Opinion ID: 6495410
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Removal of B.D.

Text: David also alleges that Kaulukukui’s participation in removing B.D. and placing her in Keahiolalo’s custody was a constitutional violation. Again, our caselaw clearly establishes that the right to familial association is violated “if DAVID V. KAULUKUKUI 19 a state official removes children from their parents without their consent, and without a court order, unless information at the time of the seizure, after reasonable investigation, establishes reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.” Keates, 883 F.3d at 1237–38. Additionally, even if there is reasonable cause to believe that the initial removal of a child without a court order or consent is necessary, the continued separation of a child from her custodial parent is constitutional only if “the scope, degree, and duration of the intrusion” is “reasonably necessary to avert the specific injury at issue.” Id.; see Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138. For example, in Wallis, police officers seized the plaintiffs’ children without a court order after the mother’s institutionalized, mentally ill sister reported to her therapist that the children’s father was going to sacrifice his son to Satan on the Fall Equinox and cover it up with a car accident. 202 F.3d at 1131. After the therapist reported this threat to Child Protective Services, police entered the family’s home around midnight, took the children into custody without a court order, and transported them to a hospital where they were subjected to internal body cavity examinations without the plaintiffs’ presence or consent. Id. at 1134–35. The children were not returned to the plaintiffs’ custody for two and a half months. Id. at 1034. There, we concluded that because the officers failed to investigate the institutionalized sister’s “bizarre tale,” interview the children’s mother, or otherwise conduct a sufficient background investigation, “a reasonable jury could find that the officers did not have reasonable cause to remove the children without a court order.” Id. at 1040. Additionally, we held that even if the children’s initial removal was reasonable, there was a genuine dispute as to 20 DAVID V. KAULUKUKUI whether “the actions taken by the officers—removing the children from their mother and placing them in an institution—exceeded the permissible scope of the action necessary to protect them from that immediate threat.” Id. at 1138. Because the alleged danger to the plaintiffs’ son “was to occur specifically and only on [the Fall Equinox],” there was a genuine dispute “as to whether the emergency continued to exist for more than the brief day or two.” Id. at 1140. In addition, because “the police had no information whatsoever that implicated the children’s mother in any past or future abuse,” there was a genuine dispute whether placing the children “in a county institution for an indefinite period, was sufficiently strictly circumscribed by the exigency that justified the [defendants’] intrusion into the children’s lives.” Id. at 1140–41 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Turning to this case, David sufficiently alleges that Kaulukukui participated in removing B.D. from her custody without a court order, placed B.D. in Keahiolalo’s custody, and prevented David from having contact with B.D. or regaining custody. These allegations, if true, violate a clearly established constitutional right to familial association. Based on the allegations in the FAC, there was no reason, much less “reasonable cause,” to believe that B.D. was in any “imminent danger of serious bodily injury.” Id. at 1138. In fact, the FAC indicates quite the contrary—shortly before the surreptitious “grab-and-go” operation, a CWS official visited David’s home, performed a Comprehensive Strengths and Risk Assessment Rating, and rated David a 3 on a risk scale of 0–51, meaning that there was a low/moderately low risk of harm in David’s home. Additionally, the FAC alleges that CWS officials surveilled David for several days before deciding to take custody of DAVID V. KAULUKUKUI 21 B.D., demonstrating that there was sufficient time to obtain a court order. Not only did Kaulukukui and the other Defendants remove B.D. and place her with someone they knew had no custodial rights without legal justification, David also alleges that they conspired to prevent her from filing a police report or otherwise having her claims regarding Keahiolalo’s unlawful custody investigated. These allegations state a plausible claim for a violation of a clearly established constitutional right to familial association. Moreover, even if B.D.’s initial removal was supported by reasonable cause, David alleges facts plausibly indicating that the Defendants, including Kaulukukui, “exceeded the scope of any intrusion necessary to protect [B.D.].” Keates, 883 F.3d at 1239. The FAC states that David was not able to speak with or see B.D. for 21 days. Nor was she informed of B.D.’s whereabouts. With no indication that B.D. faced any past abuse by David or that B.D. was at risk of future abuse, “there was no basis for preventing [David] from having contact with [B.D.]” or for separating B.D. from David for 21 days. Id. Again, the FAC alleges that CWS itself had deemed David’s home to be at the lowest risk level just days before B.D. was removed from her mother’s care. Based on these allegations, the 21-day separation was significantly longer than “reasonably necessary to alleviate [a] threat of immediate harm.” Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1140 (citation omitted).