Opinion ID: 498211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of the Lower Court's Ruling; Parties' Contentions on Appeal

Text: 45 Coverdell's Amended and Supplemental Complaint requested that the lower court enjoin DSHS and McLaughlin from seizing children of Alice Coverdell and other parents without notice and an opportunity for hearing and an opportunity for parent and child to defend their constitutionally protected interest in their parent-child relationship under the circumstances of this case in which (a) child and mother are confined in their normal relationship at hospital; and (b) [t]here is no allegation supported by probable cause that the child is being harmed by the mother.... The district court concluded that Coverdell's request for injunctive relief against DSHS was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Coverdell does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 46 The district court further ruled that Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief against McLaughlin was moot: [T]he issue of McLaughlin's seizing of plaintiff's child while plaintiff is in the hospital and without probable cause to believe the mother is endangering the child, without prior notice, has become moot. There is no threat of immediate, irreparable injury. Accordingly, the court ordered dismissal of the claim for injunctive relief. 47 On appeal, Coverdell argues that injunctive relief is appropriate because she is still of child-bearing age and McLaughlin is still employed by DSHS. Coverdell asserts that McLaughlin was instrumental in having Christina's older sibling seized from a hospital in Oregon, and that Coverdell has a continuing concern ... that her children would be taken from her at the hospital. 48 McLaughlin responds that dismissal of Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief was proper because Coverdell made no showing of immediate, irreparable injury sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.