Opinion ID: 168114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ashley

Text: 29 In Ashley's case, the question of reasonable suspicion is much closer. The only basis for removing Ashley from the home was the targeted child or scapegoat theory. The best description of this theory comes from the affidavit of Dr. Karen Campbell, a doctor consulted by CYFD concerning Jasmine and Ashley. She explains: 30 My reported concern of risk towards Ashley, the older child, was based on my training and experience. Studies show that siblings of abused children have a higher abuse rate than in the general population. Because studies show that abuse or serious concerns of abuse exist in nearly half of the families in which another sibling had been previously abused, I believe it was necessary and essential to remove Ashley from the home. 31 App. 245. Ms. Locklear, Detective Arrey, and Sergeant Pitts each echoed that description of the theory, adding that they based their decision on their own training and experience. According to Ms. Locklear, the targeted child scenario is very common. Id. at 310. 32 Despite its apparent prevalence in discussions of child abuse among these state officials, the theory seldom has been invoked before the courts. Only one federal court has considered whether a targeted child or scapegoat theory justifies removal of children from a home without notice and a hearing. See Taylor v. Evans, 72 F.Supp.2d 298, 309 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (finding it not unreasonable for a social worker to remove all three children from a home where one child had sustained serious injuries, there was no consistent explanation to explain those injuries, and the social worker had received an unbiased, specific report citing fear of child abuse). Also, at least one state court has incorporated the theory into its substantive standard for determining whether children are abused. See In re Marino S., 100 N.Y.2d 361, 763 N.Y.S.2d 796, 795 N.E.2d 21, 28 (2003) (authorizing lower courts to make derivative findings of severe abuse under state law, predicated upon the common understanding that a parent whose judgment and impulse control are so defective as to harm one child in his or her care is likely to harm others as well). 33 The targeted child theory has some intuitive appeal, but the parties have provided us with precious little information about it. According to the studies described by Dr. Campbell, abuse or serious concerns of abuse exist in nearly half of the families in which another sibling has been previously abused. App. 245. Three factors, however, might undermine the relevance of those studies. First, we have no information about the immediacy of the threat identified by the theory. If it typically took several weeks for abuse to transfer from one child to another, for example, then the theory could not serve as the basis for reasonable suspicion of an imminent peril of abuse as to the second child. Gomes, 451 F.3d at 1129 (internal quotation marks omitted). In that case, due process would demand the usual predeprivation notice and a hearing. Second, we have limited information about the relevance of the theory. From Dr. Campbell's description, studies have found a correlation between a known history of abuse for one child and abuse or serious concerns of abuse in a sibling. App. 245. But correlation and causation are two different things. That parents who abuse one child are likely to also be abusing other children in the household does not necessarily mean that parents who have abused only one of their children will start to abuse the others when the first is removed. Third, we have no information about exceptions to the theory. It may be, for example, that the age of the children involved, birth order, prior medical history, gender, temperament, or other factors strongly influence the likelihood that abuse will transfer between siblings. In this case, for example, Ashley was the only child in the home for more than four years, before Jasmine was born. Yet Ms. Barrera-Garcia saw no signs of abuse during her discussions with Ashley, and CYFD uncovered no evidence that she ever had been targeted. App. 277. Depending on the details of the theory, these facts might be especially important (or utterly irrelevant). 34 We need not make any general pronouncements about the reliability of the targeted child theory, however, because in this case the Plaintiffs effectively have conceded the point. The Defendants submitted a half-dozen uncontested affidavits and deposition excerpts explaining that, based on their training and experience, state officials routinely remove all of the children from a home when they harbor reasonable suspicions of abuse of any one child. Further, the Defendants reached their targeted child decision only after careful consideration of the facts of this case. During their staff meeting, CYFD personnel noted that Jasmine was the most needy, the most demanding child in the home, and therefore agreed upon specific, articulable reasons that Ashley might become the next target. App. 310. The Plaintiffs, in response, have presented no evidence calling the targeted child theory into question, and have offered no reason to doubt the Defendants' application of that theory to Jasmine and Ashley. Based on the record before us, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the whether the Defendants had reasonable and articulable suspicion that Ashley was in imminent peril of abuse.