Opinion ID: 70464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Seizure of Wernecke Boys

Text: Garcia and Trainer also challenge the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the seizure of the Wernecke boys. We again begin our qualified immunity analysis by asking if the Werneckes have asserted a violation of a 15 No. 09-40132 constitutional right. “To determine the constitutionality of a seizure ‘we must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.’” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8 (1985) (quoting Place, 462 U.S. at 703). In Gates, we laid out the standard for the Fifth Circuit to apply in reviewing seizures of children by government agency workers following abuse or neglect investigations: “[T]he government may not seize a child from his or her parents absent a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances.” 537 F.3d at 429. Gates defined “exigent circumstances” to mean “that, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse if he remains in his home.” Id.12 We described the analysis as “a flexible inquiry that considers all of the facts and circumstances with no one factor being dispositive,” and listed as non-exclusive factors: whether there was time to obtain a court order . . . [,] the nature of the abuse (its severity, duration, and frequency), the strength of the evidence supporting the allegations of abuse, the risk that the parent will flee with the child, the possibility of less extreme solutions to the problem, and any harm to the child that might result from the removal. Id. In Gates, social workers removed children from their home without a court order or warrant after investigating “allegations of recent physical abuse” by their father. Id. at 430. Gates considered the “information [that] was known by the [TDFPS] employees making the decision to remove” the children in determining whether exigent circumstances existed. Id. at 429. We specifically noted that one young child “displayed two small wounds that had allegedly been 12 We also confined this standard to removals from the home and laid out a separate standard for removals from other locations, including schools. Gates, 537 F.3d at 432. 16 No. 09-40132 inflicted by” the father, and several siblings corroborated the story that the father had inflicted those wounds that morning. Id. In addition, the children had described “unusual discipline methods,” including forcing children “to throw up food they had eaten” and handcuffing one child to a bed. Id. at 430. We found that “obtaining a court order in a timely fashion was likely not possible,” as the investigation had continued past the close of the state courts for the day, and we also observed that TDFPS employees had “considered and ruled out . . . less drastic options” before deciding to remove the children. Id. While we deemed the case a “close call,” we ultimately decided that, given the totality of the circumstances, the TDFPS employees did not violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing the Gates children without a court order. Id. Adopting the Gates standard to fit a child endangerment investigation—rather than an abuse investigation—we consider most of the same factors, including the available time to obtain a court order, the risk that a parent might flee with the child, the availability of less extreme solutions, and any harm to the child that might arise from the removal. See id. In addition, we adapt several factors to fit the child endangerment context and consider the nature of the danger facing the child (its severity, duration, frequency, and imminence), the strength of the evidence supporting immediate removal, and the presence or absence of parental supervision. Cf. id. In applying this standard to Garcia’s removal of JW and JW from the Wernecke home, we must view the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the Werneckes, as the non-moving parties. See Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350. Therefore, we summarize the summary judgment evidence regarding the condition of the home in the light most favorable to the Werneckes. When Garcia arrived, Mr. Wernecke was in the home with his fourteen-year-old son JW and his five-year-old son JW. Garcia observed medications and syringes, allegedly within reach of the two boys. However, the 17 No. 09-40132 Werneckes assert that Mr. Wernecke was in the process of dispensing KW’s medications for the week when Garcia arrived, and some of the pills were out on the kitchen counter, but they were in plastic containers with child locks. Animal syringes were also on the kitchen counter, but they were encased in their original packaging—a hard plastic covering around each individual syringe—and located inside a paper bag. The Werneckes state that the plastic covering would be difficult for a child to break through, and that Mr. Wernecke was present to supervise both boys around the medications and the syringes. The Werneckes own firearms, but they were stored in a locked closet, away from the children. According to Garcia, the Wernecke home was “unsanitary” and in “deplorable condition.” Garcia described seeing piles of paper, food, trash, and clothes throughout the home. She claimed to see animal feces on the floor, but the Werneckes argue she mistook watermelon and sunflower seeds for feces. The Werneckes aver that their home was not in an unsanitary condition, but was merely cluttered. Taking these facts in the light most favorable to the Werneckes, we assume that the home was cluttered but not unsanitary. The Werneckes do not dispute the following facts. The entry into the Wernecke home occurred in the evening, after the conclusion of business hours. Prior to removing the boys, Garcia first attempted to institute a safety plan that would allow the boys to stay at home if Mr. Wernecke cleaned up the home; when Mr. Wernecke refused to sign the safety plan, she attempted to place JW and JW with Mr. Wernecke’s parents. Mr. Wernecke’s parents initially agreed to let Garcia inspect their home to ensure it was safe for the boys, but then they refused to unlock several rooms within their home. Because Garcia was unable to complete her inspection, she consulted with Trainer, her supervisor (who in turn consulted with Ramirez, the program director) and received permission to place the boys in state custody rather than with their grandparents. 18 No. 09-40132 Taking these facts in the light most favorable to the Werneckes, we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, an exigency did not exist that justified the removal of JW and JW on the evening of June 1, 2005. Although several factors seem to weigh towards the reasonableness of the removal—(1) business hours were concluded and obtaining a court order would likely not be possible in a timely fashion, (2) the risk of flight was high, as Mrs. Wernecke had already absconded with KW, and (3) Garcia attempted to institute both a safety plan and a placement with extended family before placing the boys in state custody—the sum of the Werneckes’ facts does not indicate the existence of truly exigent circumstances. The presence of medications and syringes in the home, in child-proof containers and under parental supervision, does not rise to the level of exigency. Nor does mere clutter in the home. In the light most favorable to the Werneckes, a reasonable person would not believe that an immediate danger would be posed by JW and JW remaining in the home. Therefore, the Werneckes have asserted a Fourth Amendment violation by Garcia. Although the Werneckes have asserted a constitutional violation, the question whether the applicable law was clearly established remains. The Werneckes argue that the general contours of the Fourth Amendment sufficed to give “fair warning” to reasonable officials of the alleged unlawfulness of the seizure of the boys. Although “[i]t could plausibly be asserted that any violation of the Fourth Amendment is ‘clearly established,’” we recall that “the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established.” Wilson, 526 U.S. at 615. Therefore, we must consider the state of the clearly established law in 2005 and whether it gave TDFPS employees “fair warning that their alleged treatment of [the plaintiffs was] unconstitutional.” Roe v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 299 F.3d 395, 409 (5th Cir. 2002). 19 No. 09-40132 As of June 1, 2005, Fifth Circuit precedent clearly established that the Fourth Amendment governs social workers’ investigations of allegations of child abuse. See id. at 409 & n.17 (noting that “[t]he Fourth Amendment governs the lawfulness of a social worker’s entry into a dwelling” and citing Franks v. Smith, 717 F.2d 183, 186 (5th Cir. 1983), as applying Fourth Amendment standards to both a police officer and a social worker). We indicated in Roe v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services that “[s]ocial workers retain the power to seize a child if ‘exigent circumstances’ exist; if they ‘have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy,’ they need not obtain a court order.” 299 F.3d at 407 (quoting Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 604 (2d Cir. 1999)). We also discussed in Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d at 925, that, absent a warrant or probable cause, state officials must have some “evidence of danger” prior to seizing a child. Garcia argues that in June 2005 the law was not yet clearly established, and she points us to our 2008 Gates decision, which purports to “define the Fourth Amendment standards that apply” in the context of warrantless seizures of children by social workers. 537 F.3d at 427. In Gates, we stated: In Roe, we noted in dicta that social workers may seize a child when exigent circumstances exist, specifically if they have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy. 299 F.3d at 407. However, we have never described in more detail the circumstances that will permit the warrantless seizure of such a child. Id. at 428. Garcia argues that this statement indicates a lack of clarity in our law, such that she should be entitled to qualified immunity. We disagree. The Gates decision articulated a standard for determining when some evidence of danger rises to the level of an emergency justifying immediate removal, but Gates was not the first case to require, at a minimum, some evidence of imminent danger prior to removal. The quoted language from Roe, combined with the reference to “evidence of danger” in Wooley, clearly established that, at 20 No. 09-40132 the very least, some evidence of imminent danger to a child was required to justify a warrantless seizure. See Roe, 299 F.3d at 407; Wooley, 211 F.3d at 925. Officials do not receive the protection of qualified immunity when “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness [of the challenged act is] apparent,” and in the light of Roe and Wooley, Garcia’s actions (as alleged by the Werneckes) were clearly unlawful. Pelzer, 536 U.S. at 739. While the “flexible,” factor-based standard of Gates gives additional guidance to social workers, the essentials of what was required in June 2005 for a social worker to effect a warrantless seizure in the factual circumstances confronting Garcia, as described by the Werneckes, were clear. According to the Werneckes, their home was merely cluttered; and animal syringes and medications were contained in child-proof containers in reach of JW and JW, but Mr. Wernecke was present to supervise. As discussed above, this factual scenario did not constitute an imminent danger to the boys. Based on the Werneckes’ version of the facts, Garcia had no indication that either JW or JW faced an immediate threat to life or limb. On a scale of reasonableness, some actions are clearly reasonable, some are clearly unreasonable, and some fall into a gray area. Gates clarifies the law in the gray area, but Gates was not required to give social workers fair notice that imminent danger must exist before a child may be removed without a warrant or court order. On the facts as stated by the Werneckes, Fifth Circuit law clearly established in June 2005 that the warrantless seizure of the Wernecke boys—in the absence of any imminent danger—was a constitutional violation. Therefore, Garcia is not entitled to qualified immunity on the Werneckes’ claim that she unconstitutionally seized JW and JW. Finally, we turn to the question of whether the district court properly found that qualified immunity was unavailable to Trainer, the TDFPS supervisor on the evening of the removal. The Werneckes assert that Trainer 21 No. 09-40132 violated their Fourth Amendment rights by approving, via telephone, Garcia’s removal of JW and JW. Under § 1983, “a supervisory official may be held liable . . . only if (1) [s]he affirmatively participates in the acts that cause the constitutional deprivation, or (2) [s]he implements unconstitutional policies that causally result in the constitutional injury.” Gates, 537 F.3d at 435. At this stage in the litigation, the Werneckes are not arguing that TDFPS’s policies are facially unconstitutional; therefore, their argument rests upon Trainer’s alleged affirmative participation in the seizure of JW and JW. In order to establish supervisor liability for “constitutional violations committed by subordinate employees,” plaintiffs must show that the supervisor “act[ed], or fail[ed] to act, with deliberate indifference to violations of others’ constitutional rights committed by their subordinates.” Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245, 254 (5th Cir. 2005). In this context, deliberate indifference “‘describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence,’” the equivalent of reckless disregard for a substantial risk. Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835–36 (1994)). “The test for deliberate indifference is subjective, rather than objective, in nature because ‘an official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment.’” Id. at 255 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838). In its order denying qualified immunity, the district court found that the Werneckes raised “a genuine fact issue as to whether . . . Trainer . . . acted with deliberate indifference toward [the Werneckes’] Fourth Amendment rights.” However, based upon the record as developed by the Werneckes, Trainer was neither the ultimate decision-maker, nor was she actively involved in the decision to remove the boys. The record only contains one item submitted by the Werneckes that sheds light on the extent of Trainer’s knowledge and involvement: the transcript of Trainer’s deposition testimony, submitted by the 22 No. 09-40132 Werneckes in their response to the motion for summary judgment. Notably, Mr. Wernecke’s affidavit does not mention Trainer or describe her involvement with the removal. In her deposition, Trainer recounts that Garcia informed her that the home posed a danger to the children, and that based upon the information from Garcia, she “believed that there was enough danger to the children in that home and [she] needed to call the program director, which was [her] obligation.” Trainer states that she called Ramirez twice, “once to let her know [Garcia was] working on a safety plan with relatives, and then the other time to say that the relative placement fell through.” Trainer further states that Ramirez approved the removal; that she communicated Ramirez’s decision to Garcia; and that Garcia removed JW and JW following the communication passed along by Trainer. While Trainer states that she participated in the communication between Garcia and Ramirez, and that she agreed with Ramirez’s decision to remove, she clearly recounts that “ultimately, though, [she] did not have the authority to remove.” Based on Trainer’s deposition—the only piece of evidence in the record put forth by the Werneckes that contains any information about her knowledge and involvement—Trainer was merely a conduit for information between Garcia, the case worker in the field, and Ramirez, the program director. Trainer believed that she had no independent authority to approve the removal of the Wernecke boys, and she did not, in fact, do so. Even taken in the light most favorable to the Werneckes, there is simply no basis for Trainer’s liability on these facts, as a matter of law. The Werneckes have not pointed to any evidence to support a finding that Trainer acted with deliberate indifference towards their constitutional rights. Therefore, the Werneckes have not alleged a constitutional violation by Trainer, and she is entitled to qualified immunity.