Opinion ID: 771798
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dependency Proceedings.

Text: 38 Separate from Mabe's complaint about the warrantless removal of MD from her home, Mabe argues generally that the County's social workers did not conduct the investigation properly, were allowed to submit false evidence during the juvenile court proceedings, and interfered with her custody rights. The district court dismissed some of these counts for failure to state a claim and properly granted summary judgment on the remaining counts because social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of dependency proceedings, including their testimony offered in such proceedings. See Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 812 F.2d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 1987). Sum- mary judgment was proper on Mabe's false evidence allegations because she failed to offer any evidence of false or perjured testimony. 39 Moreover, social workers enjoy absolute, quasi-judicial immunity when making post-adjudication custody decisions pursuant to a valid court order. Babcock v. Tyler, 884 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding social workers entitled to absolute immunity from a claim that they erred in placing minor dependents in foster home where the minors were later sexually abused). 40 Even if the action against Perry entitles Mabe to damages under a theory of warrantless removal without exigent circumstances, summary judgment is affirmed for the subsequent social workers and court-appointed caretakers 3 who participated in MD's dependency proceedings because their liability cannot be imputed solely by virtue of their relation- ship to Perry. See Palmer, 9 F.3d at 1438. 41 We affirm the district court's dismissal and grant of summary judgment on the portion of Mabe's case that involves the dependency proceedings claims and the post-removal custody decisions of the juvenile court. 42