Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/206/574/597966/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:52:41+00:00

Document:
Debra W. Wooley and April Zachary appeal an adverse summary judgment in their action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court found, inter alia, that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons assigned we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
The officers discussed the court order before taking any action. Brooks testified that the officers attempted to contact personnel in the juvenile department but that everyone in that office was busy. He further testified that the officers did not attempt to call anyone in the legal department because no one from that division was active at that time of night. He conceded that a legal advisor can be reached after hours under "extreme circumstances, but we have to wait around." Lapeyrouse'stestimony supports Brooks, but Coulter testified that neither she nor her fellow officers attempted to contact anyone in either the legal or juvenile departments.
Brooks decided that immediate action had to be taken. Coulter knocked on the door, identified herself as a police officer, and told Wooley to open the door. Wooley complied and the officers stepped inside the residence. In response to a request by Coulter, Wooley produced her custody papers. Noting the date on her order, the officers informed Wooley that they would have to take Jordan because they had been instructed that when there were conflicting orders, the order bearing the later date prevails. The officers denied Wooley's request to call either her lawyer or April. She pleaded with them not to take the child, claiming that Cecil Zachary had abused April Zachary as a child and that she feared the same thing would happen to Jordan. The officers insisted and Wooley gave Jordan to Coulter. Coulter exited the house and gave Jordan to his grandparents.
Wooley, individually and on behalf of Jordan,3 sued the Baton Rouge City Police Department, the Parish of East Baton Rouge, the City of Baton Rouge, Police Chief Greg Phares, and Officers Coulter, Brooks and Lapeyrouse. In her complaint Wooley claimed that the officers violated her fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and her fourteenth amendment right to family integrity. The complaint also alleged that the police had deprived Jordan of his fourth amendment right against unreasonable seizures and his fourteenth amendment liberty interest in remaining in the custody of his legal guardian. Wooley joined Chief Phares and the City of Baton Rouge, alleging that they acted with deliberate indifference and failed to train the officers adequately. The claims against the Baton Rouge City Police and the Parish of East Baton Rouge were dismissed voluntarily, and the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction over several pendent state law claims. The district court granted the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and this appeal followed. Appellants do not discuss in their briefs any issue related to the claims against Police Chief Phares and the City of Baton Rouge. Those claims are deemed abandoned.4 We consider only the fourth and fourteenth amendment claims by Debra Wooley and Jordan Zachary.
Wooley contends that she was deprived of her right to custody of Jordan without due process of law. In addition, Wooley and Jordan each contend that the police officers violated their fourteenth amendment right to family integrity by removing Jordan from Wooley's home. In order to recover under 1983 for violations of their due process rights, Wooley and Jordan must demonstrate that they were denied a cognizable liberty or property interest clearly established either by state law or the United States Constitution.We conclude that they did not have such a clearly established interest.
That expectation is often justified by a biological link between those asserting the protection. " [T]he usual understanding of 'family' implies biological relationships, and most decisions treating the relation between parent and child have stressed this element."33 In Stanley the Court, in finding that such a liberty interest existed, emphasized that Stanley "sired and raised" his children and noted that " [i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."34 In Moore v. City of East Cleveland, a grandmother challenged an ordinance that forbade certain related family members, including Moore and her grandson, from living in the same home. The Court found a liberty interest based on the recognized tradition of relatives, including uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents to "draw together and participate in the duties and satisfactions of a common home."35 Further, the Court distinguished Moore from Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas,36 in which an ordinance forbidding more than two unrelated persons from living in a single-family house was found to be constitutional, because the ordinance challenged inBoraas specifically permitted individuals related by "blood, adoption, or marriage" to live together. In short, the biological relationship between Moore and her grandson brought the case within the ambit of the fourteenth amendment.
The present case is distinguishable from the prior cases in which the right to family integrity has been asserted by persons not biologically related on two obvious and important bases. Unlike the cases involving foster families, the contours of the relationship between Wooley and Jordan are not defined by state law, and state law does not supply the justifiable expectations that attend their relationship.44 In addition, unlike in Frank, the expectation that the relationship would be a durable one has not been defeated by the child's biological parents. In fact, April Zachary's approval of their relationship has created and fostered those expectations. Wooley and Jordan contend that under the rubrics of the foregoing cases the emotional ties between a minor and an unrelated adult care giver can create a liberty interest vis-a-vis the child's biological grandparents when the relationship is countenanced by the child's natural mother. They thus contend that under the circumstances here presented Wooley and Jordan shared a fourteenth amendment protected expectation that the state would not interfere in their relationship. However persuasive this contention ultimately may be, we need not definitively resolve it here, for it is indisputable that, at the time of the events in question, no such fourteenth amendment right could be described as clearly established. As to this claim, therefore, Wooley has failed Siegert's "first inquiry" in that she has "failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." The district court did not err in granting the defendants qualified immunity on this claim."
We are not hesitant, however, in finding constitutional protection for the relationship between Jordan and his natural mother. April Zachary does not assert any claims on her own behalf but, rather, asserts a claim on behalf of Jordan. Because a child's right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent,45 we define the scope of Jordan's rights in this context with reference to his mother's rights.
Although a biological relationship does not conclusively establish a liberty interest, the cases in which that interest has been found lacking have concluded that those familial expectations were defeated by either the biological parent's disassociation from the child48 or the state's and society's traditional preference for and protectionof other inconsistent family models.49 Here we have neither circumstance. April Zachary has maintained a significant role in Jordan's life. At the time of the alleged occurrences, she and Jordan lived in the same home and maintained daily contact. If she moved out, she and Wooley had agreed that she was to visit Jordan every weekend and for several hours during the week. When a biological parent "'com [es] forward to participate in the rearing of [her] child,' [her] interest in personal contact with [her] child acquires substantial protection under the due process clause."50 April never removed herself from Jordan's life to a degree sufficient to support the conclusion that she no longer has a liberty interest in personal contact with him. It cannot be seriously suggested that the traditions of our nation establish a preference for child rearing antithetical to the manner in which April proposed to raise Jordan such that her expectation of maintaining a relationship with her son might be justified.
Jordan undeniably is entitled to stay with his mother without governmental interference. That requires us to consider the nature of the process due Jordan before depriving him of that right. The right to family integrity must be balanced against the state's interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of children.51 In close cases, the tension between these two interests is pronounced and we occasionally have been unable to conclude that the due process violation involved was "clearly established."52 Defendants claim that this is such a case and that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted to protect Jordan and to defuse a potentially explosive situation. We are not persuaded. Our cases in which the state's interest has blurred the existence of a family's rights uniformly have involved removal of children by social workers specifically charged with protecting children where there were allegations of abuse.53 There is no indication in this record of any threat to Jordan's safety, nor were the officers investigating allegations that he previously had suffered abuse at the hands of Wooley or April. The requirements of due process may also be satisfied where police officers are authorized to effect a transfer of custody in furtherance of the state's prerogative to protect the welfare of children.54 As mentionedpreviously, however, the court order obtained by the Zacharys did not direct the police to take any action. Under the circumstances, April and Jordan Zachary enjoyed a clearly established right to maintain their relationship free from interference by state actors.
The defendants concede that they had neither a warrant nor probable cause to seize Jordan. In order to prevail, therefore, they must demonstrate a governmental interest sufficient to justify dispensing with constitutional protections. The record before us is devoid of such. As previously noted, there was no evidence of danger to Jordan sufficient to implicate the state's interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of minors. The officers further contend that they acted to defuse a potentially explosive situation. Even if this assertion were true, the interest created by this circumstance is no greater than the interest of law enforcement generally to enforce the laws and keep the peace. The seizure of Jordan inorder to quell a potentially volatile situation was no more permissible than the seizure of Debra Wooley or Cecil Zachary would have been under the same circumstances.
Finally, the officers contend that it was objectively reasonable for them to seize Jordan because: (1) they defused a potentially explosive situation, (2) Cecil Zachary indicated that Jordan was in danger,61 and (3) the Livingston Parish court order was valid on its face. As discussed previously, however, the desire to avoid a domestic dispute cannot form a reasonable basis for depriving Jordan of his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. Reasonableness in this context must be gauged in light of clearly established law. An exception for the preservation of domestic tranquility cannot reasonably be thought to exist as to the right to family integrity or the right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The officers' actions, even if they perfectly served this goal, were not reasonably within the bounds of the law. Nor was it objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that Jordan was in danger of imminent harm. The Livingston Parish order in no way indicated that Jordan's safety might be jeopardized. The police were not informed of any abuse prior to arriving at Wooley's home, and they found no evidence of abuse while there. Although Cecil Zachary made allegations casting doubt on April Zachary's fitness as a mother, he made no statement that tended to indicate Jordan was unsafe in Wooley's home. In fact, April Zachary was not present while the police were deciding what to do, and by all appearances Jordan appeared to be safely in Wooley's care.
The police department is not to be involved in enforcing child custody orders in the absence of a specific order signed by a judge and directed to law enforcement to pick up a certain child and deliver him/her to a certain place. General orders stating that one parent is to have custody of the child from Friday - Sunday, for example, are not to be enforced by this Department. The orders that police officers are to enforce mustbe an order to law enforcement officers directing officers to pick up and deliver a child. "Civil warrants" are an example of these direct orders to law enforcement, and are enforceable throughout the state just as other warrants are. However, if you are relying simply on a court order that is not a warrant, it must be signed by a judge of this parish. These will be relatively rare, as most judges will choose to style their own orders to law enforcement in the form of a warrant. Whether you are relying on a civil warrant or simply a court order, you must have it in your possession before you take any action. In addition, both civil warrants and court orders, to be enforceable, must be stamped by the Clerk of the Court with the words "Certified True Copy." The stamp must be an original. If those three magic words do not appear on the order, DO NOT ENFORCE THE ORDER (emphasis in original).
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976); La. Const. Art. 1 3; Jordan v. Cosey, 434 So. 2d 386 (1983).
We note two additional bases for this conclusion. First, La. R.S. 952 limits the duration of provisional custody by mandate to a period not to exceed one year, but Wooley purported to accept custody of Jordan until he reached the age of eighteen. The effect of an attempt to transfer custody for a period greater than the prescribed period is unclear. Second, La. R.S. 953 and Civil Code art. 2998 require that the powers granted to the mandatary be express and specific. Whether the general grant of custody contained in the petition and affidavits relied upon by plaintiffs is sufficient to meet those requirements is similarly unclear. Plaintiffs have cited no precedent that resolves these issues, and our research has failed to produce any that clearly establishes Wooley's rights under Louisiana law.
Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74 (2nd Cir. 1991); Bennett v. Town of Riverhead, 940 F. Supp. 481 (1996). Bennett bears a striking resemblance to this case. Christy and William Bennett were divorced by a judgment that entitled Christy to sole custody of their daughter Charlotte and granted William visitation including three weeks each year away from his custodial residence. When Christy sought the court's permission to change her residence to Arizona, William made known his intention to exercise his three weeks of visitation beginning August 1, but failed to challenge the modification of the visitation decree. The decree was modified. Nevertheless, on August 1 he enlisted the assistance of a police officer in obtaining custody of Charlotte. The officer went to Christy's home in order to control what the police viewed as a "potentially hostile domestic relations dispute" and, after reading both the original order granting visitation to William and the modified order allowing her and Charlotte to move to Arizona, expressed his opinion that William's order controlled and allegedly ordered Christy to relinquish Charlotte. The district court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had alleged a clearly established denial of due process.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1
 v. 
 art. 2998
 v. 
 v.