Opinion ID: 821301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Care, Custody, and Management of Child

Text: It is well settled that parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody and management of their children. Southerland v. City of N.Y., 680 F.3d 127, 142 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 593 (2d Cir. 1999)). This interest, however, is counterbalanced by the compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where - 3 - the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves. Id. at 152 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, [t]o state a claim for a violation of this substantive due process right of custody, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the state action depriving him of custody was 'so shocking, arbitrary, and egregious that the Due Process Clause would not countenance it even were it accompanied by full procedural protection.' Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267, 275 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 600). Where there is no actual loss of custody, no substantive due process claim can lie. Id. at 276; see, e.g., Phillips v. Cnty. of Orange, No. 10-CV-239, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133293, at  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2012) (Plaintiffs have failed to state a viable claim that any of the actions taken by Defendants violated their substantive due process rights, for the simple reason that Plaintiffs never lost custody of [their child].). Here, McCaul's complaint does not allege that her parental custody was ever interrupted, and she admits in her brief that she never lost custody of her son. Thus, the district court properly dismissed her substantive due process claim on this ground.