Opinion ID: 2816329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: W. into the custody of the WCDSS. The Department

Text: arranged for B.W. to stay with the foster parent who was caring for Whitworth’s other children. The WCDSS had not requested judicial authorization before taking custody of B.W. The family division of Nevada’s Second Judicial District Court held a protective custody hearing the next day, with Whitworth participating by phone from the hospital. The court determined that B.W. should remain in protective custody due to Whitworth’s ongoing drug use, her lack of stable housing and employment, her inability to provide for the child, and the fact that Whitworth’s other children were already in foster care. KIRKPATRICK V. COUNTY OF WASHOE 7 B. Kirkpatrick’s Involvement Jamie Kirkpatrick, B.W.’s biological father, was present at the hospital when Whitworth gave birth to B.W. While Whitworth was pregnant, she notified Kirkpatrick that he might be the father, though she also told him that there were other potential candidates. Kirkpatrick spoke with Whitworth a couple of times during her pregnancy, but he did not participate in providing any type of prenatal care. He acknowledged that he did not know whether he was B.W.’s biological father at the time of her birth. Kirkpatrick first learned of the Department’s involvement soon after it took custody of the child on July 17, 2008. He left his contact information with Whitworth so that the Department could schedule a paternity test to determine whether he was B.W.’s biological father. Kirkpatrick did not attend the protective custody hearing the next day, but the court ordered a paternity test at his request. The test revealed that Kirkpatrick is indeed B.W.’s biological father. On July 28, 2008, the WCDSS filed a petition alleging that B.W. was a child in need of protection. The court held hearings on August 25, 2008, and September 15, 2008. Neither Whitworth nor Kirkpatrick attended despite being served with notice. Kirkpatrick visited B.W. twice before January 2009, when he attended a six-month permanency hearing and expressed interest in reunifying with his daughter. He returned to Reno—where B.W. lived with her foster family—and began visiting his child more frequently. In October 2009, Kirkpatrick initiated this § 1983 action against Washoe County, Amy Reynolds, Ellen Wilcox, and Linda Kennedy. Following discovery, the parties filed cross- 8 KIRKPATRICK V. COUNTY OF WASHOE motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Kirkpatrick’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Washoe County and the three individual defendants. Kirkpatrick timely appealed.