FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 15, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 7- 15 79 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 87 3 C V-J- 33 MCR H.A.L., J.H.L., S.L.L., Mi no r ch il dr en , by an d t hr ou gh th ei r pa ren ts an d n ex t fr ie nd s, BRIAN J OSEPH LEW IS, RACHEL DANETT E LEW IS, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us ED FOLTZ , in di vi du al ly, DEBORAH JONES, in di vi du al ly, VIRGINIA J ORDAN, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m ber 1 5, 2 00 8)Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d

COHILL,* Di st ric t J ud ge . PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff s H.A.L., J.H.L., andS.L.L., m in orch il dr en , fil edth ro ug h t he ir pa ren ts an d n ex t fr ie nd s a 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cla im ag ai ns t Def

en da nt s EdFo lt z (“ Fo lt z”), Deb or ah Jo ne s (“ Jo ne s” ), an d Vi rg in iaJo rd an(“ Jo rd an ”), em pl oyees with t he Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Ch il dr enan d F am il ie s (“ DCF”) , inth ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es . Pla in ti ffs all eg e th atDefen da nt s v io la te d t he ch il dr en s’ Fou rte en th Am en dm en t s ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s ri gh ts to ph y si cal saf ety an d t o b e fre e fro m anun reas on ab le ris k o f ha rm . Pla in ti ffs co nt en d t ha t Def en da nt s, thr ou gh de li be rat e in di ffer en ce, fai le d t o p rev en t ch il d- on -ch il d s ex ua l ab us e th e ch il dr en su ffer edwhi le th ey

were i nv ol un ta ril y

inth e cu st od y

of F lo rid a’s fo st er-c are syste m . Defen da nt s ap pe al on in te rlo cu to ry rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n t o d is m is s Pl ai nt iff s’ Thi rdAm en de d C om

pl ai ntonth e b as is of

__ __ __ __ __ __ * Honora

ble Mauric e B . Cohill , J r., United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict of Pennsylvania, sitting by

designation. 2Defen da nt s’ qu al ifi edimm un it y . Bas edon th e al le ge d fa ct s, we co nc lu de th at Defen da nt s kno win gl y

subjec te d t he ch il dr ento a subs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm an d e xh ib it edde li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o t he kn own ris k: co nduc t al read y cle arl y es tabl is he d a s u nc on st itut io na l. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of Defen dant s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y . B A C K G R O U N D

Bas edon th e co m

pl ai nt , th e g is t o f Pl ai nt iff s’ cau se of a ct io n i s t hi s co nt en ti on : wh enface d wi th th e kno wn ri skof c hi ld -o n- ch il d s ex ua l ab us e oc cu rri ng in Pla in ti ffs ’ fo st er h om e, Defen da nt s wer e d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t t o Pl ai nt iff s’ saf ety by doi ng no th in g t o g ua rdag ai ns t thi s kno wn an d s ig ni fic an t ris k. Pl ai nt iff

s s uf fere d s ex ua l ab us e as a res ul t. Fi rs t, Defe nd an ts kn owi ng ly pl acedPla in ti ffs in a ho m e wit h a no th er s ex ua ll y ag gr es si ve ch il d, b utfai le d t o im pl em en t a s afet y

pl anto pro te ctth e ch il dr en . Then , aft er re po rts of c hi ld -o nch il d s ex ua l ab us e b etweenothe r ch il dr eninth e h om e were m ad e, Defen da nt s

3al lo wedPla in ti ffs to rem ai n i n t he ho m e wit ho uttak in g s te ps to gu ardPla in ti ffs ’

sa fety . The fo ll owi ng fact s ar e al le ge d. 1

A. Wha t Def

en da nt s Kn ew Befo re Pl aci ng Pla in ti ffs inth e Sh ic k Ho m e Edwi n a ndDon naSh ic k (t he “ Sh ic ks ”) were freque ntfos te r pa ren ts . At an y gi ve n t im e, m

ul ti pl e fo st er ch il dr enli ve d wi th th e Sh ic ks an d the ir n atur al ch il dr en . Arou ndJu ne 19 97 , ele ve n- y ear- ol d R .S. was p la cedinth e Sh ic k fo st er ho m e. 2 Aro un d Oct ob er 1 99 7, Def en da ntFo lt z, a DCF l ic en si ng co un se lo r, le arn ed th at-- b efo re R.S.’s p la cem en t -- th ree fo st er ch il dr enwere re m ov edfro m th e Sh ic k h om e b ecau se th e Sh ic ks co ul d n otm an ag e th e ch il dr en s’ em ot io na l an d be ha vi or al pro bl em s. Nev erthe le ss , Fol tz reco m m en de d t ha t the Sh ic ks be reli cen se d t o p ro vi de care forth ree f os te r ch il dr en .

What we ac cept a s true for the purposes of

this appeal -- that is, the alleg ations as 1 pleade d by

Plaintiffs -- may

not be the truefac ts, or perha ps not all of the true f

acts, that e merg e afte r discover

y . Our duty

at this stage , howeve r, is to acc ept the Plaintiffs’ Third Ame nded Complaint as true. The Shicks later

adopted R.S. 2 4Aro un d M ay 19 98 , fou rte en -y ear- ol d D.C. was pl acedinth e Sh ic k fo st er ho m e. Defen da ntJo rd an , a DCF em pl oyee, was D.C.’s as si gn edfam il y -s erv ic es 3 co un se lo r. Whe n s he pl acedD.C. inth e Sh ic k h om e, Jo rd ansp eci fic al ly kne w th atD.C. hada hi st ory

of a gg res si ve sex ua l b eh av io r to wardy ou ng er ch il dr en . Sh e al so kn ew th atD.C. hadpre vi ou sl y su ffer edsex ua l ab us e b y anadul t m al e care take r. Aro un d S ep te m

be r 19 98 , a th irdfos te r ch il d, J .S., was p la cedinth e Sh ic k ho m e. J.S. was ni ne when he m ov edinwith t he Sh ic ks . All th ree Def

en da nt s kne w th atth e Sh ic ks work edou ts id e th e h om e fu ll ti m e an d t ha t the y

all owe d fo st er ch il dr enR.S. an d D.C. t o s up erv is e, wit ho ut adul ts pre se nt , y ou ng er fo st er ch il dr en . AroundJan ua ry 19 99 , DCF am en de d t he Sh ic ks ’ fo st er-c are l ic en se an d re du cedth ei r ho us in g c ap aci ty to two fo st er ch il dr en . At th atti m e, th ree f os te r ch il dr en-- R.S., D.C., an d J .S. -- li ve d wi th th e Sh ic ks an d t he Sh ic ks ’ na tu ral ch il dr en .

R.S. and D.C., both older than Plaintiffs, resided in the Shick home f or the e ntirety

of 3 Plaintiffs’ stay

there . 5B. Pl ai nt iff s’ Pla cem en t i n t he Sh ic k Ho m e Des pi te am en di ng th e Sh ic ks ’ li cen se , DCF di d n otrem ov e an y fos te r ch il dr enfro m

th e h om e. In st ead , DCF pl acedm or e ch il dr enwith t he fam il y . Pl ai nt iff s H.A.L., J.H.L., andS.L.L., ch il dr enincu st od y of F lo rid a DCF, were pl acedin th e Sh ic k fo st er h om e b etweenJan ua ry an d M arch 19 99 . At th e ti m e, 4 H.A.L. was th ree years o ld ; J .H.L. w as fiv e; an d S .L.L. was eig ht . Defen da ntJo rd an , who ha d b eenfos te r ch il d D.C.’s fam il y -s erv ic es co un se lo r, was a ls o P la in ti ffs ’ as si gn edco un se lo r. Befo re s he pl acedPla in ti ffs in th e Sh ic k h om e, Jo rd anwas re pe at ed ly adv is edth atPla in ti ffs m ay ha ve be en se xu al ly abu se d b y

th ei r bi ol og ic al pa ren ts . Jo rd anals o kne w th atD.C. was al read y li vi ng in th e Sh ic k h om e. Bec au se of h er p rev io us workwith D.C., J or da n was aware o f D.C.’s agg res si ve sex ua l b eh av io r to wardy ou ng er ch il dr en . Inad di ti on , all th ree Def

en da nt s wer e aware , by vi rtu e o f th ei r em pl oym en t atDCF, of

th e fo ll owi ng th in gs : tha t ch il d s ex -ab us e v ic ti m s ar e typi cal ly m or e vu ln erab le to subs eque ntvi ct im iz at io n; th atch il d s ex -ab us e v ic ti m s ar e m or e li ke ly to p erp etrat e se x o ffen se s t ha n n on -v ic ti m s; an d t ha t “ se xu al ly abu se d Def endants F oltz and Jones knew at the time of Plaintiffs’ pla ceme nt that the Shicks 4 car ed for more c hildren than their lice nse allowe d, but neither De fenda nt acted to e nsure adequate par ental super

vision. 6ch il dr enwou ldsex ua ll y ass au ltot he r ch il dr enif s afeg ua rd s an d app ro pr ia te supe rv is io n wer e n otpu t i n p la ce.” Des pi te th is kn owl ed ge , Jo rd anne it he r im pl em en te d apl anto sec ur e Pl ai nt iff s’ saf ety no r co nduc te d aba ck gr ou ndin ve st ig at io n i nt o t he th ree f os te r ch il dr enalr eady

li vi ng with t he Sh ic ks . Becau se Jo rd ankn ew th atPla in ti ffs m ay ha ve su ffer edpre vi ou s s ex ua l ab us e, an d b ecau se sh e kne w abo utD.C.’ s s ex ua l ag gr es si on to wardy ou ng er ch il dr en , sh e kno win gl y subjec te d P la in ti ffs to a subs ta nt ia l ri skof v ic ti m iz at io n. C. Wha t Def

en da nt s Kn ew Afte r Pl ai nt iff s Were Pl acedinth e Sh ic k Hom e Pl ai nt iff s wer e p la cedin th e Sh ic k fo st er h om e fro m Jan uary to Marc h 1 99 9. Thre e o th er fo st er ch il dr en-- R.S., D.C., an d J .S. -- were a lre ady li vi ng with t he Sh ic ks when Pla in ti ffs were p la cedinth e h om e. InJu ly 199 9, el ev en -y ear- ol d R .S. sex ua ll y ass au lt edJ.S. i n t he Sh ic k h om e. At tha t t im e, al l thr ee Pl ai nt iff s l iv edinor r ecei ve d uns up erv is edaft er-s ch oo l ca re in th e h om e. The sex ua l as saul t was rep orte d t o DCF th ro ug h t he Flo rid a Abu se Hot li ne , andbo th R.S. an d J .S. co nf irmed th atth e as saul t o ccu rred .

7Pl ai nt iff s al le ge th atall th ree Def en da nt s wer e in fo rm edof t he ch il d- on ch il d s ex ua l as saul t: Defen dant -li cen se supe rv is or Jo ne s was advi se d o f th e as saul t th atm on th ; Defen da nt -li cen so r Fo lt z was in fo rm edof the in ci de ntso m e ti m e

5 be fo re Se pt em

be r 19 99 ; an d Def

en da nt -co un se lo r Jo rd anbe cam e aware of the in ci de nt“pu rs ua ntto Depa rtment p ol ic y an d p ro cedur e.” Des pi te Jo rd an ’s pr ev io us kn owl ed ge of D.C.’s ag gr es si ve sex ua l b eh av io r an d d es pi te all th ree Defen da nt s’ recen t kno wled ge of R .S.’s sex ua l as saul t, n o Def en da ntto okst ep s t o gu ardPla in ti ffs ’ on go in g s afet y . Not withs ta nd in g t he rep orte d a ss au lt , Defen da nt s Fo lt z an d J on es reco m m en de d i n S ep te m

be r 19 99 th atth e Sh ic k h om e b e re- li cen se d andit s fo st er-c hi ldcap aci ty inc reas ed . Alth ou gh Defen da nt s Fo lt z an d J on es kn ew th at D.C. andR.S. -- b y

th enbo th id en ti fie d a s s ex ua ll y ag gr es si ve ch il dr en-- p ro vi de d un supe rv is edaft er-s ch oo l ca re fo r Pl ai nt iff s, Defe nd an ts reco m

m en de d re li cen si ng th e Sh ic ks witho utim pl em en ti ng a pl anto gu ardPla in ti ffs ’ sa fety . J.H.L. li ve d wi th th e Sh ic ks fro m 7 J anua ry

19 99 to 28 Jan ua ry

19 99 . Fro m Feb ru ary to Octo be r 19 99 , he l iv edinan ot he r fo st er h om e b utrece iv ed un supe rv is edaft er-s ch oo l ca re atth e Sh ic k h om e. H.A.L. an d S .L.L. co nt in uo us ly

A Child P rotec tion Team investig ator a lso reporte d to J ones the re sult of the 5 depar tment’s investigation. 8res id edin th e Sh ic k h om e fro m Marc h 1 99 9 u nt il May 200 0. Itwas dur in g t ha t ti m e, fro m

19 99 to 20 00 , th atPla in ti ffs all eg ed ly suf fere d c hi ld -o n- ch il d s ex ua l ab us e. Pl ai nt iff

s d o n otsp eci fy

a parti cu lar da te on whi ch th ei r ab us e b eg an . In st ead , Pla in ti ffs all eg e th atth ey were ab us edby R.S., the Sh ic k’s ad op te d s on , an d b y D.C., ano th er fo st er ch il d, thr ou gh ou t Pl ai nt iff s’ st ay inth e Sh ic k h om e. D.C. all eg ed ly ass au lt edall th ree P la in ti ffs ; R.S . all eg ed ly ass au lt edon ly H .A.L. an d S .L.L.

D. Defen da nt s’ Dut ie s Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d t ha t Def

en dant s fa il edto pe rfo rm Defen da nt s’ du ti es as fo st er-c are wo rk ers an d s up erv is or s. Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d t ha t Def

en da nt s’ fai lu re t o gu ardth e ch il dr en s’ saf

ety is act io nabl e co ns id eri ng Defen dant s’ res po ns ib il it ie s as DCF em

pl oyees. As th e fam il y -s erv ic es co un se lo r who pl acedPla in ti ffs inth e Sh ic k h om e, Defen da ntJo rd anha d t he au th or it y an d re sp on si bi li ty to ev al ua te all rep orts of c hi ldab us e an d/ or ne gl ecton th e subjec t ch il d an d t he fos te r ho m e . . . [t]o in ve st ig at e al l re le va ntco nd it io ns of t he ho m e th atmig htaffe ctth e ch il d i n h er ca se lo ador o th er ch il dr enin th e h om e . . . [t]o en su re tha t fo st er ch il dr enres id in g i n afos te r ho m e were s up erv is edat a ll ti m es on ly by adul t ca reg iv ers . . . [t]o 9es tabl is h[ ] al l n eces sa ry pl an s o f car e an d re po rt a ll kn own in ci de nt s of sex ua l ag gr es si on oc cu rri ng infos te r ho m es [,] an d [t ]o en su re tha t fo st er ch il dr enwere n otlef t i n d an ge ro us co nd it io ns , in cl ud in g b ei ng subjec te d t o s ex ua l, em ot io na l, an d p hysic al ab us e. As a DCF li cen si ng co un se lo r, Defen da ntFo lt z h adth e au th or it y an d res po ns ib il it y

to , am on g o th er thi ng s, ev al ua te th e fo st er h om e fi le co nt en ts reg ard in g o pe n a ndclo se d fo st er h om e ab us e rep orts an d l ic en si ng co nc ern s . . . th or ou gh ly as se ss an d i nv es ti ga te rep orte d p ro bl em s an d c on cern s re ga rd in g t he fo st er h om e to en su re tha t fo st er ch il dr enpl acedinth e fo st er h om e were s afe a ndad equa te ly sup erv is ed [,] an d . . . en su re tha t fo st er ch il dr enwere n otsubjec te d t o e le va te d ri skof h arm fro m ch il d o n ch il d s ex ua l ab us e. As a s up erv is orin th e DCF l ic en si ng un it , Defen dantJo ne s h adth e au th or it y an d re sp on si bi li ty rou ti ne ly to as se ss , am on g o th er thi ng s, fo st er h om es to gu ardli cen si ng co m

pl ianc e, to en su re tha t l ic en si ng co un se lo rs ob ta in an d t ho ro ug hl y ass es s an d ev al ua te all law en fo rcem en t re po rts of i nv es ti ga ti on s i nv ol vi ng th e fo st er h om e . . . [to ] th or ou gh ly ass es s an d i nv es ti ga te rep orte d pr ob le m s an d c on cern s re gard in g t he fos te r ho m e to en su re tha t fo st er ch il dr enpl acedin th e fo st er h om e were s afe a ndad equa te ly supe rv is ed. . . an d [t ]o en su re tha t fo st er ch il dr enwere n otsubjec te d to ele va te d ri skof h arm

fro m ch il d o n c hi ldsex ua l ab us e. All th ree Def

en da nt s h adth e “ ab il it y , aut ho rit y an d t he m ean s” to rejectan y fo st er p la cem en t p os in g a“ subs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm ” to th e ch il dr en , andto reco m m en d re m ov al of t he ch il dr enfro m an y un sa fe p la cem en t.

10Pl ai nt iff s cl ai m th atDefen da nt s’ pl aci ng of c hi ldrenin , andre-l ic en si ng of, a h om e whe re ch il d- on -ch il d s ex ab us e o ccu rred-- wit ho utim pl em en ti ng a pl anto gu ardPla in ti ffs ’ sa fety

-- d em on st rat es Defen da nt s’ del ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o a kn own , subs ta nt ia l ri skof abu se . Putdi ffer en tl y , Defen da nt s’ all eg edco nduc t de m on st rat es Defen da nt s v io la te d P la in ti ffs ’ rig htto be free fro m anun reas on ab le ris k o f ha rm

whi le in st at e cu st od y . D IS C U S S IO N

InTay lo r v. Ledbe tt er, 8 18 F.2d79 1 (1 98 7) (enbanc ), we de ci de d t ha t a fo st er ch il d c anst at e a 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cau se of a ct io n u nd er the Fo urte en th Am en dm en t i f th e ch il d i s i nju redaft er a s ta te em pl oyee is de li be rat el y

in di ffer en t to a kn ownan d s ub st an ti al ris k t o t he ch il d o f se rio us ha rm . See Tay lo r, 81 8 F .2d at79 4– 96 . In s om e ci rcu m st an ces , we acce ptth atth e co ns ti tu ti on al rul e id en ti fie d in Tay lo r can gi ve a fai r warn in g t o fo st er-c are wo rk ers . Altho ug h t he in

jury sus ta in edinTay lo r was a be at in g- in du cedco m a an d t he in jury here i s s ex ua l ab us e an d a lt ho ug h o th er u ni m po rta ntdi ffer en ces ex is t, we acce ptth atTay lo r cl earl y est ab li sh edde ci si on al law t ha t ap pl ie d, atth e p ert in en t ti m e, wit h o bv io us clarit y to Defen da nt s i n thi s ca se -- as su m in g t ha t the tru e fac ts

11are t he same as th os e al le ge d -- an d t ha t Def en da nt s h adfai r warn in g tha t the ir co nduc t (d oi ng no th in g t o p ro te ctth e ch il dr en , gi ve n t he cir cu m st an ces ) vi ol at ed cl ear f ed eral law. Defe nd an ts canth eref or e b e h el d p ers on al ly liab le forth e ch il dr en s’ in

juri es . On th e al le ge d fa ct s, n o re as on ab le pe rs on inDefen da nt s’ pl ace c ou ldha ve be li ev edth at , by do in g n ot hi ng to pro te ctth e ch il dr en , th ey co ul d c arry outth ei r du ti es co ns is te nt ly w it h t he Co ns ti tu ti on . Defen da nt s co nt en d t ha t the y sh ou ldbe affo rd edqu al ifi edimm un it y be cau se th ei r kn owl ed ge of D.C.’s an d R .S.’s sex ua l ag gr es si onwas n ot ta nt am ou ntto kn owi ng subjec ti ve ly tha t D.C. an d R .S. actua ll y were s ex ua ll y ab us in g H.A.L., J.H.L., andS.L.L. Pla in ti ffs were s ex ua ll y ab us ed . Butinth e li gh t o f Tay lo r, th e is su e h ere i s n otwhet he r Defen dant s ac tu al ly kne w or drew the in fere nc e th atPla in ti ffs were s ex ua ll y ab us ed : i t i s wh ethe r Defen da nt s -- who co ul d h av e (am on g o th er thi ng s) rem ov edPla in ti ffs fro m th e Sh ic k h om e -- actua ll y kn ew, an d wer e d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t t o, a s ub st an ti al ris k o f Pl ai nt iff s be in g s ex ua ll y

ab us edin th e Sh ic k h om e. See Taylo r, 81 8 F .2dat 7 97 . Giv enall of the all eg at io ns , Pla in ti ffs su ffi ci en tl y pl ead edDefen da nt s’ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o akn own , subs tant ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm res ul ti ng in se rio us in jury: a vi ol at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. Pl ai nt iff s al le ge th at Defen da ntFo lt z kne w of the Sh ic ks ’ pr io r in ab il ity to care forfos te r ch il dr enan d 12th atno Defen da nten fo rcedth e Sh ic ks ’ ch il d- cap aci ty lim it s. Th ey all eg e th at Defen da ntJo rd ankn owi ng ly pla cedPla in ti ffs ina ho m e wit h D.C., a kno wn se xu al ag gr es so r, witho utim pl em en ti ng a sa fety

pl an . Plai nt iff

s al so all eg e th atall th ree Def en da nt s wer e in fo rm edof t he ch il d- on -ch il d s ex ab us e p erp etrat edinth e Sh ic k h om e -- yet Defen da nt s t he n d idno th in g t o p ro te ctth e o th er ch il dr en res id in g t he re. Defe nd an ts kn ew th atsex ua l ab us e v ic ti m s -- vi ct im s s uc h a s D.C. an d p ot en ti al ly R.S. andall th ree P la in ti ffs -- were b ot h m or e li ke ly to b e revi ct im iz edan d m or e li ke ly to p erp etrat e si m il ar o ffen se s. An d t he y kn ew th at Pl ai nt iff s wer e le ft wi th sex ua ll y

ag gr es si ve ch il dr en-- D.C. an d R .S. -- aft er sc ho ol an d u ns up erv is edby adu lt s. Des pi te th is kn owl ed ge , no Defen da nt-- de sp it e h is or h er au th or it y to act-- to okst ep s t o s ecure Pl ai nt iff s’ saf ety inth e Sh ic k h om e. Tak ento ge th er, the se fact or s s ho w th atDefen da nt s ac tu al ly kne w, an d wer e d el ib erat el y

in di ffer en t t o, the subs ta nt ia l ri skof P la in ti ffs be in g s ex ua ll y ab us edin th e Sh ic k h om e. Pla in ti ffs th enwere s ex ua ll y ab us edinth e Sh ic k h om e. As a re su ltof tha t d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce, Defe nd an ts , gi ve n t he ir dut ie s as DCF em pl oyees, v io la te d P la in ti ffs ’ Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m a se rio us in jury flowi ng fro m

a kn own , subs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm . W e h av e wri tt enth at“ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce i s n otas e as il y in ferr edor sh own fro m

a fai lu re t o a ct ” an d t ha t a c hi ldab us edinfos te r car e is “ face d wi th 13th e d iff

ic ul t p ro bl em

of s ho win g a ctua l kno wled ge of abu se or t ha t ag en cy pe rs on ne l d el ib erat el y

fai le d t o l earn whatwas o ccurri ng inth e fo st er h om e.” Tay lo r, 81 8 F .2dat 7 96 . W e sa y to da y th atwhatco ns ti tu te s a “ subs tant ia l ri sk ” o r

“ se rio us in

jury” mig htbe un cl ear i n s om e se ts of c irc um st an ces an d wh ethe r an of fic ia l h as act edwith d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce (a s o pp os edto , forex am pl e, ne gl ig en ce) i n g iv encir cum st an ces m ig htals o b e u nc le ar s om et im es ; qua li fie d imm un it y in th es e in st an ces sh ou ldap pl y . Butat t he pl ead in g s ta ge , Pla in ti ffs in th is cas e h av e m etth ei r bu rd en : the y ha ve pl ead edth atDefen da nt s d idkn ow ab ou t ch il d- on -ch il d abu se in th e Sh ic k fo st er h om e an d t ha t Def en da nt s, d es pi te th ei r au th or it y to act , to okno st ep s t o g ua rdPla in ti ffs fro m be in g -- as P la in ti ffs infact cam e to be -- v ic ti m s o f se x abu se . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of De fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s b as edonqu al ifi edimm un it y . 6 AFFIR MED.

We do not hint about the availability of qualified immunity

on summary

judgme nt or by 6 direc ted ver dict or by

judgme nt as a matter

of law. A dditional or differ ent fa cts might c hang e the circ umstances to the de greethat Taylor would not apply to them with obvious clarity and not g ive fa ir war

ning to a defe ndant that what heor she did would violate the Constitution. 14