Court Opinion

ID: 9499117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:38:22.738455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:17.819490
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would agree that summary judgment is proper on James’ constitutional claims against Hardy and Valade, and on James’ pendent state law claims against Friend and Hardy.2 However, the record contains sufficient evidence that DFS social services worker Alysha Friend acted with deliberate indifference by failing to remove Dominic from the Dilleys’ ■ care, thus exposing her to liability under § 1983. Specifically, there is evidence that Friend actually drew the inference that the Dilleys posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Dominic. When dealing with constitutional claims involving deliberate indifference, plaintiffs rarely possess direct evidence that the state official actually “drew the inference” and, in these instances, this fact may be inferred through circumstantial evidence. Spruce v. Sargent, 149 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir.1998). Such evidence exists here.
During a Family Support Team Meeting on August 14, 2002, members of the FST expressed their growing concern over Dominic’s inexplicable injuries, safety, and general welfare. Dominic’s guardian ad litem, a deputy juvenile officer, and Dominic’s parents and their attorney, ultimately agreed that Dominic should be removed from the Dilley’s care. Members of the FST further instructed Friend that the decision to remove Dominic was mandatory. After showing an initial reluctance to remove Dominic, Friend acquiesced and agreed that Dominic should be moved. Following the meeting, Friend, in conjunction with her supervisor, decided that Dominic would remain with the Dilleys. The record contains evidence that Friend’s actions may have been motived, in some measure, by spite or vindictiveness. This fact, coupled with Friend’s prior express agreement to remove Dominic based on safety considerations, provides sufficient circumstantial evidence that Friend actually drew the inference Dominic was in an environment that posed a substantial risk of serious harm.
Assuming there was a constitutional violation, there is little doubt Friend’s conduct violated a clearly established right. Since 1993, we have recognized that children taken into state custody maintain a clearly established right to be kept in reasonable safety while in foster care. Burton v. Richmond, 370 F.3d 723, 730 (8th Cir.2004) (citing Norfleet v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir.1993)).
In cases involving deliberate indifference, the aggrieved party’s constitutional claim often fails because the plaintiff fails to present evidence from which a jury could infer the official acted with the requisite mental state. James’ constitutional claim against Friend presents no such problem, and genuine issues of material fact remain on the issue of Friend’s delib*733erate indifference. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. The majority properly notes, and I re-emphasize, that James’ claims against the Dilleys were settled before entry of summary judgment. The scope of the settlement agreement does not extend beyond the Dilleys.