Opinion ID: 810539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Individualized Treatment

Text: Plaintiffs next allege that defendants violated Thor’s right to bodily integrity by failing to provide him with appropriate individualized treatment. Specifically, the Xiongs argue that defendants’ failure to obtain counseling services for Thor after he had suicidal ideation violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. “When a state assumes the place of a juvenile’s parents, it assumes as well the parental duties, and its treatment of its juveniles should, so far as can be reasonably required, be what proper parental care would provide.” Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352, 360 (7th Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment “right to treatment” includes the “right to minimum acceptable standards of care and treatment for juveniles and the right to individualized care and treatment.” Id. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs advanced the general claim that defendants failed to comply with No. 12-1737 21 their obligation to provide adequate medical care to Thor during custody. Defendants argue that any right to individualized treatment claim was not properly pled, contending that the thrust of plaintiffs’ bodily security and integrity claim concerned defendants’ failure to remove Thor from his placements with Collins and at Lakeview, rather than the failure to provide medical care. In fact, plaintiffs did not mention the Fourteenth Amendment right to individualized treatment until their motion for partial summary judgment. In Abuelyaman v. Ill. State Univ., 667 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2011), this court upheld the district court’s rejection of a new, fourth theory of discrimination presented for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. Id. at 806; see also Andree v. Ashland Cnty., 818 F.2d 1306, 1314 n.11 (7th Cir. 1987) (upholding the district court’s rejection of a theory raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment because their “complaint did not give fair warning of the theory”). Plaintiffs’ generalized assertion that defendants were obligated to provide Thor with adequate medical care may not have given de- fendants fair warning of this particular theory of relief. However, even assuming that plaintiffs’ passing mention of the right to adequate medical care provided defendants with sufficient notice of the claim concerning Thor’s right to individualized treatment, this claim does not prevail on the merits. In Nelson, the primary case relied upon by plaintiffs, we determined that juveniles placed in a correctional facility have a substantive due process right to individualized treatment. Id. at 360. We found that the state had 22 No. 12-1737 violated this right by substituting a behavioral classification system, which classified juveniles based on their behavior and personality types, for individual treatment and attention. Id. In that case, “the record show[ed] very little individual treatment programmed, much less implemented.” Id. In the present case, by contrast, the record reveals substantial evidence that Thor received individualized care from licensed physicians. Thor received numerous physical therapy sessions, occupational therapy sessions, speech improvement sessions, and professional evaluations while at Lakeview. Doctors at Lakeview were aware of Thor’s depressive thoughts and elected in their discretion not to provide counseling. Further, defendants were aware that the Lakeview staff took prompt action in response to the accidents Thor suffered as a result of falling out of bed. It cannot be said that defendants’ conduct, in failing to direct Lakeview to provide Thor with counseling, “violated ‘clearly established’ constitutional rights [here, failure to provide individualized treatment] of which a reasonable person would have known.” K.H, 914 F.2d at 855 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, to the extent the claim was properly pled, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for any alleged breach of Thor’s right to individualized treatment.