## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT SC O T T J O H N SO N , as per s onal re p re se n tativ e o f

th e e sta te o f

G ra c iela C a n o a / k / a G r a c e L e e B o g e y, d e c e a s e d ; a n d LOR ENA TOR REZ, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. A N N E H O L M E S ; B O N N IE VEH STEDT; KA REN ZAR ATE; LYD I A R . SAEN Z; SON I A PEREZ; VI RG I NI A VI L L AR E AL ; VI VI ANE E NC I NI AS ; GI NGE R B OWM AN; DE NI S E H. NAR VAE Z ; CH I L DR E N, YO UTH a n d FAM I LI ES D E PA R T M E N T , N ew M exi co; VERONI CA BOGEY; TE RRY BO GE Y a / k / a T E RI BO GE Y, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 04- 2286

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 2 - 1 2 3 9 J B/ KBM ) Paul J . K ennedy( A dam S . B akerw i th hi m on the br i efs ) , K ennedy& H an, A l bu qu erque, N ew M exico, app eari ng for Plai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . M i chae l D i ckman, A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , Sant a Fe, N ew M exi co for D efe ndant - A ppel l ee, C hi l dr en, Y outh and Fami l i es D epart m ent , N ew M exi co.- 2 -

R andol ph B . Fel ker , Fel ker , I s h, H at cher , R i t chi e, Sul l i van & G eer , Sant a Fe, N ew M exico, app eari ng for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. T i m othyV . Fl ynn- O ’ B r i en, A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, appea r i ng for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B efor e LU CE RO , BA LD OCK , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. LU CE RO , C i r cui tJ udge.

T h is c a se is n o t m u c h a b o u t g ra c e ; itis a b o u t G ra c e , a c h ild b o rn w ith s ever e s pi na bi fi da. G r ace w as abandone d s oon aft erbi r th t o the cus t odyof the N ew M exi co C hi l dr en, Y outh, and Fami l i es D epart m entand pl ace d w i th a fos t er fami l y . O verthe fos t erfami l y ’ s obj ect i on, t he C hi l dr en, Y outh, and Fami l i es D epart m ent al l ow ed V eroni ca B og eyt o ad op tG race s oo n afterG race’ s fi rs t bi r thday . T he bas i s of the fos t erfami l y ’ s obj ect i on w as t hattheyt houghtB ogey w as actual l ya man pr et endi ng t o be a w om an bec aus e of Bogey ’ s ext ens i ve fa ci al hair . V eroni ca B og ey ’s fat her – a sel f-descr i bed herm aph rodi t e w ho cl ai m s al so t o b e V eroni ca B og ey ’s m other– then m ov ed in. R espon si bil i tyfor her case bounced a r ound fr om one over - w or ked s oci al w or kert o anotherand conc erns ab o u t her situ ati o n w ere inv esti g ated b yan u n inq u isi ti v e inv esti g ator. G rac e’s s i tuat i on qui ckl yturned fr om m uddl ed t o tr agi c: s he di ed fourw eeks aft ert he adopt i on w as fi nal i zed, appar ent l yas t he r es ul tof bei ng beat en t o death.- 3 -

T hi s cas e i s l egal l yaboutthe cl ai m ed fa i l ur es of the C hi l dr en, Y outh, and Fam i l i es D epartm ent( the “D epart m ent ”) t o pr oper l ydi s char ge thei rcus t odi al obl i gat i ons of i nves t i gat i on and over s i ght , part i cul ar l ydur i ng the per i od betw een pl ace m entforadopt i on and the t i m e adopt i on decr ee w as ent er ed. T he ar gum ent i s that , butforthe fa i l ur e of ove r s i ghtbythe D epart m entdur i ng the mont hs l eadi ng up t o the entr yof the form al decr ee of adopt i on, the adopt i on w oul d not h a v e b e e n p e rm itte d a n d G ra c e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p la c e d in m o rt a l d a n g e r. Scot tJ ohns on, as per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the es t at e of the chi l d, r enamed G r ace B ogeyatadopt i on, fi l ed s ui tunders t at e t or tl aw and 42 U . S. C . § 1983 ag ains t th e D ep artm en t and a n u m b er o f it s em p loy ee s. H is st ate tort clai m s w ere di s m i s s ed as a mat t erof l aw , hi s § 1983 cl ai m s agai ns ts ever al D epart m ent e m p lo y e e s w e re d ism iss e d o n su m m a ryju d g m e n t, an d a ju rye n ter e d a v e rd ict in favo r of tw o D epart m ent em ploy ees on h i s r em ai ning cl ai m s. H e no w app eal s, ar gui ng that : ( 1) s over ei gn i m m uni tydoes notbarhi s s t at e t or tcl ai m s agai ns tt he D epart m entand the D epart m entempl oy ees ; ( 2) the di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o V i r gi ni a V i l l ar eal and G i ngerB ow m an, D epart m ent e m p lo y e e s re sp o n sib le fo r m o n ito rin g G ra c e ’s p lac e m e n t an d a n in v e stig a tio n in to chi l d abus e al l egat i ons r ai s ed aga i ns tthe adopt i ve mot her ; and ( 3) the j uryver di ct i n favorof A nne H ol m es and Soni a Per ez Sanc hez, tw o ot herD epart m ent em p loy ee s inv o lved w ith the a d o p ti o n , sh o u ld b e o v erturn ed b ec au se th e jury i ns truct i ons i m pr oper l yr equi r ed a de t erm i nat i on t hatthei ract i ons “s hocked the- 4 -

con sci ence” i n o rdert o find t hat theyviol at ed the chil d’s s ub st anti ve d ue p rocess ri g h ts . U nderN ew M exi co l aw , i ti s cl earthatthe St at e di d notw ai ve s over ei gn im m u n ity . T h e juryinstruction s u sed in the tr ial s o f H o lm es a n d P ere z w ere cl ear l yi n acc or dance w i th ours ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s j ur i s prudence . T he di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s d e c is io n g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to B o w m a n w a s a ls o p ro p e r. H ow ever , ther e ar e di s put ed ques t i ons of m at er i al fac tas t o w hetherV i l l ar eal pr oper l yexer ci s ed herpr ofes s i onal j udgm entbyfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e s ever al di s turbi ng event s thatt ook pl ace w hi l e s he w as the pr i m arys oci al w or ker a s s i g n e d t o Gr a c e ’ s c a s e . W e c o n c l u d e th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f th e c l a i ms ag ains t th e D ep artm en t, it s g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t t o B o w m an , an d the ju ry ver di ct s i n favorof H ol m es and Per ez s houl d be AFF I RM ED . G ran t of su m m ary j udgm entt o V i l l ar eal , how ever , s houl d be REVERSED and t he case REM AND ED t o t he di s tr i ctcourtforpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. I I n 1997, L or ena Tor r ez ga ve bi r th t o G r aci el a C ano a/k/ a G r ace L ee Bogey ( “G r ace ”) . A s not ed, G r ace w as bor n w i th s ever e s pi na bi fi da and, beca us e of he r s peci al needs , T orr ez s oon pr oved unabl e t o car e forher . T or r ez thus r el i nqui s hed al l par ent al r i ght s , w her eupon the D epart m entas s um ed l egal cus t ody a n d b e g a n e ffo rts to fin d a d o p tiv e p a re n ts. In th e in ter im , G ra c e w a s p lac e d w ith fost er par ents C harl ene an d G ray do n B l evins.D ur i ng the per i od ati s s ue i n thi s cas e, Per ez w as m arr i ed and c hanged he r 1 n a m e to S o n ia S a n c h e z . F o r th e p u rp o se s o f th is o p in io n , sh e w ill b e re fe rre d to a s S o n ia P e re z . - 5 - T he D epart m entconduct ed s ever al “home studi es ” i n i t s effor t s t o fi nd p e rm a n e n t a d o p tiv e p a re n ts fo r G ra c e , in c lu d in g o n e b yD e n is e N a rv a e z , a D e p a rtm e n t em p lo y e e , o f V e ro n ica B o g e y , a s in g le s c h o o ltea c h e r p re v io u sly l i cens ed by the D epart m ent as a qual i fi ed adopt i ve par ent . V i vi ane Enci ni as , an adopt i on cons ul t ant , forw ar ded the B ogeyhom e s tudyal ong w i th s ever al other hom e s tudi es t o A nne H ol m es , a D epartm entempl oy ee pr evi ous l yas s i gned as G ra c e ’s tr e a tm e n t w o rk e r. D epart m entoffi ci al s deci ded t o focus on B ogeyand hel d a “mat chi ng sta ffin g ” m e e tin g to d isc u ss B o g e ya s th e p o ten tial a d o p tiv e p a re n t an d h e r a b ili ty to c a re fo r G ra c e . In a tte n d a n c e w e re E n c in ia s , H o lm e s , N a rv a e z , L y d ia S a e n z , a tr eatm ents upervi s or , Soni a Per ez, t he pl ace m entw or keras s i gned t o pr ovi de 1 p o s t - p l a c e me n ts e r v i c e s fo rGr a c e , a n d Vi r g i n i a Vi l l a r e a l , P e r e z ’ s s u p e r v i s o r . At the m ee ti n g , theyd ec ided that B o g eyw as a g o o d m atch fo r G rac e. A n ex p ert hi r ed bythe per s onal r epr es ent at i ve des cr i bed the pr oces s as havi ng been c o n d u c te d in a n “ e x c e s s iv e ly h a s ty” m a n n e r. T he D epart m ent ’ s ul t i m at e dec i s i on t o pl ace G r ace w i th B ogeyw as notfr ee fr om hes i t at i on and doubt . H ol m es expr es s ed conc ern thatB ogeyw oul d notbe abl e t o m eetG r ace ’ s needs beca us e s he w as s i ngl e. C har l ene Bl evi ns obj ect ed b e c a u s e s h e b e lie v e d B o g e ya p p e a re d to b e a m a n p re te n d in g to b e a w o m a n .- 6 -

B oth of thes e w orr i es w er e det erm i ned bythe D epart m entt o be unfounde d. T he D epart m entthen pr ocee ded t o the nexts t eps r equi r ed t o perm anent l ypl ace G r ace w i th B ogey : a home i ns pect i on and “f ul l di s cl os ur e, ” dur i ng w hi ch D epart m ent offi cer s ful l yexpl ai ned t o B ogeythe ext entof G r ace ’ s m edi cal pr obl ems, and a vi s i tbyB ogeyw i th G r ace i n the fos t erhom e. O n compl et i on of thi s pr oces s , the D epart m ental l ow ed pr eadopt i ve pl ace m entw i th B ogey . Soon t her eaf t er , Per ez e xpr es s ed conc ern thatB ogey w oul d be overw hel m ed bythe r es pons i bi l i tyof ca r i ng fora chi l d w i th s peci al needs , and s ugges t ed thatr es pi t e ca r e mi ghtbe appr opr i at e. D es pi t e thi s conce r n, the D epart m entpr ocee ded w i thoutoffe r i ng s uch as s i s t ance , butdi d pr ovi de a m onthl ys ubs i dyof $487 and a gr eed t o coverm edi cal expens es foranypr ee x is tin g c o n d itio n n o t c o v e re d b yB o g e y ’s h e a lth in s u ra n c e o r M e d ic a id . Af t e rp l a c e me n t , P e r e z , wh o wa s p e r fo r mi n g t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t wo so cial w o rke rs du e to u n d erstaffin g in the D ep artm en t, assu m ed p ri m ary r es pons i bi l i tyform oni t or i ng G r ace ’ s pr ogr es s . A l though underD epart m ent p o li cyP ere z w as e x p ec ted to co n d u ct m o n thlyh o m e v isi ts, P ere z v isi ted B o g ey ’s hom e buttw o orthr ee t i m es overt he cour s e of a l m os ts i x m onths . Per ez di d, how ever , m oni t orG r ace ’ s pr ogr es s i n otherw ay s . She s aw G r ace i n the D ep artm en t’ s o ffices o n tw o o r th ree o cc asio n s, o n ce p icke d h er u p at a d ay ca re fa c ility, a n d p la c e d a n u m b e r o f p h o n e c a lls to B o g e yto d is c u s s G ra c e ’s p ro g re s s . V illa re a l a ls o m e t w ith G ra c e d u ri n g h e r v is its to th e D e p a rt m e n t’ s o ffic e s .- 7 -

D u rin g th e p re a d o p tiv e p lac e m e n t, a n u rse , K e rstin L a g e sta m , w a s h ire d to con du ctcheck -ups on G race. D uri ng her fi rs tvis i tt o B og ey ’s ho m e, N urse L ag estam n o ti ce d sw ell ing an d a larg e p u rple b ruise o n the lef t si d e o f G rac e’s fac e. B ogeyexpl ai ned thats he ac ci dent l ybum ped G r ace ’ s fac e on the s i de of a c a r d o o r. N u rse L ag estam then b eg an to v isi t G rac e o n ce ea ch d ayat he r da yca re fac i l i ty . Sever al m onths aft ers he s t ar t ed, N ur s e Lages t am not i ced mar ks on G r a c e ’ s n e c k , b a c k , a n d a b d o m e n . C o n s i d e r i n g t h e m a r k s t o b e i n t e n t i o n a l l yi nfl i ct ed fi ngernai l s cr at ches deep e nough t o l eave s car s , N ur s e Lages t am re por t ed the i nj ur i es t o hers upervi s or , J ani e M eal and, w ho pr ocee ded t o cal l H ol m es att he D epart m ent . H ol m es w as unavai l abl e and, a fe w day s l at er , N ur s e Lages t am not i ced thatG r ace ’ s r i ghthand w as brui s ed and s w ol l en. She pr om pt l yr eport ed th is to M e a lan d a s w e ll. M eal and di d nothearfr om H ol m es fors ever al day s . W hen H ol m es e v e n tu a llyre tu rn e d h e r c a ll, sh e to ld M e a lan d to c a ll S o n ia P e re z . M e a lan d d id s o on M ar ch 22, 2000, and tw o day s l at er , Per ez t ol d M eal and t o cal l t he D epart m ent ’ s abus e hot l i ne. I m m edi at el yaft ers he hea r d fr om Per ez, M eal and cal l ed the hot l i ne: I tw as M ar ch 24. She di d nothearback f r om t he D epart m ent fortw o w eeks , atw hi ch poi nt , s he ca l l ed the hot l i ne aga i n. T hi s t i m e, s he w as t ol d thatPer ez w oul d cal l herback. A notherw eek pa s s ed befor e Per ez r etur ned h e r c a ll.- 8 -

T h e b u re a u c ra tic m o ra ss a t th e D e p a rtm e n t d id n o t o n lyim p e d e its a b ili ty t o r eturn phone ca l l s ; t he ac tual i nves t i gat i on i nt o the abus e al l egat i ons w as s t al l ed as w el l . A l though M eal and had f i r s tcont act ed D epart m entoffi ci al s about the r eport ed abus e much ear l i er , the D epart m entdi d notbegi n i t s i nves t i gat i on unt i l the ca l l t o the hot l i ne w as m ade on M ar ch 24. B ogeyl eftfora vac at i on t he n ex t day , M arc h 2 5 . A lth o u g h P ere z a n d the D ep artm en t’ s ab u se in v esti g ator, G i ngerB ow m an, att empt ed t o cont actB ogeybefor e s he w enton vaca t i on and l eft a p h o n e m e s s a g e , th e yw e re n o t a b le to re a c h h e r. W h e n B o g e yre tu rn e d f ro m v a c a tio n o n A p ril 3 , sh e c a lled P e re z , w h o to ld B o g eyab o u t th e a ll eg ati o n s an d ex p lai n ed that all eg ati o n s o f th is sort are fr equent l yuns ubs t ant i at ed. B ogeyr es ponded bys ay i ng t hatG r ace t ends t o get b ru ise s th a t d o n o t h e a l q u ick lyw h e n c ra w lin g a n d th a t th e p e t fe rre t b e lo n g in g to B ogey ’ s fatherm ayhave s cr at ched G r ace . W h e n P e re z a n d B o w m a n fin a llyc o n d u c ted th e re q u ire d h o m e v isit fo ll o w ing ab u se a ll eg ati o n s, B o w m an ex am ined G rac e a n d d eterm ined that there w as no evi dence of phy s i cal abus e. G r ace ’ s s hi ns w er e brui s ed, butB ow m an n o ted th a t th is is c o m m o n a m o n g c h ild re n lik e G ra c e w h o lac k fe e lin g in th e ir l ow erextr emi t i es . A ccor di ng t o B ow m an, G r ace s eemed att ache d t o B ogeyand di d notfl i nch w hen B ogeyappr oache d. B ogeyt ol d B ow m an thatanys cr at ches or brui s es w er e pr obabl yt he r es ul tof cont actw i th otherchi l dr en atdaycar e orfr om in c id e n ta l c o n ta c t w ith ri n g s th a t B o g e yw e a rs .- 9 -

A ft ert hi s i nves t i gat i on, B ow m an t ol d V i l l ar eal and Per ez thatther e w as no evi dence of abus e. She di d not , how ever , pr epar e a c ont empora neous l yw r i t t en r eport , nordi d s he expl ai n t o ei therco- w or kerw hats he had obs erved. Per ez offe r ed B ogeyr es pi t e ca r e, butB ogeydecl i ned. B ow m an di d notcont actany th ir d p a rt yto a s k a b o u t th e a b u s e a lle g a tio n s . T w o m onths l at er , Per ez qui therj ob atthe D epart m ent . B eca us e of the l ack of avai l abl e s t aff

i ng att he D epart m ent , V i l l ar eal as s um ed the ent i r etyof Per ez’ s doubl e ca s el oad, as w el l as keepi ng hers upervi s or yr es pons i bi l i t i es . For the n ex t tw o m o n ths, V il lareal w as th e p ri m aryso cial w o rke r assign ed to G rac e’s c a se . D u rin g th is p e rio d , su b sta n tial c h a n g e s o c c u rre d in th e B o g e yh o m e . F irst, B ogey ’ s father , T err yB ogey , m oved i n. V i l l ar eal di d notknow thatT erryB ogey w as goi ng t o m ove i n, al though s he di d know thatB ogeypl anned t o m ove, al ong w ith G ra c e , to W isc o n sin a f ter th e a d o p tio n b e c a m e fin a l in o rd e r to b e c lo se r to h e rfa th e r . S e c o n d , Bo g e yr e mo v e d Gr a c e f r o m d a y c a r e a n d fi r e d h e rh o me heal th nur s es , l eavi ng G r ace ent i r el ycutoff f r om anycont actw i th the out s i de w or l d. V i l l ar eal nei theri nves t i gat ed Ter ryB ogeynort he dec i s i on t o r emove G ra c e f ro m o u tsid e c o n tac t. D e sp ite th e u p h e a v a l in G ra c e ’s life , V ill a re a l d id notvi s i tB ogey ’ s hom e once dur i ng thi s per i od Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng i n C hi l dr en’ s C our t , B ogey ’ s adopt i on of G r ace w as fi nal i zed on J ul y31, 2000. B oth the abus e al l egat i ons and B ow m an’ s r eportt hatA l though i ti s noti n t he r ecor d, ator al ar gum enti tw as r evea l ed that 2 J ohns on’ s s t atus as per s onal r epr es ent at i ve has been the s ubj ectof m uch l i t i gat i on. H e w as appoi nt ed bya s t at e courton the r eques tof an a t t orneyfor G r ace ’ s bi r th m other , L or ena Tor r ez, and Lore na Torr ez’ s chi l dr en, w ho now r epr es ent s J ohns on befor e thi s court . T he pr opr i etyof appoi nt i ng J ohns on as per s onal r epr es ent at i ve i s on appea l i n s t at e court . T or r ez a nd T orr ez’ s chi l dr en a re a lso a ttem p tin g to re c o v e r f ro m G ra c e ’s e sta te in p a ra llel liti g a tio n in sta te c o u rt . - 10 - d eterm ined the a ll eg ati o n s as b eing w ith o u t m eritw ere p rov ided to the C h il d ren ’s C o u rt a n d G ra c e ’s g u a rd ia n a d lite m b e fo re th e fin a liz a tio n o f th e a d o p tio n . L i t t l e more than one mont h l at er , B ogeybr oughtG r ace t o a hos pi t al emer gencyr oom beca us e s he w as conges t ed and c oul d notbr eathe. G r ace di ed s oon aft er . O n admi s s i on, hos pi t al per s onnel det erm i ned thatG r ace ’ s death w as the r es ul tof chi l d abus e. A n aut ops yr eportconcl uded thatG r ace di ed of c ra n io c e re b ra l b lu n t fo rc e , an d n o ted th a t th e re w a s e v id e n c e o f se rio u s inju rie s to G ra c e ’s h e a d , n e c k , to rs o , a n d e x tr e m itie s . G ra c e ’s a rm w a s a ls o b ro k e n . A ut ops yt i m i ng of the br eak w as pl ace d as l i kel yhavi ng occurr ed s ever al w eeks pr i ort o G r ace ’ s death. Fi ngernai l s cr at ches of r ece ntor i gi n w er e i dent i fi ed on G ra c e ’s a rm , a s w e re s c a rs o n G ra c e ’s a b d o m e n a n d lo w e r b a c k . T h e p e rs o n a l r e p re s e n ta tiv e fo r G ra c e ’s e s ta te s u e d B o g e ya n d h e r fa th e r, a num berof D epart m entempl oy ees – Per ez, V i l l ar eal , B ow m an, H ol m es , Saenez , E n c i n i a s , Ka r e n Z a r a t e , a n d Bo n n i e Ve h s t e d t

– a n d th e De p a r t me n t i t s e l f. He 2 cl ai m ed thatthe defendant s vi ol at ed the N ew M exi co Tort s C l ai m s A ct ( “N M T C A ”) and the fe der al A dopt i on A s s i s t ance and C hi l d W el far e A ct- 11 -

( “A A C W A ”) . H e al s o fi l ed a c l ai m under§ 1983 forvi ol at i ons of the s ubs t ant i ve componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e aga i ns tthe D epart m entempl oy ees and the B o g e y s . I n r e s p o n s e t o a 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) mo t i o n , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d th e NM TCA and A A C W A cl ai m s agai ns tal l defe ndant s . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o di s m i s s ed the § 1 9 8 3 claim s ag ains t B o g eyan d h er fathe r be ca u se th eyw ere n o t st ate a ctors. It decli ned t o ex erci se supplem ental j uri sdi ct i on ov er the st at e l aw cl ai m s agai nst th e B o g e y s . T he di s tr i ctcourtt hen gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton the § 1983 cl ai m s for B ow m an, E nci ni as , N arvaez , Saenz, V ehs t edt , V i l l ar eal , and Zar at e on qual i fi ed im m u n ityg ro u n d s. C laim s a g a in st H o lm e s a n d P e re z , h o w e v e r, p ro c e e d e d to tr ial , an d a juryreturn ed a v erd ictin the irfa v o r. T he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve now appea l s , ar gui ng thatthe di s tr i ctcour t( 1) i m pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed on the pl eadi ngs the cl ai m s br oughtunderthe N M T C A ; ( 2) ut i l i zed i m pr operj uryi ns truct i ons forthe tr i al of Per ez a nd H ol m es ; and ( 3) im p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to B o w m a n a n d V illa re a l. II B e lo w , the sta te to rt c laim s a g a in st th e D e p a rtm e n t, a N e w M e x ico sta te a g e n c y , an d th e D e p a rtm e n t em p lo y e e s w e re d ism iss e d b e c a u se th e d e fe n d a n ts w er e pr ot ect ed bys over ei gn i m m uni ty . T hi s det erm i nat i on w as err oneous , t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve ar gues , beca us e the “bui l di ng w ai ver ” cl aus e i n the- 12 -

N M T C A e x p re ss lyw a iv e s s o v e re ig n im m u n ityin th e se c irc u m sta n c e s. H e is m i s t aken. B eca us e N ew M exi co does nothave a dutyt o engage i n the day - t o- day “oper at i on” of Bogey ’ s hous e orthe pr ovi s i on of ca r e t o G r ace , the “bui l di ngs w ai ver ” does notappl y . Sover ei gn i m m uni tythus bar s the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve’ s s t at e t or tl aw cl ai m s agai ns tthe D epart m entand the i ndi vi dual defe nd ants . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof a mot i on t o di s m i s s de novo. Sut t on v . U ta h S ta te S c h . F o r D e a f a n d B lin d , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e N e w M e x ico T o rt C laim s A c t d o e s n o t p ro v id e a c a u se o f a c tio n fo r a ll negl i gentbehavi orengage d i n bySt at e empl oy ees . I ns t ead, i ts eeks t o bal ance the nee d t o l i m i tgovernm ent al l i abi l i tyand the des i r e t o compensa t e thos e i nj ur ed b ythe n eg li g en ce o f S tat e e m p loy ee s b ycre ati n g a g en era l i m m u n ityfro m tort l i abi l i tyforthe St at e and St at e empl oy ees w i th cert ai n, l i m i t ed exc ept i ons . C obos v . D o n a A n a C o u n ty H o u s . A u th ., 9 7 0 P .2 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 5 (N .M . 1 9 9 8 ). O n e e x c e p tio n is th e s o -c a lle d “ b u ild in g w a iv e r” e x c e p tio n , w h ic h s ta te s . T h e im m u n ityg ran ted p u rsua n t t o S u b sec ti o n A o f S ec ti o n 4 1 -4-4 N M SA 1978 does notappl yt o l i abi l i tyfordamages r es ul t i ng fr om bodi l yi nj ury , w r ongful death orpr opertydamage caus ed bythe n e g lig e n c e o f

p u b lic e m p lo y e e s w h ile a c tin g w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e ir dut i es i n the oper at i on orm ai nt enanc e of a nybui l di ng, publ i c park, m achinery , equ i pm ent orfurni shi ng s. N .M . S ta t. A n n . § 4 1 -4 -6 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).- 13 -

B eca us e the D epart m enthad the r es pons i bi l i tyt o pr ovi de over s i ghtover G r ace ’ s car e byB ogey , i ti s ur ged, the St at e had r es pons i bi l i tyt o m ai nt ai n and oper at e B ogey ’ s hom e. T he N ew M exi co Supr eme C our thas i nt erpr et ed the phr as e “ope r at i on and mai nt enanc e” i n § 41- 4- 6 s om ew hatbr oadl y ; i ti s not “l i m i t ed [i n] i t s appl i cabi l i tys tr i ct l yt o defe ct s i n the phy s i cal bui l di ng. ” U pt on v . C lo v is M u n . S c h . D ist., 1 1 5 P .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 7 (N .M . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). N o r is it lim ite d to b u ild in g s o w n e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. C o b o s , 9 7 0 P .2 d a t 1 1 4 6 -4 7 . In ste a d , co u rts m u st e x a m in e th e “ sc o p e o f th e d u ties ” p e rfo rm e d b yp u b lic e m p lo y e e s to o p e ra te o r m a in tain th e b u ild in g in q u e stio n . Id . W h e n p u b lic empl oy ees have a dutyt o oper at e orm ai nt ai n a s tructur e, the s t at e i s l i abl e i f the negl i gentact i ons of the publ i c empl oy ees pos e a da ngert o the “ge ner al publ i c. ” Es p i n o z a v . To wn o f

Ta o s , 9 0 5 P . 2 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 1 ( N. M . 1 9 9 5 ) . Ho we v e r , c l a i ms bas ed on a publ i c empl oy ee’ s dutyt o i ns pectand s upervi s e do notfal l w i thi n the

“ b u ild in g w a iv e r” e x c e p tio n . C o b o s , 9 7 0 P .2 d a t 1 1 4 9 . T hi s i s notan i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on; N ew M exi co court s have c ons i der ed s i m i l arfac t s tw i ce be for e. I n M . D . R . v. St at e ex r el . H um an Servs . D ep’ t , 836 P. 2d 106, 109 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1992) , the N ew M exi co C our tof A ppeal s hel d the D epart m entdi d not“oper at e” a fos t erhom e underthe N M T C A byvi r tue of pl aci ng a chi l d i n the home. J udge M i znerw r ot e a c oncurr i ng opi ni on not i ng that , al though t he D epart m entdi d notoper at e the fos t erhom e bym aki ng the pl ace m entdeci s i on, unders om e ci r cumst ance s the D epart m entcoul d “oper at e” aJ udge M i zner ’ s concurr i ng opi ni on di d nothave a nybi ndi ng pr ece dent i al 3 e ffe c t. H o w e v e r, th e N e w M e x ico C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s s in c e re lied o n its r eas oni ng. - 14 - fos t erhom e bec aus e i tengage s i n ext ens i ve “s upervi s i on of ac tual day - t o- day oper at i on. ” I d. at111. 3 I n Y oung v. V an D uyne, 92 P. 3d 1269 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 2004) , t he C our tof A p p e a ls s e ize d u p o n th is d istin c tio n m a d e in Ju d g e M izn e r’s c o n c u rre n c e . It h e ld th a t th e “ b u ild in g w a iv e r” e x c e p tio n a p p lied w h e n th e sta te p lac e d a n e x tre m e ly vi ol enty oung m an i n a fos t erhom e and the y oung m an ki l l ed one of t he fos t er par ent s . T he courtfound thatthe w ai verappl i ed bec aus e the s t at e’ s ext ens i ve rol e i n regulat i ng fost er hom es am ou nted t o “co ntr ol over the . . . ho m e as a l i cens ed fos t erhom e. ” I d. at1276. T he hol di ng i n Y oung r es t ed on the extensi ve rol e t he st at e play s i n regulat i ng and op erat i ng fost er hom es. B efor e us , the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve’ s cl ai m t hatt he D epart m entoper at ed an d m aintaine d B o g ey ’s ho m e tak es tw o fo rm s. F ir st, h e a rgu es th at th e S tat e’s reg u lat ion o f a d o p ti v e h o m es b efo re the ad o p ti o n is final is ak in to the S tat e’s re g u latio n o f

fo ste r h o m e s, a n d th a t, th e re fo re , Y o u n g a p p lies . T h is a rg u m e n t is fl aw ed bec aus e the St at e’ s tr eatm entof adopt i ve homes i s s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ent f ro m its tre a tm e n t o f

fo ste r h o m e s. U n d e r th e N M T C A , fo ste r p a re n ts a re “ p u b lic e m p lo y e e s,” a n d h e n c e th e “ o p e ra tio n ” o f th e ir h o m e is b yth e S tate . N .M . S tat. A nn. § 41- 4- 3( F) ( 4) . N ew M exi co r egul at i ons m ake c l eart hat , al though fos t er par ent s ar e pr i vat e ci t i zens , theypl aya publ i c r ol e w hen theyt ake i n fos t erS t at e regul at i on s suggestt hat fost er par ents are effect i velyst at e offi ci al s, 4 atl eas tfors om e purpos es . Fost erpar ent s ar e s cr eene d, t r ai ned, s tudi ed, appr oved a n d lice n se d b yth e sta te. N .M . A d m in . C o d e § 8 .2 7 .2 .1 3 . S e e a lso N .M . S tat. A nn. §§ 32( A ) - 1- 4( G ) ; 40- 7A - 4( B ) . L i cens es m us tbe r enew ed ea ch y earand appl i cant s m us tm eets tr i ngentand ext ens i ve r equi r ement s fors ervi ng as a fos t er par entas w el l as under goi ng annual t r ai ni ng. N . M . A dm i n. C ode § 8. 27. 2. 13; s ee al s o N . M . A dm i n. C ode §§ 8. 27. 2. 19; 8. 27. 3. 12. - 15 - chi l dr en. “The fos t erpar enti s a mem berof the chi l d’ s cas e managementt eam

4 and, as a t eam m ember , part i ci pat es i n the deve l opm entand i m pl ement at i on of t eam pl ans and maypart i ci pat e i n confe r ence s , ci t i zen r evi ew boar ds , j udi ci al r evi ew s , i ndi vi dual educa t i on pl ans , et c. Fost erpar ent s do notm ake i ndepende nt p lan s fo r c h ild re n in th e ir c a re .” N .M . A d m in . C o d e § 8 .2 7 .2 .1 9 (C ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In ste a d , “fo ste r p a re n ts c o o p e ra te w ith a n d c a rryo u t th e [ D e p a rtm e n t] pl ans forthe chi l d. ” I d. Fur ther , t he St at e di r ect l ycontr ol s day - t o- daypar ent i ng i n fos t erhom es . Fori ns t ance , St at e r egul at i ons s peci fi cal l yr equi r e fos t er ch il d ren to b e a ssign ed h o u seh o ld ch o res, i d . § 8 . 2 7 . 3 . 2 2 , an d fo ster pa ren ts are fo rb id d e n f

ro m m a k in g n e g a tiv e c o m m e n ts a b o u t th e fo ste r c h ild re n ’s b irth parent s. N . M . A dm i n. C od e § 8 . 27 . 3. 25 . N ew M exico r egu l at i on s al so s peci fi cal l yr egul at e the bui l di ngs i n w hi ch fos t erpar ent s l i ve. See i d. § § 8 .2 7 .2 .1 5 ; 8 .2 7 .3 .1 1 ; N .M . S ta t. A n n . § 4 0 -7 a -4 (D ). T h ere are n o sim il ar reg u lat ion s o f p u tat ive p are n ts be fo re a d o p ti o n s are m a d e fin a l. A d o p tiv e p a re n ts a re in v e stig a ted b yth e S tate a n d th e ir p ro g re ss is m o n ito re d b yth e S tate , b u t th e ya re n o t co n sid e re d p u b lic e m p lo y e e s n o r is th e ir day - t o- dayconductas par ent s r egul at ed and c ontr ol l ed byt he St at e. I n l i ghtof- 16 -

th e h ig h lyu n u su a l fa c ts o f Y o u n g a n d th e ten sio n b e tw e e n its a n a ly sis a n d th a t in M . D . R . , w e ar e notper s uaded thatN ew M exi co pr ece denttr eat s everythi ng t hat happens w i thi n a fos t erhom e as w i thi n the bui l di ng w ai verexce pt i on. B uteven acc ept i ng thatpr emi s e fors ake of ar gum ent , w e conc l ude thatthe r eas oni ng of Y o u n g d o es n o t exten d to ad o p ti v e h o m es. T h e S tat e d o es n o t playan yw h ere near as ext ensi ve a rol e i n ad op t i ve h om es as i tdo es i n fo st er hom es. S e c o n d ly , the p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e a rg u e s th a t th e D e p a rtm e n t fa iled to s uffi ci ent l yi nves t i gat e and r epor tthe al l egat i on of chi l d abus e. T he D epart m ent does have a dut yt o i nves t i gat e and r eporton w hetherther e has been s ucce s s ful i nt egr at i on of the fa m i l y , w hetherther e w er e nee ds fors oci al s ervi ces , and w hetherther e w er e i ns t ance s of chi l d abus e. T hi s , how ever , i s not“day - t o- day o p e ra tio n ” o f

th e h o m e . N e w M e x ico c o u rts h a v e b e e n c lea r th a t a d u tyto re g u late a n d in v e stig a te v io latio n s d o e s n o t co n stitu te “ o p e ra tio n ” o f a fa c ili ty underthe N M T C A . See, e. g. , C ai l l ouett e v. H er cul es , I nc. , 827 P. 2d 1306, 1312- 13 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1992) ( hol di ng thatthe St at e di d not“oper at e” w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e N M T C A a tru c k c o n tain in g e x p lo siv e s th a t w a s in sp e c ted b ysta te pol i ce offi cerfol l ow i ng a cr as h beca us e “the us e of the w or ds ‘ oper at i on’ and

‘ m ai nt enanc e’ . . . i ndi cat es an i nt entnott o ext end l i abi l i tyt o al l act i vi t i es s upervi s ed ori ns pect ed bythe s t at e. ”) ; O w ens v. L eavi t t s Fr ei ghtSer v. , I nc. , 745 P. 2d 1165, 1168 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1987) ( “The des i gn, pl anni ng and enfor cementof s afe tyrul es fors chool bus tr ans por t at i on do notfal l w i thi n the meani ng of- 17 -

‘o p e ra tio n ’ o f

a m o to r v e h icle .”); c f. C o b o s, 9 7 0 P .2 d a t 1 1 4 9 (fin d in g th e S tate did operat e a pri vate bui l ding used as a hou si ng proj ectbecau se the “D efen dan t s’ d u ti es in this case d o n o t ari se a s a c o n seq u en ce o f th e g en era l r eg u lat o ry re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d its c itiz e n s .” ). N ei therthe D epart m entnori t s empl oy ees “oper at ed” Bogey ’ s hom e and theyar e ther efor e pr ot ect ed bys over ei gn i m m uni tyagai ns tthe per s onal r epr es ent at i ve’ s t or tcl ai m s . D i s m i s s al of thes e cl ai m s s houl d be affi r m ed. III T he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve al s o appea l s t he j ury ’ s ver di ctt hatH ol m es and Per ez di d notvi ol at e G r ace ’ s r i ght s undert he s ubs t ant i ve componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. H e cl ai m s thatt he j uryi ns truct i ons fort hei rt r i al m i s s t at ed the appl i cabl e l aw byr equi r i ng the j uryt o fi nd thatt hei ract i ons “s hocked the cons ci ence . ” Ther efor e, the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve cl ai m s , t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct s houl d be r ever s ed. T hi s cl ai m i s m er i t l es s ; t he j ur yi ns truct i ons w er e a c or r ect s ta te m e n t o f

a p p lic a b le la w . B eca us e the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve fa i l ed t o obj ectt o the j ur yi ns truct i ons attr i al , w e r evi ew onl yforpl ai n err or . G r eene v. Safew aySt or es , I nc. , 210 F. 3d 1237, 1245 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . “U ndert hats t andar d, w e w i l l aff i r m unl es s t he in stru c tio n s w e re ‘p a ten tly , p lain lye rro n e o u s a n d p reju d icia l.’” Id . (q u o tin g U n it D ri ll ing C o . v . E n ron O il & G as C o . , 1 0 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 )).- 18 -

T h e § 1 9 8 3 claim s ag ains t H o lm es a n d P ere z a ll eg e v iolati o n s o f G rac e’s su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. G e n e ra lly , sta te act or s ar e l i abl e undert he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e onl yforthei row n act i ons and not the a cti o n s o f p ri v ate c it izen s. U lhri g v . H ard er, 64 F . 3 d 5 6 7 , 5 7 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e re a re tw o e x c e p tio n s to th is ru le. S tate o fficia ls m a yb e su bjec t to cons t i tut i onal l i abi l i tyi f they : ( 1) cr eat e a da ngerthatr es ul t s i n a harm t o an in d iv id u a l, ev e n if

th a t h a rm is n o t u lti m a telyin flicte d b ya sta te o fficia l; o r (2 ) if the s t at e has a “s peci al r el at i ons hi p” w i th the i ndi vi dual w ho i s harm ed bythe thi r d par ty . I d. B oth the “da ngercr eat i on” and the “s peci al r el at i ons hi p” theo ri es o f li ab il ityw ere ad v an ce d at tri al. T h e d istri ct co u rtinstructed the ju ry that the p ers on al repr esent at i ve w as r equ i red t o p rove t hat the d efen dan t s’ c o n d u c t “ s h o c k e d th e c o n s c ie n c e ” to re c o v e r u n d e r e ith e r t h e o ry. O n appea l , t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve ar gues thata “s hocks the c o n sc ien c e ” tes t o n lya p p lies to “ d a n g e r c re a tio n ” c laim s a n d d o e s n o t ap p lyto “s peci al r el at i ons hi p” cl ai m s . T hi s ar gum enti s di r ect l ypr ecl uded byour pr ece dent . I n R adec ki v. B ar el a, w e hel d: I ti s t rue, of cour s e, t hats t at e ac t or s ar e gene r al l yonl yl i abl e under th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e fo r t h e iro w n a c ts a n d n o t p ri v a te v io le n c e . T her e ar e, how ever , t w o exce pt i ons t o thatrul e. Fi r s t , the s t at e may b e su bjec t to c o n stitu tio n a l li a b ili tyif it d o e s n o t p e rfo rm a d u tyto pr ovi de pr ot ect i on t o an i ndi vi dual w i th w hom the s t at e has a s peci al r el at i ons hi p beca us e i thas as s um ed contr ol overthati ndi vi dual , s uch a s in a p riso n . S e c o n d , the sta te m a yb e c o n stitu tio n a llyliab le if it cr eat es a dange rt hatr es ul t s i n harm t o an i ndi vi dual , even i f that- 19 -

harm i s ul t i m at el yi nfl i ct ed bya pr i vat e party . T he s hocks the con sci ence st and ard app l i es t o b oth types of sui t s. 146 F. 3d 1227, 1230 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks o m itted) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e juryinstruction co rrectl ystat ed the law an d there i s no r eas on t o r ever s e the j uryver di ct s i n favorof H ol m es and Per ez.

IV A ppeal of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entfavor i ng V i l l ar eal and B ow m an on qual i fi ed i m m uni tygr ounds i s pr edi cat ed on the cl ai m t hatt he di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l yr es ol ved fa ctual di s put es and i m pr oper l ydr ew i nfer ence s i n favorof B ow m an and V i l l ar eal . T he undi s put ed fa ct s s how t hatB ow m an exer ci s ed herpr ofes s i onal j udgm enti n heri nves t i gat i on of abus e al l egat i ons and, thu s, d id n o t violate G rac e’s su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess righ ts. T h ere are , h o w ev er, genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tas t o w hetherV i l l ar eal exer ci s ed herpr ofes s i onal j udgm entbyfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e s ever al s us pi ci ous event s dur i ng the per i od s he w as th e D ep artm en t em p loy ee d ir ec tl yresp o n sible fo r G rac e. H en ce , w e a ffirm the g ran t of

su m m aryjud g m en t fo r B o w m an , b u t r ev erse the g ran t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t fo r V ill a re a l. W e re v iew a g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e b a sis o f q u a lifie d im m u n ity d e n o v o . Jir o n v . C ityo f L ak ew o o d , 3 9 2 F . 3 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 3 -14 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to- 20 -

i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t an d o n e p a rtyis e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). W e m u st co n stru e the rec o rd i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party . I d. I n or dert o defe ata qual i fi ed i m m uni tydefe ns e, “a pl ai nt i ff musts how that ( 1) the off

i ci al vi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ght ; and ( 2) the cons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed w hen the al l eged vi ol at i on o cc u rred . ” M im ics, Inc . v . V il lage o f A n g el F ir e, 39 4 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2005) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “W e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne i f a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as vi ol at ed bec aus e i n the cour s e of de t erm i ni ng w hether a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t w a s v io late d o n th e p re m ise s a lleg e d , a c o u rt m ig h t fin d it n e c e ss a ryto se t fo rth p rin c ip les w h ich w ill b e c o m e th e b a sis fo r a h o ld in g th a t a ri g h t i s clea rl yestab li sh ed . ” H arm an v . P o ll o ck , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 7 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n thi s cas e, the part i es agr ee thatthe a lleg a tio n s a re b a se d o n c lea rlye sta b lish e d law . T h u s, th e o n lyq u e stio n fo r u s to deci de i s w hetherther e i s a genui ne ques t i on of m at er i al fac tas t o w hether B ow m an o r V i l l areal viol at ed G race’ s subst anti ve d ue p rocess ri gh t s. A s not ed above , s t at e off i ci al s ar e gene r al l ynotr es pons i bl e forthe ac t i ons o f th ir d p a rt ie s u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . D e S h a n e yv . W in n e b a g o C o u n ty D e p t. o f S o c ia l S e rv s ., 4 8 9 U .S . 1 8 9 , 2 0 1 (1 9 8 9 ). T hey , ho w ever, can b e held l i able for har m do ne b ythir d p art i es i f t he st at e has a- 21 -

“ s p e c ia l r e la tio n s h ip ” w ith th e h a rm e d in d iv id u a l. A “ s p e c ia l r e la tio n s h ip . . . exi s t s w hen the s t at e as s um es contr ol overan i ndi vi dual s uffi ci entt o tr i ggeran affirm ati v e d u tyto p rov ide p rotec ti o n to tha t i n d ividu al . . . . ” Id . at 19 9 -20 0 . In Y v o n n e L . v . N ew M ex ico D ep ’to f H u m an S erv . , 9 5 9 F . 2 d 8 8 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), w e h eld th at th e state h as a sp ec ial relati o n sh ip w ith ch il d ren in state cu stod y . If th e sta te o r its e m p lo y e e s “ k n e w o f th e a ss e rte d d a n g e r to [ m in o r c h ild re n in sta te cus t ody ] orfai l ed t o exer ci s e pr ofes s i onal j udgm entw i th r es pectther et o . . . and i f an a ffi r m at i ve l i nk t o the i nj ur i es [the chi l dr en] s uffe r ed ca n be s how n, then [ th e s ta te o r i ts e m p lo y e e s ] v io la te d p la in tiffs ’ c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts .” Id . a t 8 9 0 . W e not ed thatthe s t andar d us ed i n Y vonne L. , “fa i l ur e t o exer ci s e pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent , ” r equi r es m or e than mer e negl i gence : i tr equi r es an abdi cat i on of p ro fe ss io n a l re sp o n sib ili ty . Id . at 8 9 4 . S u c h a b d ica tio n m u st b e su fficie n t to s hock the cons ci ence . C f. R adec ki , 146 F. 3d at1230. B oth B ow m an and V i l l ar eal conce de thatt he s t at e had a s peci al r el at i ons hi p w i th G r ace , butar gue th a t th e ir c o n d u c t d id n o t v io late th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. B ow m an T w o b ase s are ad v an ce d in su p p o rto f th e c o n tention that su m m ary j udgm ents houl d notbe gr ant ed t o B ow m an. Fi r s t , the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve ar gues thata genui ne ques t i on of m at er i al fac texi s t s as t o w hetherthe in v e stig a tio n o f

th e a b u se a lleg a tio n v io late d G ra c e ’s r ig h ts, g iv e n th e d e lay i n i ni t i at i ng the i nves t i gat i on and the dec i s i on byPer ez t o not i fyB ogeyi n advanc e- 22 -

thatan i nves t i gat orw as comi ng. Second, he cl ai m s thata genui ne di s put e of m a ter ial fa c ts e x ists a s to w h e th e r B o w m a n e m p lo y e d p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t in conduct i ng heri nves t i gat i on beca us e B ow m an r eport ed thatther e w as no evi dence t hatG r ace had bee n abus ed, des pi t e evi dence i ndi cat i ng ot herw i s e, and did not contactanythir d p art i es aft er m eet i ng w i th B og eyt o d i scuss the ab use a lle g a tio n s . R egar di ng t he fi r s tcont ent i on, ther e i s no evi dence thatB ow m an w as r es pons i bl e fort he del ayi n the i nves t i gat i on. Per ez a nd H ol m es w er e the o fficia ls re sp o n sib le a n d th e p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e ’s c laim s a g a in st th e m w e n t to trial. F u rth e r, itw a s P e re z w h o n o tifie d B o g e ya b o u t th e a b u se a lleg a tio n s. T h is cont ent i on – t hatthe del ayand ea r l ynot i fi cat i on of B ogeybyPer ez a nd H ol m es m a yfo rm th e b a sis o f a c laim th a t B o w m a n v io late d G ra c e ’s F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts – w a s p ro p e rl yreje c te d . A s fo r th e se co n d co n tention , o u r rev iew o f th e re co rd re v ea ls th at th ere are no di s put ed ques t i ons of m at er i al fac t . T her e i s cl ear , uncontr adi ct ed evi dence that B o w m an tho rou g h lyex am ined G rac e’s b o d yd u ri n g h er v isi t t o B o g ey ’s h o m e a n d , in h e r p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t, de ter m in e d th e re w a s n o a b u se . N o fa c ts w er e adva nced thatcontr adi ctthi s cl earevi dence . I ns t ead, the per s onal repr esent at i ve att em pts t o indi ctB ow m an’s j ud gm ent byno t i ng that N urse L ages t am found i nt ent i onal l y - i nfl i ct ed fi ngernai l s s cr at ches on G r ace ’ s neck, b a c k , a n d a b d o m e n d u ri n g h e r e x a m in a tio n o f G ra c e th a t B o w m a n d id n o t fin d .- 23 -

H e al s o cl ai m s t hatt he aut ops yr evea l ed thatfi ngernai l s cr at ches on G r ace ’ s back and nec k w er e appa r entw hen B ow m an per form ed herexami nat i on. H ow ever , t he aut ops ys t at es t hatt he s cr at ches w er e “c ons i s t entw i th r ece nti nj ur y , ” and the autopsyt oo k p l ace m on ths aft er B ow m an’s i nv est i gati on . B ecause the aut op sy rep o rtd o es n o t sho w w h at th e p erso n al rep rese n tat ive c lai m s itd o es, th ere rem ai ns no evidence thatB ow m an m i ssed som et hing i n h er i nv est i gati on ; N urse L ages t am det erm i ned G r ace had bee n abus ed w eeks befor e B ow m an conduc t ed herexami nat i on. T hi s cl ai m thus di s t i l l s t o the as s er t i on L ages t am found evi dence of abus e and Bow m an di d not . T hattw o pr ofes s i onal s bot h conduct ed an i nves t i gat i on and s i m pl ydi s agr eed a bouta di agnos i s i s notpr oof, i n and of itse lf, tha t eith e r p ro fe ss io n a l h a s a b a n d o n e d h e r p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t. I ti s cl ear l ycorr ectt hatB ow m an fa i l ed t o cal l N ur s e Lages t am or a nyot her thi r d par tyfol l ow i ng heri nves t i gat i on. B utno evi dence i s advanc ed that es t abl i s hes thatfai l i ng t o do s o i s “s uch a s ubs t ant i al departur e fr om acc ept ed pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent , pr act i ce ors t andar ds as t o demonstr at e thatthe per s on r es pons i bl e ac tual l ydi d notbas e the dec i s i on on s uch a j udgm ent . ” Y oungber g v. R om er o, 457 U . S. 307, 323 ( 1982) . I n or dert o cr eat e a que s t i on of m at er i al fac t as t o w hetherB ow m an’ s deci s i on nott o cal l a s econda rys our ce vi ol at ed the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, th e p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e m u st e sta b lish th a t th is fai l ur e w as a s ubs t ant i al departur e fr om acc ept ed pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent , pr act i ce, o r st an d ard s. T h e o n lyev iden ce the p erso n al rep rese n tat ive p o ints t o is a rep o rtF u rth e r, B o w m a n e x p lain e d th a t h e r fa ilu re to m a k e th e c a lls w a s a re su lt 5 of a s t aff

i ng pr obl em atthe D epart m ent . A fai l ur e t o s at i s fypr ofes s i onal stan d ard s ca n b e e x cu sed , u n d er c ertain c ir cu m stan ce s, b ec au se o f b u d g etary cons tr ai nt s . Y oungber g, 457 U . S. at323. B eca us e ther e i s no evi dence t hather c o n d u c t fe ll b e lo w p ro fe ss io n a l sta n d a rd s, w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss th is a rg u m e n t. - 24 - byA l vi n Sal l ee, an expe r tw i tnes s , w ho expr es s ed an opi ni on t hatthe D ep artm en t’ s b eh av ior as a w h o le du ri n g the in v esti g ati o n , inclu d ing B o w m an ’s fa il u re to c all a third p arty , w as g ross lyn eg li g en t. G iven the d efere n ti al st an d ard of r evi ew w e empl oyunderY oungber g, thi s does notpr ovi de the type of part i cul ar i zed e vi dence nece s s aryt o cr eat e a di s put e of mat er i al fac tas t o w hether the fa i l ur e t o cont actout s i de s our ces w as an i m perm i s s i bl e devi at i on fr om p rofessio n al jud g m en t. S u m m aryjud g m en t as t o this de fe n d an t w as th u s p rop er. 5 V i l l ar eal U ndera “s peci al r el at i ons hi p” theory , t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve ar gues th a t V ill a re a l v io late d G ra c e ’s s u b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts b yfa ili n g to exer ci s e pr ofes s i onal j udgm enti n: ( 1) deci di ng t o pl ace G r ace i n B ogey ’ s hom e; (2) loo selysu p erv isi n g P ere z w h en sh e w as th e so cial w o rke r assign ed to G rac e’s cas e; and ( 3) fai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e the arr i val of B ogey ’ s father , T erryB ogey , and th e d e c isio n b yB o g e yto w ith d ra w G ra c e f ro m a ll co n tac t w ith th e o u tsid e w o rld w h e n s h e w a s th e s o c ia l w o rk e r w ith s o le re s p o n s ib ility fo r G ra c e ’s c a s e . T her e i s no m er i tt o t he cl ai m s r el at i ng t o the pl ace m entdeci s i on or V i l l ar eal ’ s over s i ghtof Per ez. V i l l ar eal di d notdeci de t o pl ace G r ace w i th B ogey o n h e r o w n : sh e a c ted o n th e a d v ice o f th e D e p a rtm e n t’s a d o p tio n c o n su ltan t,- 25 -

V i vi ane Enci ni as , and as partof a D epart m entcomm i t t ee. O nl ytw o D epart m ent e m p lo y e e s e x p re ss e d a n yd o u b ts a b o u t B o g e y ’s fitn e ss a s a n a d o p tiv e p a re n t: P erez and H olm es both no t ed thattheyw ere s om ew hat w orr i ed thatB og ey , as a s i ngl e mot her , m i ghthave tr oubl e meet i ng G r ace ’ s needs . T hatV i l l ar eal , al ong w ith o th e rs a t th e D e p a rtm e n t, de c id e d to g o a h e a d a n d p lac e G ra c e w ith B o g e yin the fa ce of

s uch mi l d doubt s does notcons t i tut e a fai l ur e t o exer ci s e pr ofes s i onal j udgement . Fur ther , the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve’ s cl ai m thatV i l l ar eal vi ol at ed G r ace ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byi m pr oper l ys upervi s i ng Soni a Per ez i s pr ecl uded b yth e ju ry’s fin d in g th a t P e re z d id n o t v io la te G ra c e ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . J i r on, 392 F. 3d at419 ( hol di ng thata fi ndi ng thatan off i cerdi d notvi ol at e a pl ai nt i ff’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s m eantthatthe off i cer ’ s s upervi s orcoul d notbe h eld liable fo r de ficien t sup erv isi o n ). H o w ev er, th ere is m eritto the p erso n al rep rese n tat ive’s a rgu m en t th at th ere ar e di s put ed ques t i ons of fa ctas t o w hetherV i l l ar eal exer ci s ed herpr ofes s i onal j udgm entaft erPer ez l eftthe D epart m ent . A ft erPer ez r es i gned, V i l l ar eal w as s ol el yr es pons i bl e forG r ace ’ s cas e. D ur i ng t hi s per i od, B ogeyr emoved G r ace f ro m d a yc a re a n d fire d h e r h o m e h e a lth n u rse s. T h e n , T e rryB o g e ym o v e d in to B ogey ’ s hom e, and B ogeydi d noti nform the D epart m ent . V i l l ar eal di d not i nves t i gat e anyof thes e ci r cumst ance s and, overa tw o- m onth s pan, di d notm ake a s i ngl e vi s i tt o B ogey ’ s hous e ori nqui r e i nt o thes e mat t er s . A ccor di ng t o the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve’ s expertw i tnes s , Sal l ee, thi s w as an aba ndonm entofA su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim ro o ted in a “ d a n g e r c re a tio n ” th e o ryis 6 a lso a d v a n c e d o n a p p e a l. T h e “ d a n g e r c re a tio n ” th e o ryis a n o th e r e x c e p tio n to the rul e fr om D eShaneythats t at e off i ci al s cannotbe hel d r es pons i bl e undert he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl aus e fort he ac t i ons of thi r d part i es . L i ebs on v. N ew M exi co C orr ect i ons D ep’ t , 73 F. 3d 274, 276 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . “[A ] s t at e may al s o be l i abl e foran i ndi vi dual ’ s s afe tyi f i tcr eat ed the dange rt hatharm ed the (c o n tin u e d ...) - 26 - p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t. W h e th e r V ill a re a l ex e rc ise d p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t in concl udi ng thatthe eve nt s w er e notof conc ern i s a di s put ed ques t i on of m at er i al fa c t a n d is in a p p ro p ri a te fo r r e s o lu tio n o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. V i l l areal argues t hat extrem e short -s t affing atthe D epart m ent i s the cau se of anyfai l ur es on herpartdur i ng thi s per i od. U ndi s put ed t es t i m onys how s that V i l l ar eal w as both cover i ng t he l ar ge numberof ca s es Per ez l eftbehi nd and s ervi ng as a s upervi s ort o others oci al w or ker s . T he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed th a t , “ [ i ] n a n a c t i o n fo rd a m a g e s a g a i n s ta p r o fe s s i o n a l i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y, how ever , the pr ofes s i onal w i l l notbe l i abl e i f he w as unabl e t o s at i s fyhi s nor m al pr ofes s i onal s t andar ds beca us e of budge t arycons tr ai nt s ; i n s uch a s i tuat i on, g o o d -fa ith im m u n ity w o u ld b a r l ia b ility.” Y o u n g b e rg , 4 5 7 U .S . a t 3 2 3 . H ow ever , V i l l ar eal does notpr es entevi dence thatbudget arypr obl ems atthe D ep artm en t cau sed h er c o m p let e fail u re to inv esti g ate. E x ist en ce o f b u d g etary p rob lem s is no t an a u tom ati c f ree p ass fo r un p rofessio n al be h av ior, an d the re co rd i s notcl earaboutw hetherV i l l ar eal ’ s w or kl oad, and nots om e l es s beni gn ex p lana ti o n , m ad e h er u n ab le t o inv esti g ate the q u esti o n ab le si tuation in B o g ey ’s hom e. Sum m aryj udgm enton t hi s i s s ue w as ther efor e i nappr opr i at e. 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 i n d i v i d u a l . I d . I n Cu r r i e rv . Do r a n , 2 4 2 F . 3 d 9 0 5 , 9 1 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , we appl i ed the “da ngercr eat i on” doctr i ne t o chi l d pl ace m ent s bythe veryagenc y i nvol ved i n thi s cas e, t he C hi l dr en, Y outh and Fami l i es D epart m ent . W e hel d t hat D epart m entoffi ci al s can be hel d r es pons i bl e underthe s ubs t ant i ve componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e forcr eat i ng dangert o chi l dr en byengagi ng i n s uch r eckl es s cons ci ous di s r egar d forr i s k w hen pl aci ng t hem i n a home t hati ts hocks the cons ci ence . T o es t abl i s h l i abi l i tyundera “da ngercr eat i on” theory , a pl ai nt i ff m u st pro v e tha t “(1) the ch arg ed stat e e n ti tyan d the c h arg ed ind ividu al ac tors c r e a t e d th e d a n g e ro ri n c r e a s e d p l a i n t i ff’ s v u l n e r a b i l i tyt o th e d a n g e ri n s o me w ay ; ( 2) pl ai nt i ff w as a mem berof a l i m i t ed and s peci fi cal l ydefi nabl e gr oup; ( 3) defe ndant ’ s conductputpl ai nt i ff a ts ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous , i m m edi at e, and pr oxi m at e harm ; ( 4) t he r i s k w as obvi ous orknow n; ( 5) defe ndantact ed r eckl es s l yi n cons ci ous di s r egar d of thatr i s k; and ( 6) s uch conduc t , w hen vi ew ed i n t ot al , i s cons ci ence s hocki ng. ” I d. at918. I n C ur r i er , a D epart m entoffi ci al fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e numer ous al l egat i ons of s ever e abus e befor e pl ace m entand w e hel d thatthe fa i l ur e t o do s o coul d m eetthes e r equi r ement s and ther eby vi ol at e a c hi l d’ s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s . I d. at924. T h e “ d a n g e r c re a tio n ” c laim in th is c a se d o e s n o t m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts laid o u t in C u rrie r. T h e p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e a rg u e s th a t V ill a re a l fa iled to pr oper l yi nves t i gat e B ogeybefor e r ecomm endi ng t o the C hi l dr en’ s C our tthatt he a d o p tio n b e fin a liz e d , a n d th e re b yc re a te d th e d a n g e r t h a t le d to G ra c e ’s d e a th . H ow ever , ther e i s no al l egat i on thatthe r i s k of abus e t o G r ace w as obvi ous or know n, as i s r equi r ed fora dange rcr eat i on cl ai m , beca us e i ti s undi s put ed that V i l l ar eal r el i ed upon B ow m an’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe abus e al l egat i on w as uns ubs t ant i at ed. W i thoutpr ovi ng the exi s t ence of a “ obvi ous orknow n” r i s k, su c h a s th e u n in v e stig a ted a b u se a lleg a tio n in C u rrie r, a d a n g e r c re a tio n c laim cannots ur vi ve. T her efor e, t he di s tr i ctcour tr i ght l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entas t o th i s c l a i m. - 27 - IV W e AF F I RM the d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal of the st at e t ortcl ai m s agai nst th e D e p a rt m e n t a n d D e p a rt m e n t e m p lo y e e s o n s o v e re ig n im m u n ity g ro u n d s . Fur ther , w e A F F I R M the j uryver di ct s i n favorof H ol m es and Per ez a nd the- 28 -

g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t t o B o w m an . H o w ev er, th e g ran t of su m m ary j udgm entt o V i l l ar eal w as i m pr operbeca us e ther e ar e di s put ed ques t i ons of m at er i al fac tr el at i ng t o the per i od i n w hi ch s he w as the D epart m entempl oy ee d ire c tlyre sp o n sib le fo r G ra c e p rio r to th e a d o p tio n . W ith re sp e c t to th a t cla im onl y , w e R EV ER SE the di s tr i ctcourtand RE M AND forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on.