CA2: Emergency removal of child from mentally ill parent was reasonable and QI applied

State officials took an infant child from the hospital because of their perceived belief that the mentally ill plaintiff was an unfit mother. The record supports that the removal of the child was objectively an emergency, and the actors also get qualified immunity. Schweitzer v. Crofton, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4691 (2d Cir. March 13, 2014)*:

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we conclude, for substantially the same reasons as are stated by the District Court in its March 25, 2013 order, that the record contains ample objective evidence that an emergency existed warranting J.S.’s removal, and no reasonable jury could find that the County Defendants violated Victoria’s procedural due process rights. For the same reasons, we see no merit in Plaintiffs’ claim that the County Defendants violated J.S.’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 605.

In addition, DSS caseworker Crofton is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ due process and unlawful seizure claims, because it was “objectively reasonable” for Crofton to believe “that there was an immediate threat to the safety of [J.S.] and a risk that [J.S.] would be left bereft of care and supervision.” Doe v. Whelan, 732 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[Q]ualified immunity shields from liability state officials tasked with choosing between interrupting parental custody or risking injury to the child ‘provided that there is an objectively reasonable basis for their decision, whichever way they make it.'” (quoting Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 596) (emphasis in original).