Opinion ID: 771798
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of Removal and Placement in Light of Exigency.

Text: 43 Mabe argues that the extent of the intrusion, resulting in the removal of MD from the home and placement in foster care for an indefinite period, was improper under law. We have held that exigency is a very limited exception  to the warrant rule and simply because some intrusion on a child's protected privacy and security interests may be reasonable does not mean that any intrusion is. Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1140. 44 In Wallis, the threat of future physical abuse and past sexual abuse on the Wallis children were all attributed to the father. We noted that there was no evidence that the children could not have been taken with their mother to a shelter, or placed under some other form of protective custody with her until . . . some later date. Id. at 1140. We concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the emergency continued to exist for more than the brief day or two following the time of the children's seizure  and whether the children could have been taken out of the home with their mother. Id. 45 Here, MD's allegations of abuse were only attributed to the stepfather, Mabe's husband, yet MD was removed from the home. Furthermore, Mabe says that her husband told Perry he would move out of the house if that was necessary to have MD remain in the home. If the exigency that justified MD's removal was the stepfather's access to her in the residence, then his departure or Mabe's and MD's detention would have been a less drastic step to protect MD from immediate harm. 46 Perry thought that Mabe was not protecting MD in light of how she reacted to MD's report of the stepfather's alleged misconduct. Compare Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1140. Mabe did not believe MD's allegations that the abuse had occurred or that there was a threat that such abuse would occur again in the future. Perry says Mabe was verbally abusive of MD during the removal, harassing MD within inches of her face. Perry's impressions constitute supporting evidence, unlike Wallis, that removal from the mother was reasonably necessary as well to protect MD. 47 The day after MD's removal from the Mabe home, a Juvenile Dependency Petition was filed with the San Bernardino County Juvenile Court. The following day the juvenile court held a hearing attended by Mabe. The court found that a prima facie case was established for MD's detention out of home. The court also found that the lack of pre-placement preventive efforts was reasonable and continuation in the parental home is contrary to the welfare of the minor; no means to protect without removal. The record demonstrates that attempts were made to resolve the conflict between MD and her mother and her stepfather through family reunification procedures, but an impasse developed in the family when MD refused to recant the allegations and Mabe and her husband refused to admit that any abuse had occurred. 48 The juvenile court's findings are not relevant to whether a sufficient exigency existed at the time of the removal to justify the warrantless action because such an inquiry is to be based on the information that Perry had at the time. However, those findings certainly buttress the conclusion that MD's removal from the Mabe residence and permanent placement outside the home were justified in light of the situation. The juvenile court ordered the continued separation of Mabe from MD. Mabe opted not to appeal the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders that required MD's four-year placement outside of Mabe's home. Summary judgment on this claim is affirmed. 49