Opinion ID: 167696
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: existence of a constitutional violation

Text: 64 We begin with the threshold inquiry of whether the Gomeses' allegations, if true, state a constitutional violation. Under the due process principles we have outlined, we must determine whether Ms Annes had a reasonable suspicion of emergency circumstances which pose an immediate threat to the safety of a child, Hollingsworth, 110 F.3d at 739, when she removed Rebekah from the home. Because the defendant state officials raised the qualified immunity defense in their motion for summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Gomeses. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (noting that, under the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry, the question is whether a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions); Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir.2005) (stating that [t]he threshold inquiry is whether the alleged facts (or, on summary judgment, the evidenced facts) taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff show a constitutional violation). 65 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to them, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants had reasonable suspicion to remove Rebekah before holding a hearing. First, although it was Rebekah's pediatrician, Dr. Knorr, who reported her injury to the Division of Child and Family Services, his testimony may be plausibly read to conclude that there was not an immediate threat to Rebekah's safety. In particular, Dr. Knorr stated that the shape of Rebekah's fracture was consistent with a fall on a flat object, Aplts' App. at 929, and thus supported the Gomeses' statements that she had fallen onto the floor from a bed. Moreover, in his initial telephone call to the Division of Child and Family Services on April 26, 2000, and again in his second call to the agency on April 28, 2000, Dr. Knorr reported that he was comfortable allowing Ms. Gomes to take Rebekah home. Id. at 930-31. Dr. Knorr added that I never was highly suspicious that Rebekah had been the victim of child abuse, and I never told anyone at DCFS, or anyone else, that I was highly suspicious that the child had been abused. Id. at 931. That testimony is supported by the statement of the intake worker who answered Dr. Knorr's initial call and who told him that the circumstances did not sound like an emergency. 66 The Gomeses' own conduct also offers some support for their allegations. Ms. Gomes took Rebekah to the doctor on three successive days, and she now contends that these visits demonstrate that she was quite concerned about Rebekah's welfare. That behavior is at least arguably inconsistent with that of a neglectful or abusive parent. Moreover, during the appointment with Dr. Knorr on April 28, 2000, it was Ms. Gomes herself who informed him that she had not yet been contacted by the Division of Child and Family Services, thus leading him to call the agency a second time. 67 Thus, viewed in the light most favorable to the Gomeses, the record supports their contention that the defendant officials removed Rebekah without reasonable and articulable suspicion that the child ha[d] been abused or [was] in imminent peril of abuse. Hatch, 274 F.3d at 20. We therefore proceed to the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry. 68