## Facts

- Crystelle and Joshua Hernandez took their 15-month-old son, Jaymz, to a hospital reporting he fell from a crib onto a tile floor.
- X-rays showed a buckle fracture of the right forearm; a nurse reported concerns that the parents’ account was inconsistent and noted older bruising near Jaymz’s eye.
- The nurse called the Illinois child-abuse hotline; DCFS personnel consulted with hospital staff and initiated an investigation.
- A DCFS investigator visited the home, observed Jaymz appearing well, and reported nothing suspicious to her supervisors.
- Despite the investigator’s impressions, DCFS supervisors directed that Jaymz be taken into temporary protective custody for 48 hours, and the investigator removed him.
- The next day, multiple medical specialists found no signs of abuse, and the State’s Attorney declined to pursue the matter for insufficient evidence.
- DCFS nonetheless continued to keep Jaymz from his parents until the 48-hour period expired; Jaymz was then returned.
- DCFS also implemented a “safety plan” that restricted parental access; the parents alleged the plan was accepted under threat and was not truly voluntary.
- DCFS later closed the investigation with no finding of abuse or neglect.

## Issues

1. Whether caseworkers were entitled to qualified immunity for seizing the child without a court order based on suspected abuse.
2. Whether qualified immunity applied to continuing to withhold the child after medical evaluations and prosecutorial decisions undermined any basis for custody.
3. Whether imposing an allegedly coerced safety plan restricting parental access violated clearly established substantive or procedural due process rights.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds as to claims premised on the initial removal.
- The court vacated summary judgment on Fourth Amendment and substantive due process claims premised on the continued withholding of the child after the basis for custody arguably dissipated.
- The court vacated summary judgment on substantive and procedural due process claims premised on the safety plan and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Child-welfare workers are protected by qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in the specific context.
- A warrantless child seizure may be protected by qualified immunity when officials could reasonably believe probable cause existed based on injury evidence, reported inconsistencies, and indicia of possible abuse.
- The constitutionality of a seizure can change over time; continuing to hold a child after the justification for removal dissipates can present a distinct Fourth Amendment and familial-integrity claim.
- Parents have a liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children; state-imposed restrictions on family association may require adequate justification and procedural protections.
- A “safety plan” that substantially interferes with parental custody or contact, particularly if accepted under coercion, can support substantive due process and procedural due process claims depending on the facts.

## Conclusion

The court held that the caseworkers were immune from liability for the initial emergency removal because a reasonable official could believe probable cause supported it, but it allowed claims to proceed concerning the continued custody after exculpatory information emerged and concerning an allegedly coerced safety plan that restricted the parents’ relationship with their child.


Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463 (7th Cir. 2011)