Y FEDERAL RULE OF APP ELLATE PRO CEDURE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COURT’ S LOCAL RULE 32. 1.1 . WHEN CIT INGASU MMAR Y ORDE R IN A DOCU MEN T FILED WIT H THIS COUR T, A PART Y MUST C ITE E ITHE R THE FEDE RA L APPEND IX OR AN E LECT RONI C DA TA BASE (WITH T HE N OTAT ION “ SU MMAR Y ORDE R”). A PART Y CIT INGASU MMAR Y ORDE R MUST SERVE A COP Y OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NO T REPRESENTED B Y COUNSEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 1 day of st Fe bruar y , two thousand eleve n. Pr e se nt: J OHN M. WAL KER, J R.,

CH ES TERJ . S TRAUB, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges
.

________________________________________________________ E.D. and A .D., infants, by their par ent and natural guardia n, Victoria D emtchenko, V I CTORIA DEMTCHENK O, and ROB ERT BYRD.

Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , v. No. 10-1209-c v DANI ELTUF FAREL L I , a ca se worke r employed by the New York City Administration for Children’s Servic es, ERI C SANFORD, a supervisor e mploy ed by

the New York City

Administration for Children’ s Services, RODN EY JAC KSON, a supe rvisor employed by the New York City

Administration for Children’s Servic es, and the CI TY OF NEW YORK,

Defendants-A

ppellees
.
________________________________________________________2

F or Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts : P HI L I P C. S EG AL , Seg al & Gre enber gL L P, New Yor k, N.Y. F or De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s: S US AN P AUL S ON , Assistant Corporation Counsel

(F ranc is F. Caputo and Toni Ga ntz, on the brief

), for Mic ha e l A . Ca

rd ozo , Co rp or atio n Co un se l of the City of Ne w York, N ew Yor

k, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Castel, J. ). ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

be and he re by is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiffs-Appellants appe al from the D ece mber 3, 2009, judg ment of the district cour t g rantingthe def

endants’ motion for summar y judgme nt dismi ssing the c omplaint and denying the plaintiffs’ cr oss motion for partial summary judgme nt. On appea l, they argue that the district
c ourt e rr e d in c on c lud ingthat ( 1) no re a so na ble jur y c ou ld h ave fo un d th at th e de fe nd ants vio late d th e pla int if

fs ’ c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts wh e n th e y re mov e d E .D . a

nd A. D. fr om t

he ir pa re nts ’ custody and (2) the doctrine of collate ral e stoppel did not apply to prec lude Def

endant- Appellant Da nie l T uf fa re lli fr om r e -l iti g atin giss ue s a dju dic ate d in fa mil y c ourt . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ familiarity

with the fac ts and proce dural history of this case
. We r e vie w a

n a wa rd of summa ry jud g me nt de novo , “re solving a ll ambiguities and draw ing a ll permissible factua l infere nces in fa vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Bu rg

v . G os se lin , 591 F.3d 95, 97 ( 2d Cir. 2010) (interna l quotation mark omitted).

“ I t ha s lo ngbe e n s e ttl e d in thi s Ci rc uit

‘t hat a pa re nt’ s inte re st i n th e c us tod y of a c hil d is a constitutionally

protec ted liberty

interest subjec t to due proce ss protection.’” W ilk ins on e xre l.3

W ilk ins on v . R us se ll , 182 F.3d 89, 103 ( 2d Cir. 1999) (interna l alteration omit ted) (quoting Ce c e rev . Ci ty

of N e w York, 967 F.2d 826, 829 ( 2d Cir. 1992)).

“ Al tho ugh p are nts e njo y

a c on sti tut ion a lly

pr ote c te d inte re st i n th e ir fa mil y int e g ri ty , th is interest is counter

balanc ed by

the compellingg overnme ntal interest in the prote ction of minor children, pa

rticularly in circumstanc es whe re the protec tion is considered ne cessa ry as ag ainst the pare nts themselves.” Id. at1 0 4 ( i n t e r n a l qu o t at i o nm ar

k s o m i t t e d )
. In g ener al, par ents ca nnot be d ep ri v edo f c u s t o dy

o f th ei r c h i l dre nwi th o u ta p re -d ep ri v at i o nco urtp ro ce ed i n g. See Tene nbaum v. W illiams , 1 93 F .3 d 5 81 , 5 93 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ). Ho we ve r, in “ e me rg e nc y c ir c ums tanc e s, a

c hil d may be take n into custody

by a re sponsible State official without cour t authorization or pare ntal consent.” Id. at 594 (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). “Eme rg ency circ umstances
mean c ircumstance s in which the child is immediately threatened with har

m.” Id. I f “ the re is
r e a s o n a b l e t i m e c o n s i s t e n tw i thth e s a f e ty o f th e c h i l d t o o b t a i na

j u d i c i a l o r d e r , th e ‘ e m e r g e n c y’
remova l of a c hild is unwarra nted.” Id. at 59 6. We r e qu ir e de fe nd ants to o ff e r “ ob je c tiv e ly
rea sonable” evidenc e that har m was imminent. Nic ho lso n v . S c op pe tta , 344 F.3d 154, 171 ( 2d Cir. 2003). Tu ff are lli and L a -T oya B a ir d, a c hil d p ro te c tiv e sp e c ia lis t at th e Ne w Y or k Ci ty Ad min istratio n f

or Chi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ AC S” ), arr ive d at Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt V ic tor ia Demtche nko’s apa

rtment to investigate a r eport of suspe cted c hild abuse at a pproxi mately

6:00 p. m. o n F ri da

y , O c tob e r 2 7, 20 06 . T he pa rt ie s d o n ot d isp ute that th e re wa s n o o pp or tun ity to
se e k ju dic ia l a

pp ro va l f or re mov a l at th is h our. Whe n T uf fa re lli and B a ir d e nte re d th e a

pa rtme nt, they observe d E.D., an a

utisti c child, cookingover a n open flame while undre ssed above the waist. A larg e kitchen knif e wa s acc essible to E.D., and the apar tment was a “ cre ative mess.”4

Th e pla int if

fs c on c e de that E .D . h a d f a lle n d own th e sta ir s a

nd su sta ine d a

vis ibl e inj ur

y to h is fac e. When Tuff

are lli asked Demtche nko about E.D.’s injury , she re sponded that she ha d not taken E.D . to a doctor a fter the fall and that he had missed many day s of school. Tuff

are lli’s observations and Demtche nko’s statements re g ardingE.D.’s injury corr oborate d the re port that ACS had rec eived f

rom E.D.’s tea cher
. See W ilkinson , 182 F.3d at 105-06 (re asoningthat substantiation of cre dible repor t of abuse buttre sses rea sonablene ss of ca seworke rs’ c onclusion that emer g ency

circ umstances we re pr esent). Th e pla int if

fs re sp on d th at r e mov a l w a s im pr op e r b e c a

us e Tu ff are lli “ dis re g ard e d h is supervisor’ s express instructions.” Pls.’ Br. 31. Af ter Tuf far elli interviewe d Demtche nko, he called his super

visor, Def

endant- Appellant Eric Sanford, a nd “desc ribed the c ircumstance s in the home.” J.A. 187. Sanford did not “think there w as suffic ient information to justify a re moval of the childre n . . . at that point.” Id. at 19 1. He ins tr uc te d T uf fa re lli “ to c onta c t th e po lic e , . . . to g o back into the a

partment a

nd assess the possible dang er to the c hildren in the home.” Id. After his conversation with Tuffare lli, S anfor d asked to spea k with Ba ird, who wa s “more experience d” than Tuf

far elli. Id. at 19 2. She “ g ave [San fo rd ] spe c if ic s a nd a ssu re d [hi m] th at it
cer tainly seeme d to her to be a

remova l situation.” Id. at 193. Two police office rs there afte r
escor ted Tuff are lli and Ba ird bac k to the apar tment. Tuffa

relli ca lled Sanford a

second time a

nd repor ted that “it looked like, continued to look like, a r emoval situation.” Id. at 633 (interna l quotation marks omitted). Sanford the n instructed Tuff are lli to call Sanford’s super visor, Def endant- Appellant Rodney J ackson, to obtain a

uthorization t o remove the childre n. The plaintiffs a

re c orre ct that Tuff

are lli dis reg arde d Sanford’ s instructions to further investigate. And, as the defe ndants conc ede, T uffa relli did not advise J ackson of Sanford’ s5

conce rn that there was not “suf ficient infor

mation to just ify

a re moval.” Id. at 19 1. Tu ff are lli likewise did not disclose to J ackson that he had f ailed to per form, at Sanf

ord’s dire ction, any further assessment of “ the possible dang er to the c hildren.” Id. A b e tte r p ra c tic e wo uld be to
e ns ur e that an A CS su

pe rv iso r, in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t o a uth or ize re mov a l, r e c e ive a c omp le te
and a c c ur ate a c c ount o f a ll r e le va nt c omm un ic atio ns wi thi n th e or g anizatio n. Th e de fe nd ants did not follow that prac tice in this case. Neve rtheless, the pla intiffs overlook Jackson’s independe nt determination that re moval of the c hil dr e n w a s n e c e ssa

ry . T he re is n o g e nu ine dis pute that D e mtc he nk o k e pt E .D ., an a uti sti c child, out of school and did not take him to a doc tor afte r he ha d fallen down a flig ht of stairs and sustained an injury

to his face . J ackson a

uthorized removal bec ause the situation, in hi s view, “ra ised sever al re d flag s.” J.A. 264. He was c oncer ned that E.D. w as suffe ringfrom interna l injuries but could not communicate them be cause of his autism and found it “ver y troubling” that E.D. had not re ceive d any medical c are . Id. Acc ordingto J ackson, in the c ase of autistic and speec h-impaired c hildren, “pr ofessionals’ r eliance on phy sical obser vation of the c hild and his or her e nvironment bec omes key .” Id. at 640. Upon our inde pendent r eview of the re cord, w e
c on c lud e that Jac ks on ’s a uth or izatio n f

or re mov a l in

thi s c a se did

no t vi olate the pla int if

fs ’ proce dural due proce ss rig hts beca use eme rg ency

circ umstances e x isted warr antingthe childre n’s
remova l. The plaintiffs ne x t argue that the doc trine of c ollatera l estoppel should have ba rre d Tuffa relli from re -litigating the f amily court’s pur

ported de termination that “no [] emer g ency exis ted” whe n he re moved E.D. a nd A.D. fr om the plaintiffs’ custody . Pls.’ Br. 42. “ Under collater al estoppel, onc e a c ourt has dec ided an issue of fac t or law ne cessa

ry to its j udg ment, that6

d ec i s i o nm ay

p re cl u d e r el i t i gat i o no f t h e i s s u e i na s u i to n a d i ff er en tcau s e o f a ct i o ni n v o l v i n g a party to the first ca se.” San Remo H otel, L.P. v. City &Cnty. of San Francisco , 545 U.S. 323, 336 n.16 (2005) ( internal quotation marks omitted).

Under New Y ork law, the deter mination of whether

collater al estoppel prec ludes relitig ation of an issue r equire s the court to pursue two g ener al lines of inquiry . Initially , the cour t must determine whethe r the issue sought to be litigated is identica l to an issue nece ssarily decide d in the prior ac tion and decisive on the pre sent ac tion. Upon satisfaction of the issue ide ntity require ment, inquiry tur ns tow ard wh e the r t he pa rt y to b e bo un d h a d a

fu ll a nd fa ir op po rt un ity to contest the de termination now said to control. Conte v. Justice , 996 F.2d 1398, 1400 ( 2d Cir. 1993) (interna l citations omit ted). “ We reviewa dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a

pp lic atio n o f t

he do c tr ine of

c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l de novo . . . .” Cha rti e r v . M ar lin Mg mt., LLC , 202 F.3d 89, 93 ( 2d Cir. 2000). As an initial matter, the f amily court ne ver f

ound that emer g ency

circ umstances did not existon October 27, 2006, when the de fenda nts removed E.D. and A .D. from the pla intiffs’ custody . In fac t, it authoriz ed tempora ry remova l of the children on the g round that re moval was “ nece ssary to avoid imminent dange r to the child[ren]’s lif e or he a lth .” J.A. 22 8- 29 . In “ pa ro lin g ” E. D. and

A. D. to t he pla int if

fs ’ c us tod y , th e fa mil y court did not conc lude that the def endants lac ked a r easona

ble basis for r emovingthe childre n upon their investig ation of the plaintiffs’ apar tment. Instead, it deter

mined that E.D. and A .D. could re turn to their par ents’ custody “under very close [] supervision” “ duringthe pende ncy” of the family

court’s pr ocee dings. Id. at 243. The pla intiffs theref ore ha ve not identified a

ny issue raised on summar

y judgme nt that is “identical to an issue ne cessa rily decide d” in the fa

mily court action. Con te , 996 F.2d at 1400. Moreove r, the Appe llate Division’s reve rsal of the family court’s f inding of neg lect would not be impaired by any rulingof this Court. In re Am . Tobacco Co. , 880 F.2d 1520, 15277

(2 d Ci r. 19 89 ) ( “ I ssu e s are c on sid e re d id e nti c a l if a dif fe re nt d e c isi on

in t he se c on d s uit

wo uld
nece ssarily

destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.”) (interna l quotation marks omitted) (a

pplying N ew Yor

k law). Adecision that the de fenda nts did not vi olate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rig hts likewise would not “destroy or impair rights” established by the family court. Id. The plaintiffs’ collater al estoppel a rgument there fore fails on this gr ound as
we ll. We have c onsidered the plaintiffs’ re maining a rguments and find them to be without
me ri t. F or

the fo re g oin gre a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK