## Facts

- Jane Doe (a minor) and her brother, Kameron Cox, entered state attention after reports of severe abuse, including suspected sexual abuse involving family members.
- South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS) took the children into emergency protective custody; a family court found Jane was physically neglected and granted SCDSS temporary custody.
- The children experienced multiple placements, including foster settings in which they were at times placed together.
- A treating therapist reported to SCDSS and adoption specialist Debby Thompson that Kameron posed a danger to Jane and recommended protective measures, including psychiatric hospitalization for Kameron.
- Records also reflected sexualized behavior by the children and concern about possible abuse dynamics.
- Gregory and Michelle Johnson applied to adopt; they indicated they would accept a child with a mild/treatable sexual abuse history but not a child who was sexually aggressive toward other children.
- SCDSS placed Jane and Kameron with the Johnsons as prospective adoptive parents; after concerns about Kameron’s behavior, Kameron was removed, and Jane’s adoption by the Johnsons was finalized.
- About a year later, Kameron admitted that he had sexually abused Jane before removal from the birth home and had abused other children in foster care; Jane reported the abuse continued until moving in with the Johnsons.
- The Johnsons alleged Jane’s behavior deteriorated and that they received inadequate assistance to supervise and treat her.

## Issues

1. Whether SCDSS and Thompson violated Jane’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to bodily integrity under a state-created danger theory by placement decisions allegedly exposing her to sexual abuse.
2. Whether Thompson was entitled to qualified immunity because any asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.
3. Whether SCDSS was immune from liability under South Carolina discretionary immunity principles applicable to child welfare and placement decisions.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for SCDSS and Thompson.
- The court held that, on the record viewed in plaintiffs’ favor, plaintiffs did not show a violation of a clearly established substantive due process right governing these placement decisions.
- Thompson was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 damages claim.
- Claims against SCDSS failed, including based on state-law discretionary immunity applicable to the agency’s child welfare decision-making.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from private violence absent a recognized exception.
- Substantive due process liability for danger created or increased by state action requires an affirmative act coupled with conscience-shocking conduct, commonly framed as deliberate indifference to a known, substantial risk of serious harm.
- Qualified immunity bars damages unless the plaintiff shows (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the right was clearly established such that a reasonable official would have known the conduct was unlawful.
- Governmental entities and officials may be shielded by state-law discretionary immunity for discretionary child welfare and placement decisions, subject to statutory limits and exceptions.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld summary judgment because the placement-related conduct alleged did not violate a clearly established substantive due process right under controlling circuit law, entitling the individual social worker to qualified immunity, and the state agency to discretionary immunity protections for child welfare decision-making.


Doe v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 597 F.3d 163 (4th Cir. 2010)