Legal Case Summary

May it please the court. Michael C. Walters, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Appellants, Alley Ritchie and Razziani, Benjamin Rehig, Susan Hacker, Rebecca LeBair, and Krista DePierre. The only thing that before this is a concert in five, is it complete? I'm sorry, but before I saw the relief, it comes four and five of the complaint. Four and five, those, they are the defendants, yeah. That's a sub-protective, it's just, yeah. And you wish you were zero time for a vote? Yes, I would like to request permission for three minutes of repuddle time. The Appellants here confronted one of the more difficult decisions that a public official does confront. And that is whether to remove an 18-month-old baby from her mother, who is violating a supervised contact restriction. No, we know that, but how many are saying this? If we take what's allegedly claims true, it's probably safe and gotta do that. How do you get past the fact that there are dispute issues of fact? They're basically alleging, I don't think that anyone here in the problem with your opponent would not disagree with what it would be in your opening presentation to us. But your clients have, and I got all from a difficult job. If they air on the side of leaving the kid there, and the kid dies, my gosh, the implications of that, and you've got to get him in the hands. If you move too quickly, you've got a situation like we've been used. It's a very, very difficult job. It's exactly the kind of tenuous situation, a difficult situation, that the reaction of qualified newly was designed for. But they're alleging, it's all bad faith, that the reasons that you were saying that you removed the kid or your clients, you were the kid, are not the reasons at all, that you removed the kid from out of bad faith and vindictiveness, and that relied upon who's saying evidence, drug test, which, now I have to ask about that, because you're saying there was evidence of drug abuse that went into the decision. They were alleging that that wasn't involved in the decision at all, and the drug test came up. Negative, they say it wasn't really negative, it's just that later on they found out that the threshold was below that, which would suggest positive, to me that's negative. But why isn't all that a question of fact? Well, I think it's important to categorize two things. The first thing I would start with is that with respect to the qualified, immunally decision, it is an objective analysis, as opposed to the subjective intent of the caseworkers, does not factor into the qualified immunity analysis. The second part would be- You're saying if the caseworkers pursued this case not out of the best interest of the child, but how does vindictiveness and bad faith base irrelevant to qualified immunity? Well, no, it would be looking at whether there was objective evidence before then, and whether it was reasonable- Why wouldn't they be looking at whether or not they relied upon objective evidence? Whether or not they used the objective evidence that was there in a way to pursue the bad faith claims, and the process mentioned to see a legend is that you can't hurt us where immune. I guess what I'm trying to get is what the intent or the basis of these particular caseworkers, that would be their subjective intent, that is not what goes into the qualified immunity analysis, Harlow explains that it's an objective test. Now, I think there's two different categories for the evidence, because what you have here is the- What is that objective evidence here? We hear the objective evidence would be- You start with the triggering event, was the violation of the supervised contact restriction. But I think you have to look into the mentality of the circumstance. So she dispute that- The second thing that is that she had advised appellants that she was going to have to leave and that appellants failed to make other arrangements. And is that the only objective reason that the caseworkers had for taking the child into custody? The background information would be, is that the supervised contact restriction was implemented after she had failed to test our tested positive- For marijuana, cocaine or both. For marijuana, the test for cocaine happened after the removal

. So for purposes of this issue, it's irrelevant, because that happened. And she's alleging that the marijuana was used when the tube was not in her custody, and the quote, sub-medication quote, is quote, to deal with the charm of the de- Yes, that is her allegation. Let me back up, see if I can understand something. When do you train caseworkers to believe that there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse of a child? This is one time when the mother and her child, the mother had traces of marijuana and her system when she was tested. But how does that convey a reasonable suspicion of child abuse? So the test, the positive test for marijuana did not trigger the removal. That is the background information, that is one of the bases for implementing the supervised treatment. So what's the process you go by? What aids you in determining that these certain things have been checked off, and therefore we believe we have to go forward and extract this child from the custody. What is the custody of the mother? Here it would be the violation, where you have the supervised contact restriction would not be implemented unless there were concerns with the mother. There is a push and pull between a process. The agency wants to allow for as much interaction and custody for the parent. So here, where you have the positive test, they did not seek to remove at that time. Instead, what they did was they sought to have custody and supervision while physical custody, legal custody remains with the mother. But they do not suggest that every time there is a positive marijuana test, you request revised visitation, any parent, any other parent in any state in this country would be in a standardized restriction. That is the test. No, it is one of the bases that go into the situation. Here, the casebook that came into the situation, there was a domestic violence incident. That dealt with the father. I am trying to find out what was the reasonable suspicion of the mother that caused them to say, this is one we have got to act. The violation of the supervised contact restriction. That is what triggered it. And then you have a situation where that is discretionary. You have a caseworker that needs to make a decision whether they are going to remove the child or they are going to allow for the violation of the supervised contact restriction to continue. Here, the removal occurred on Friday. There is a requirement for a court hearing within two court days. And so they need to make that decision. So here, that is the triggering event. That is what you have tipped the scales

. But I think it is also important to keep in mind that there are other factors that go into the situation. What I don't understand is how the scale is tipped so significantly. So the person violated a supervised restriction. Does that mean the child is in imminent danger of being abused by the mother? A piece or neglect. So in that situation it would be imminent harm of here, the background evidence. Was there any indication that the children or the child had been abused? There is no physical evidence of abuse. The question is, is there any evidence of abuse in you responded by saying no evidence of physical abuse? But I think the question was broader than that. There is no evidence. I would agree that there is no evidence of abuse. What you have was a concern of imminent risk because you had a first you had an allegation from a family member. That the mother was using drugs under the influence of drugs at the time. There are the drugs in the context of the very hotly, I was so much for how they always are disputed domestic relations context. Was that allegation was made by the brother-in-law who was the same brother-in-law who she had allowed the evening or the day of the incident that evening she had given the child to or allowed the brother-in-law to take care of the child? That is the undisputed time when she smoked marijuana. At that point when you had the domestic violence incident, the agency is going to come in and begin to conduct the investigation. They are going to interview various family members at that point. There was an allegation from that brother-in-law that she was under the influence while caring for the child. The agency was tested for a time after that and they were given a positive. She was tested after that. She tested positive twice and I think there were four negative posts and then after the removal there is the hair follicle test. Which was inconclusive or negative or positive? It was inconclusive. So what it is is that it was 500 per cent for the cocaine. It was 500 pica grams. And to be positive it needs to be more than 500 pica grams. That is the lies in that negative because you are saying this something. Yes, it is the presence of the cocaine. I think that would be negative but I think that negative test occurred after the removal. So it was not part of

... For a bit in the brief, when I read your brief I saw a positive test. I had a very certain mindset. I mean it didn't even say it was not positive test at all. It was inconclusive. And now you can say it was negative. I am sorry, the two positive tests were absolutely positive. The hair follicle. The hair follicle? The cocaine. That was negative. No, we are not saying what our basis is. There were two positive tests from marijuana. Council, neither Taylor V. Barkas, nor San Francisco Vichia, and had been decided at the time that district court evaluated this case. In your view would it be more prudent for us to remand it for reconsideration in light of that intervening Supreme Court precedent? Or in your view, is it more prudent just to decide the case? I think it would be more prudent to decide the case. I think remand is an option option. I did not think of it, but you are right. It wasn't there. And I think that particularly she in seems to at least... Have you got a chance to read those two cases? Yes. And how, in your view, how would they inform the presentation? Would it result in a different presentation of the district court? Yes. I think it does in the sense that she, him, frames the issue and that's looking at the reasonable objectiveness in the context of unlawful entry, but says that it was not clearly established at that time that under the information known by the officers that there was not an immediate need. So putting that issue here is it's not clearly established to these case workers that the information that was known to them did not establish reasonable suspicion. Did you write the brief here? I was involved in writing the brief here

. Yes, I'm sure you were involved. Did you write it? Actually, just a little while later, I reviewed made edits. Okay, and let's have a statement. I think you just said that the hair follicle test was negative for cocaine that I miss here that because it's really in a lettering so well. The hair follicle test, right, was... So it was negative for cocaine. What happened was it was reported to the state. No, I don't want the back of it. Okay, so it was negative for cocaine. It was negative for cocaine. Okay, and maybe it's an awful drafts, but on page five of your brief, on November 21, it probably submitted it to a hair follicle test, which was positive for cocaine and marijuana. And I have no proper things left here, or is that just a blatant statement of fact? Okay. I would have agreed that it's inartful. Oh, inartful. It's a bad thing. Was it positive or was it negative? It was negative. And I think you've been able to increase with this representation? Was it positive or was it negative? I guess it would be inconclusive. I just explained it. Can't explain it. Yes. This is like shorting your cat's mouth to live and dead at the same time. No, I think if I just explain the confusion as far as why one could say that it's positive in the sense that it was positive for 500 pg. Well, that's why I said it was positive or negative. And you said negative. And then we got into what you said with a brief and then it became inconclusive

. Before we started that in probably it specifically gave you the opportunity to say it was inconclusive. And you said no, it was negative. And you could argue that if it's inconclusive, technically that's negative finding, but that's not what you said. Well, I apologize. I don't mean to necessarily almost mean a misrepresentative. I guess what I'm trying to say is it came back as positive for 500 pg of cocaine. However, the testing company said that that was positive as it turns out, the threshold to be a positive test would be 501 pg or more. So now there's a plus or minus 20% error margin. So I guess the more appropriate answer would be it's inconclusive. But those are the facts surrounding that sort of to the extent that it's saying it's positive for cocaine. It's positive for 500 pg of cocaine. Well, now we're talking about... Go ahead, go ahead. So for these case workers, they need to make... They're confronted with this decision whether to remove or whether to allow for the continuing violation. Now, I just kind of want to circle back to perhaps the original questioning, which was assuming allegations are true. I think at worst the allegations here that they failed to make arrangements would arise that's negligence. Well, they're alleging that they tried to get... They brought to you attention the fact that the supervised situation was not working out. That the people involved here refused to find an alternative housing. So then she took it upon herself to find her own alternative housing

. And soon she would argue for the sake of herself and the kid. And then the alternative housing was housing that later on, I think you said five days later, it perturbed an approval. So it wasn't that she moved from one situation into an unimplemented situation, a totally deplorable situation or a crack house. When they ended up going, it was approved a few days later by the agency. But you're saying the fact that they left the housing routine with not getting the response due is going through removing the kid from the family. That's what you're arguing? Correct. And to the extent that... So in their brief, they argue that the case workers purposefully delayed. That's not found in the complaint anywhere that they purposefully delayed. Complaints isn't they failed to make arrangements. And assuming that is true, that amounts to negligence. And the negligence does not arise to a constitutional violation. In Zacardi, this Court had said at least in this context, it would be... It would have to be more than deliberate indifference. And that allegation does not arise to that. So I think the circle back to how that fits into analysis is that it would not be clearly established to these case workers, at least that even assuming that their negligence caused a penalty to have to leave or violate the restriction, it would still be entitled to qualified immunity. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ozzana Musli. Yes, sir. Morning, Your Honours

. May it please the Court kind of fosiline? It's only allowed on behalf of the appellate. Miss Michelle Mimaro. We just asked you at the outset, is the Supreme Court ever held the case workers investigating child abuse violated the substantive due process rights of apparent? Not in this context, sir. The extent due process rights have been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court has been in the context of termination of legal rights proceedings, and which they may apply the wrong standard of evidence or the resistive due process is the failure to have a hearing that no case law, unfortunately, from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue that's before this Court, which is the assumption of due process rights. So it doesn't that under Supreme Court precedent, a title, means that there's not clearly established law in this area, and therefore qualified immunity needs to be addressed now. Clearly established robust law has been in existence since the Accrafication, which isn't an extensively briefed in the State of the State of Circuit case. I'm sorry? The Sixth Circuit case. Not the Court, the Third Circuit case, and the Croft. There's also a... There's a book here. And what were the facts in Croft? Let's Croft feed Westmoreland County? Yes, sir. What were the facts in that case? The facts in that case were an allegation of sexual abuse, in which there was a hearsay allegation, and there was some investigation, and in that case, the case worker had given testimony that they really didn't believe one way or the other. They could make a determination whether or not abuse or neglect had actually occurred in that case. Well, that's a case where there's an allegation of actual abuse, as opposed to this case where there's actually no allegation at any time that my client had ever abused or neglected or taught. And there was a factual dispute about whether there was actual abuse in Croft. There was, yes, there was. And there was bad information given about that. Right? Yes, sir. Is it your challenge here that your client..

. There are some facts in dispute, certainly, but isn't the challenge that you have here that your client has admitted to at least one violation of the war? Well, the issue of, I think, the most important, the focus should be on the issue of... Was there a situation where there was substance and evidence of imminent abuse or neglect? So... Well, didn't your opposing counsel note look at best there's a negligence issue? They found or they determined that there was reasonable suspicion of abuse when, in fact, maybe they didn't have all of the facts and maybe they jumped through some conclusions. But I... You've got a case here that goes way beyond this case. The consequences of this case were we to rule in your favor on these facts means that the next time a case worker goes in or the next times plural. They're going to say, wait a minute, we better not do something, we better hold off, we better hold off, there's backup. And then something happens where the child ends up in a hospital, brain dead. Well, you honor, that's not the situation, there was no... No, no, I'm not telling my disgiv, I'm talking about the next time for somebody else, the next case. Well, the standard here is the same, we're not arguing for... We're not arguing for new law, the law that's been in place since Carl... Well, if there's no clearly established law and no robust consensus of any other of the circuits on this, Croft doesn't..

. doesn't help you here. Croft just says this, we have held that a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless there's some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is an imminent danger of abuse. They have made... they may have made the wrong calculation here. But that doesn't rise to the level of a substantive due process violation of the Constitution. Were you in here complaint you would let something like those negligence? Well, not... A legend, negligence. I think, of course, I understand what's going on in the family courts and the jurors. It would... it would... it would probably be six. Where are you complaint are you alleging something that is more than negligence, which would probably... Probably not get your pass qualified in unity. Well, it's not negligence because... Where have you complaint are you alleging something more than negligence? Well, throughout the complaint I'm alleging that the case workers knew that

... Of the... first of all, they knew that Miss Ramara's time was going to expire. So Miss Ramara had at this shelter that she was in, that she had communicated to the case workers. So you know that's a bad faith? Well, I'm alleging that. Well, I'm alleging that faith. I've just got a search in the article. According to the search I just did, the phrase bad faith does not... The bad faith does not come up anywhere in the appendix which would include your complaint. Or something that came to it, or delivered in a different sort. Sharks the con... Sharks the con... anything like that? Well, the court... the court... the allegations are amounted to a shocking in the conscious because of the bad faith that was exercised by the case workers in which the district court found. You have a situation where the case workers were trying to pressure my client into getting up her child, a placing her child in the forest security. When my client decided to get a restraining order against the husband, the case workers were pushing the wrong thing. They may have overreacted, but how do you write a decision to make sure in the next case that the case workers do not underreact? Well, there's an issue of eminence here. The case workers already had information in their possession of my client that already provided them the house that she was moving. So this is the house I'm providing as an alternative when the went before court. It was approved. They had all the information in their possession to approve the house and there was a proof. So they had all the information in their possession objectively that they knew that they needed to get an extension for the shelter if they wanted my client to continue to stay in the shelters. The issue of eminence is important because the case workers, knowing this for a long period of time, failed to make an application for any court order to either extend the shelter or to make an application for the shelter. So if you're going to be able to do that, you can do that for a removal through a court or see it again. Let's assume you're right on all of that. How is that a violation of substantive due process of the Constitution? Well, because there was no objective evidence that there was an abuse or neglect in this case. The investigation to make evidence. That doesn't give a judgment. You're doing facts. Well, that's an objective. That's the objective standard that replying with the qualified immunity in Harlem when we're arguing a violation of a 19-8-free violation. We have to go beyond this objective violation, but that shocks the conscience and that's where the bad thing is. What is your best case to support a substantive due process violation? Well, I think we have to go to, we start with croft. You're saying croft is the clearly established law because there's no Supreme Court law that's clearly established. That's correct. But one of the things the Circuit Court's appeals have wrestled with in the Supreme Court has criticized the Circuit Court's for doing is defining the constitutional right at too high a level of generality. Why isn't that precisely what the District Court did here and how would you define the right at issue? I think the right is clear. Is the fine and croft that I think the issue here is, what is it? Give us the definition of the right at issue. The right at issue is, as you're on, at the state that the state has no interest in investigating parents for abuse of neglect unless there's substance and evidence of imminent abuse or neglect. And there wasn't any years

. the allegations are amounted to a shocking in the conscious because of the bad faith that was exercised by the case workers in which the district court found. You have a situation where the case workers were trying to pressure my client into getting up her child, a placing her child in the forest security. When my client decided to get a restraining order against the husband, the case workers were pushing the wrong thing. They may have overreacted, but how do you write a decision to make sure in the next case that the case workers do not underreact? Well, there's an issue of eminence here. The case workers already had information in their possession of my client that already provided them the house that she was moving. So this is the house I'm providing as an alternative when the went before court. It was approved. They had all the information in their possession to approve the house and there was a proof. So they had all the information in their possession objectively that they knew that they needed to get an extension for the shelter if they wanted my client to continue to stay in the shelters. The issue of eminence is important because the case workers, knowing this for a long period of time, failed to make an application for any court order to either extend the shelter or to make an application for the shelter. So if you're going to be able to do that, you can do that for a removal through a court or see it again. Let's assume you're right on all of that. How is that a violation of substantive due process of the Constitution? Well, because there was no objective evidence that there was an abuse or neglect in this case. The investigation to make evidence. That doesn't give a judgment. You're doing facts. Well, that's an objective. That's the objective standard that replying with the qualified immunity in Harlem when we're arguing a violation of a 19-8-free violation. We have to go beyond this objective violation, but that shocks the conscience and that's where the bad thing is. What is your best case to support a substantive due process violation? Well, I think we have to go to, we start with croft. You're saying croft is the clearly established law because there's no Supreme Court law that's clearly established. That's correct. But one of the things the Circuit Court's appeals have wrestled with in the Supreme Court has criticized the Circuit Court's for doing is defining the constitutional right at too high a level of generality. Why isn't that precisely what the District Court did here and how would you define the right at issue? I think the right is clear. Is the fine and croft that I think the issue here is, what is it? Give us the definition of the right at issue. The right at issue is, as you're on, at the state that the state has no interest in investigating parents for abuse of neglect unless there's substance and evidence of imminent abuse or neglect. And there wasn't any years. And the state has no interest in investigating abuse or neglect? Even investigating, saying when child abuse investigation has started, they're going to go to the government. You're saying investigation? I should be asking. Yes, I'm thinking about it. Well, the only thing we can see there was a, the state had a right to investigate Ms. Romile, right? I mean, there was domestic violence in the house. If that doesn't trigger an investigation, what would? Well, they have a right to do an investigation. In this case, right? Yes, but Ms. Romile does not have to, she has a, if this is the one of issues, they say, well, this is quasi criminal law. And Ms. Romile doesn't have to let them into her homes. She doesn't have to answer their questions. And what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, why was the, why was the, why was the, why is the, what was the, why is the, what's the, that was the, what was the, what was the, what the, what's that thing, what's the, what's the, that wasn't the, it wasn't the, what was the, what was the, I think the, which's the, what's the, the, the, what's the, the, what's the, what was the, what's the, the, what's the, what's the, what's the, the, what's the, what was the, what was the, what was the, what was the, the, what was the, what it has been, the, the, what's the, what was the, what was the, what f, what, what's the, what was the, the, the, what were the, what was the, what's the, like, that's the exact, what was, how was the, the, the required of us as I see it, he needed to define the right ed issue. What constitutional right to Muslim male have in this case that was violated by the State Act? Well, see, the right to be free from interference with their family integrity, where the state would come in and remove her child, where there's no evidence of an abuse of neglect, where she said, with this no evidence of abuse and neglect, that's yes, you can push the fraud the bar behind the path of this case and get it turned down to what turns into what you have alleged. I'm still trying to wrestle with why the face that they complain, you get past the kinds of concerns that were questioning about why it isn't negligence they act and perhaps hastily, which gets you to judge your own concerns, what happens next time. And then the right does seem to mean is a substantive familiar right to not have your children's or your right to your children interfered with. That's the nature of the right investigation here at all. They had an obligation to investigate, given what they heard. I think you agree with that. There's a there's authority for them to do an investigation, my client, within my clients rights, and within the rights of parents, but they remove the child with that, what they have an opportunity to go to court and make an application for a court order if they wanted to remove the children's. Well, then if it's that they have to act it too quickly, and that's a very different picture than I think you're saying with a certain right to a child, because if you delay and waiting you're into the call of the Ambrose scenario, they go through the process they have to to get a court order. And it looks like New Jersey does not have any kind of a good move on. Immersion seat proceeding. Because when I was a state court judge, every different one said, the end of it, and I could cause it three in the morning with somebody would verbally resent to me what they believe was going on and they gave all over the front to remove the child from the house. Well, Jersey doesn't have that. And the Jersey does have that. So that one once that's the issue is that they and set of making that kind of application or emergent application, they made the decision to remove the child and then have my client be subject now to proceeding after going to court afterwards several days later to now go and get her child back. And it's an extreme deprivation of my client's civil rights

. And the state has no interest in investigating abuse or neglect? Even investigating, saying when child abuse investigation has started, they're going to go to the government. You're saying investigation? I should be asking. Yes, I'm thinking about it. Well, the only thing we can see there was a, the state had a right to investigate Ms. Romile, right? I mean, there was domestic violence in the house. If that doesn't trigger an investigation, what would? Well, they have a right to do an investigation. In this case, right? Yes, but Ms. Romile does not have to, she has a, if this is the one of issues, they say, well, this is quasi criminal law. And Ms. Romile doesn't have to let them into her homes. She doesn't have to answer their questions. And what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, why was the, why was the, why was the, why is the, what was the, why is the, what's the, that was the, what was the, what was the, what the, what's that thing, what's the, what's the, that wasn't the, it wasn't the, what was the, what was the, I think the, which's the, what's the, the, the, what's the, the, what's the, what was the, what's the, the, what's the, what's the, what's the, the, what's the, what was the, what was the, what was the, what was the, the, what was the, what it has been, the, the, what's the, what was the, what was the, what f, what, what's the, what was the, the, the, what were the, what was the, what's the, like, that's the exact, what was, how was the, the, the required of us as I see it, he needed to define the right ed issue. What constitutional right to Muslim male have in this case that was violated by the State Act? Well, see, the right to be free from interference with their family integrity, where the state would come in and remove her child, where there's no evidence of an abuse of neglect, where she said, with this no evidence of abuse and neglect, that's yes, you can push the fraud the bar behind the path of this case and get it turned down to what turns into what you have alleged. I'm still trying to wrestle with why the face that they complain, you get past the kinds of concerns that were questioning about why it isn't negligence they act and perhaps hastily, which gets you to judge your own concerns, what happens next time. And then the right does seem to mean is a substantive familiar right to not have your children's or your right to your children interfered with. That's the nature of the right investigation here at all. They had an obligation to investigate, given what they heard. I think you agree with that. There's a there's authority for them to do an investigation, my client, within my clients rights, and within the rights of parents, but they remove the child with that, what they have an opportunity to go to court and make an application for a court order if they wanted to remove the children's. Well, then if it's that they have to act it too quickly, and that's a very different picture than I think you're saying with a certain right to a child, because if you delay and waiting you're into the call of the Ambrose scenario, they go through the process they have to to get a court order. And it looks like New Jersey does not have any kind of a good move on. Immersion seat proceeding. Because when I was a state court judge, every different one said, the end of it, and I could cause it three in the morning with somebody would verbally resent to me what they believe was going on and they gave all over the front to remove the child from the house. Well, Jersey doesn't have that. And the Jersey does have that. So that one once that's the issue is that they and set of making that kind of application or emergent application, they made the decision to remove the child and then have my client be subject now to proceeding after going to court afterwards several days later to now go and get her child back. And it's an extreme deprivation of my client's civil rights. Her child has been removed. The child was not in good care once she was removed. That's an issue of knowledge in the complaint, but there's other facts that should be brought out and discovered that there was a great deprivation of my clients. Liberty, the vision in the caseworkers had no authority to come in and take the shot. There was no objective evidence of the abuse or neglect. And they had information in in their possession of the housing situation my client had gone to was so. So you can really rely on is for principally is croft because no Supreme Court case. So what does croft say that says that there is a clearly established right of substantive due process in circumstances like these? Well, the state that has no interest unless there's objective evidence of abuse or neglect in a fear of the integrity of the family and removing child. There's also a while in the case of the Miller case. There's been many cases that have approved the substantive language, although there was no order of supervision in croft. There was no order of supervision. It was prior to a pretty important distinction from this case, right? Well, in this case, here we have a valid order of supervision. How about what are supervision? But when my client was complying with the orders of the caseworkers knew that my client was not going to be able to stay at this facility. Given the caseworkers too much creditors, they're not. The bad fate component is to understand what's really going on, which is that they were pressing my client to give me upper child. This was essentially like an entrabzon. They were trying to have a pretext to remove the child and the only remedy. And the only remedy is that it's usually complaint. Well, I mean, now that it's 12, 6, or 6, none of that appears and is spelled out in the brief. Well, that's not the test. I've alleged the facts that support that. I'm alleging the fact that the factual basis in the complaint. And now I'm putting the facts together. We don't know the conspiracy case. You might be able to weave together facts that would say that these state actors conspired to try to deprive my client of her. It's really what you're trying to do. Well, it's a good, it's a good, yes or a good one

. Her child has been removed. The child was not in good care once she was removed. That's an issue of knowledge in the complaint, but there's other facts that should be brought out and discovered that there was a great deprivation of my clients. Liberty, the vision in the caseworkers had no authority to come in and take the shot. There was no objective evidence of the abuse or neglect. And they had information in in their possession of the housing situation my client had gone to was so. So you can really rely on is for principally is croft because no Supreme Court case. So what does croft say that says that there is a clearly established right of substantive due process in circumstances like these? Well, the state that has no interest unless there's objective evidence of abuse or neglect in a fear of the integrity of the family and removing child. There's also a while in the case of the Miller case. There's been many cases that have approved the substantive language, although there was no order of supervision in croft. There was no order of supervision. It was prior to a pretty important distinction from this case, right? Well, in this case, here we have a valid order of supervision. How about what are supervision? But when my client was complying with the orders of the caseworkers knew that my client was not going to be able to stay at this facility. Given the caseworkers too much creditors, they're not. The bad fate component is to understand what's really going on, which is that they were pressing my client to give me upper child. This was essentially like an entrabzon. They were trying to have a pretext to remove the child and the only remedy. And the only remedy is that it's usually complaint. Well, I mean, now that it's 12, 6, or 6, none of that appears and is spelled out in the brief. Well, that's not the test. I've alleged the facts that support that. I'm alleging the fact that the factual basis in the complaint. And now I'm putting the facts together. We don't know the conspiracy case. You might be able to weave together facts that would say that these state actors conspired to try to deprive my client of her. It's really what you're trying to do. Well, it's a good, it's a good, yes or a good one. You've got to file that complaint. I mean, that's not the one in front of us, right? Well, there's a conspiracy, there's a conspiracy allegation and there's also allegation that we want to reform the vision to make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. That parents are given proper notice that they're read their rights. That there's an issue of a supervised custody that the communication is done correctly and that the vision does not remove children under these circumstances. The state here in the New Jersey is asserting that they can't remove children without allegations of abuse or neglect under Title 30. And I think that's what the courts can understand. So this is not simply a situation where the state say, well, we made a mistake, maybe way acted too quickly. So, stating the Jersey's actively disregarding the substantive right. They're trying to intervene and interfere with cases involving parental rights in ways that they should not and are not allowed to constitution. That's why they're arguing that there should be no violation here because there's no damage because in the second circuit, there's a determination that, well, even if there is a removal and it's determined to be objectively unreasonable, a few days removal is not a harm that rise to the constitutional right. Well, it is absolutely and the only remedy for that is a 1983 action to hold the case of its own. The frame is we have to use the children conspiracy in terms of the police conspiring with the social service people to remove the child. Yes, sir. How could that be? That's the kind of conspiracy that the furious kind of conspiracy that you're talking about. Arguably, it's simply that it doesn't get past the objective of rude faith believes that the child may be, that initially is, but may be in submission danger and remove the child. And they entered into a focused mercy with the police to get the kid to a safer place. That does not get the kind of bad faith sharps the conscience allegation that you need to cite to date this which is helpful. That isn't a furious kind of conspiracy. That's a furious kind of conspiracy. that you're alleging that you're arguing and that you're arguing and that you're arguing with the brief. Well, you have to look at the objective evidence that was before, and how the state is presenting their case and their brief. So the minor matter, marijuana that it was smoke was not in a child carrying roll. It was months before this situation. When they arrive at the scene, my client is not on marijuana. She's already tested negative for months. But the person was saying that the kid is in danger. Well, but that's months before and that's an allegation that ultimately was proved to be incorrectness

. You've got to file that complaint. I mean, that's not the one in front of us, right? Well, there's a conspiracy, there's a conspiracy allegation and there's also allegation that we want to reform the vision to make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. That parents are given proper notice that they're read their rights. That there's an issue of a supervised custody that the communication is done correctly and that the vision does not remove children under these circumstances. The state here in the New Jersey is asserting that they can't remove children without allegations of abuse or neglect under Title 30. And I think that's what the courts can understand. So this is not simply a situation where the state say, well, we made a mistake, maybe way acted too quickly. So, stating the Jersey's actively disregarding the substantive right. They're trying to intervene and interfere with cases involving parental rights in ways that they should not and are not allowed to constitution. That's why they're arguing that there should be no violation here because there's no damage because in the second circuit, there's a determination that, well, even if there is a removal and it's determined to be objectively unreasonable, a few days removal is not a harm that rise to the constitutional right. Well, it is absolutely and the only remedy for that is a 1983 action to hold the case of its own. The frame is we have to use the children conspiracy in terms of the police conspiring with the social service people to remove the child. Yes, sir. How could that be? That's the kind of conspiracy that the furious kind of conspiracy that you're talking about. Arguably, it's simply that it doesn't get past the objective of rude faith believes that the child may be, that initially is, but may be in submission danger and remove the child. And they entered into a focused mercy with the police to get the kid to a safer place. That does not get the kind of bad faith sharps the conscience allegation that you need to cite to date this which is helpful. That isn't a furious kind of conspiracy. That's a furious kind of conspiracy. that you're alleging that you're arguing and that you're arguing and that you're arguing with the brief. Well, you have to look at the objective evidence that was before, and how the state is presenting their case and their brief. So the minor matter, marijuana that it was smoke was not in a child carrying roll. It was months before this situation. When they arrive at the scene, my client is not on marijuana. She's already tested negative for months. But the person was saying that the kid is in danger. Well, but that's months before and that's an allegation that ultimately was proved to be incorrectness. But there was no evidence at the time that they arrived at this house. The child was, there was no abuse. The child was well cared for. The supervision was proper. And my client did not appear to be on drugs. I'll be right back. I'm not repeating myself. Where is there a clearly established legal right? That was of something to do process that was violated here. I think that the other thing, if you're relying on croft or nowhere which talks about investigations, it has to shock the conscience, even in nowhere. Yes. It's hard for me to believe here. This is anything more than possibly negligence. They overreacted. These caseworkers are acting with intent. I was the attorney on this case. I was the attorney on this case. I'm the attorney on this case. They're acting with intent. Usually to try to protect a child from perceived abuse. They may have misprocieved abuse. They may have been wrong. But you're giving the caseworkers far too much credit. They're directives here. The action requires me to do that. Yes. But not at this stage. It's only a test

. But there was no evidence at the time that they arrived at this house. The child was, there was no abuse. The child was well cared for. The supervision was proper. And my client did not appear to be on drugs. I'll be right back. I'm not repeating myself. Where is there a clearly established legal right? That was of something to do process that was violated here. I think that the other thing, if you're relying on croft or nowhere which talks about investigations, it has to shock the conscience, even in nowhere. Yes. It's hard for me to believe here. This is anything more than possibly negligence. They overreacted. These caseworkers are acting with intent. I was the attorney on this case. I was the attorney on this case. I'm the attorney on this case. They're acting with intent. Usually to try to protect a child from perceived abuse. They may have misprocieved abuse. They may have been wrong. But you're giving the caseworkers far too much credit. They're directives here. The action requires me to do that. Yes. But not at this stage. It's only a test. Well, it shocks the conscience. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it

. Well, it shocks the conscience. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We were at it. We were at it. We were at it. But, yeah. But, yeah. It's probably about the same. And, yes. If the same. Or, seriously. Yes. which is a limited detection, which is not used, and it was actually 80% of that was within the margin of error. So we're talking about that there was no cocaine in my clients. It's not even a situation that appears that these state is arguing well, they were on the verge or on the 500-pig of grant, that's also a misrepresentation of the facts. And that shows the, in my opinion, the bad faith in behalf of the state. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. What are you since and time, I think, since and time? You sure you want to use it? Yes, I just wanted to point out. It's always happens. It's always happens. It's one of the point out with respect to Croft, and the facts that were at issue there was an anonymous complaint based on sixfold hearsay. So, so Croft, if anything, establishes that the anonymous source, sixfold hearsay, does not arise to a reasonable suspicion. In this case, okay. So, have you conceived that Ms

. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We were at it. We were at it. We were at it. But, yeah. But, yeah. It's probably about the same. And, yes. If the same. Or, seriously. Yes. which is a limited detection, which is not used, and it was actually 80% of that was within the margin of error. So we're talking about that there was no cocaine in my clients. It's not even a situation that appears that these state is arguing well, they were on the verge or on the 500-pig of grant, that's also a misrepresentation of the facts. And that shows the, in my opinion, the bad faith in behalf of the state. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. What are you since and time, I think, since and time? You sure you want to use it? Yes, I just wanted to point out. It's always happens. It's always happens. It's one of the point out with respect to Croft, and the facts that were at issue there was an anonymous complaint based on sixfold hearsay. So, so Croft, if anything, establishes that the anonymous source, sixfold hearsay, does not arise to a reasonable suspicion. In this case, okay. So, have you conceived that Ms. Momerro advised your clients ahead of time at the move and told them of where she was going? And, you know, so why did they have a violation of the order? Well, you will accept the allegations in the complaint that she had pulled them ahead of time that her time expired at the end of October. So, assuming that they were on notice and assuming that they had... When did she move? October 28th. That's my understanding that she moved in October 28th, which was the date of that they removed the child. Again, that in and of itself, it does not amount to anything more, you have most of the amounts to negligence here. I mean, people didn't do their job. If they know that she's going to be forced out by the end of October, they need to work with her to give her all-term placement. Don't they? And can we really blame her for even three days before the month expired? That does fail. That is your effect. What anyone would do, right? What would you have it find? But what we have here, though, is the decision to remove is certainly not punishment to Ms. Momerro for moving out of the safe house. The decision to remove is the paramount concern is the safety of the child. So, that's what the... So, that's what you have to do. So, do the jury use something else to the jury? It rises in that initial effect. You should have not passed the jimbo's invitation that you might use your rebuttal. It's still only amounts to negligence. If they did not do their job, perhaps they were negligent with respect to Ms. Momerro, but it does not impass the amount of... You could have been experiencing the imprisons for a long time. But you would agree, would you not, that if this complaint said something like these four or five state actors were friends with Momerro as a strange husband, and he prevailed upon them to make Momerro's life miserable and take her child away from you, and he would concede, would you not, that that's a viable constitutional

. Momerro advised your clients ahead of time at the move and told them of where she was going? And, you know, so why did they have a violation of the order? Well, you will accept the allegations in the complaint that she had pulled them ahead of time that her time expired at the end of October. So, assuming that they were on notice and assuming that they had... When did she move? October 28th. That's my understanding that she moved in October 28th, which was the date of that they removed the child. Again, that in and of itself, it does not amount to anything more, you have most of the amounts to negligence here. I mean, people didn't do their job. If they know that she's going to be forced out by the end of October, they need to work with her to give her all-term placement. Don't they? And can we really blame her for even three days before the month expired? That does fail. That is your effect. What anyone would do, right? What would you have it find? But what we have here, though, is the decision to remove is certainly not punishment to Ms. Momerro for moving out of the safe house. The decision to remove is the paramount concern is the safety of the child. So, that's what the... So, that's what you have to do. So, do the jury use something else to the jury? It rises in that initial effect. You should have not passed the jimbo's invitation that you might use your rebuttal. It's still only amounts to negligence. If they did not do their job, perhaps they were negligent with respect to Ms. Momerro, but it does not impass the amount of... You could have been experiencing the imprisons for a long time. But you would agree, would you not, that if this complaint said something like these four or five state actors were friends with Momerro as a strange husband, and he prevailed upon them to make Momerro's life miserable and take her child away from you, and he would concede, would you not, that that's a viable constitutional... I think at that point, claim. I think at that point, they've pled more than delivered in difference, which was a standard as a call. So, in Texas, steal somebody's child, basically. Right. That's not what we... Those aren't the allegations. Here are hints of that here. I think here, looking at leading up to the removal... I mean, there are some allegations post-removal regarding the retaliation that was dismissed. There's also many of the allegations were dismissed with respect to what occurred when the verified complaint was filed, because there are absolutely a moon from that. And those facts, they're absolutely a moon from it. It certainly can't be used to overcome the qualified immunity. But here, leading up to the removal, you have the notification, and you have failure to make new arrangements, new living arrangements. And those allegations do not arise to more than delivered in difference. Thank you. Thank you very much. And the funny matter is a guy which is a wooden...

May it please the court. Michael C. Walters, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Appellants, Alley Ritchie and Razziani, Benjamin Rehig, Susan Hacker, Rebecca LeBair, and Krista DePierre. The only thing that before this is a concert in five, is it complete? I'm sorry, but before I saw the relief, it comes four and five of the complaint. Four and five, those, they are the defendants, yeah. That's a sub-protective, it's just, yeah. And you wish you were zero time for a vote? Yes, I would like to request permission for three minutes of repuddle time. The Appellants here confronted one of the more difficult decisions that a public official does confront. And that is whether to remove an 18-month-old baby from her mother, who is violating a supervised contact restriction. No, we know that, but how many are saying this? If we take what's allegedly claims true, it's probably safe and gotta do that. How do you get past the fact that there are dispute issues of fact? They're basically alleging, I don't think that anyone here in the problem with your opponent would not disagree with what it would be in your opening presentation to us. But your clients have, and I got all from a difficult job. If they air on the side of leaving the kid there, and the kid dies, my gosh, the implications of that, and you've got to get him in the hands. If you move too quickly, you've got a situation like we've been used. It's a very, very difficult job. It's exactly the kind of tenuous situation, a difficult situation, that the reaction of qualified newly was designed for. But they're alleging, it's all bad faith, that the reasons that you were saying that you removed the kid or your clients, you were the kid, are not the reasons at all, that you removed the kid from out of bad faith and vindictiveness, and that relied upon who's saying evidence, drug test, which, now I have to ask about that, because you're saying there was evidence of drug abuse that went into the decision. They were alleging that that wasn't involved in the decision at all, and the drug test came up. Negative, they say it wasn't really negative, it's just that later on they found out that the threshold was below that, which would suggest positive, to me that's negative. But why isn't all that a question of fact? Well, I think it's important to categorize two things. The first thing I would start with is that with respect to the qualified, immunally decision, it is an objective analysis, as opposed to the subjective intent of the caseworkers, does not factor into the qualified immunity analysis. The second part would be- You're saying if the caseworkers pursued this case not out of the best interest of the child, but how does vindictiveness and bad faith base irrelevant to qualified immunity? Well, no, it would be looking at whether there was objective evidence before then, and whether it was reasonable- Why wouldn't they be looking at whether or not they relied upon objective evidence? Whether or not they used the objective evidence that was there in a way to pursue the bad faith claims, and the process mentioned to see a legend is that you can't hurt us where immune. I guess what I'm trying to get is what the intent or the basis of these particular caseworkers, that would be their subjective intent, that is not what goes into the qualified immunity analysis, Harlow explains that it's an objective test. Now, I think there's two different categories for the evidence, because what you have here is the- What is that objective evidence here? We hear the objective evidence would be- You start with the triggering event, was the violation of the supervised contact restriction. But I think you have to look into the mentality of the circumstance. So she dispute that- The second thing that is that she had advised appellants that she was going to have to leave and that appellants failed to make other arrangements. And is that the only objective reason that the caseworkers had for taking the child into custody? The background information would be, is that the supervised contact restriction was implemented after she had failed to test our tested positive- For marijuana, cocaine or both. For marijuana, the test for cocaine happened after the removal. So for purposes of this issue, it's irrelevant, because that happened. And she's alleging that the marijuana was used when the tube was not in her custody, and the quote, sub-medication quote, is quote, to deal with the charm of the de- Yes, that is her allegation. Let me back up, see if I can understand something. When do you train caseworkers to believe that there is a reasonable suspicion of abuse of a child? This is one time when the mother and her child, the mother had traces of marijuana and her system when she was tested. But how does that convey a reasonable suspicion of child abuse? So the test, the positive test for marijuana did not trigger the removal. That is the background information, that is one of the bases for implementing the supervised treatment. So what's the process you go by? What aids you in determining that these certain things have been checked off, and therefore we believe we have to go forward and extract this child from the custody. What is the custody of the mother? Here it would be the violation, where you have the supervised contact restriction would not be implemented unless there were concerns with the mother. There is a push and pull between a process. The agency wants to allow for as much interaction and custody for the parent. So here, where you have the positive test, they did not seek to remove at that time. Instead, what they did was they sought to have custody and supervision while physical custody, legal custody remains with the mother. But they do not suggest that every time there is a positive marijuana test, you request revised visitation, any parent, any other parent in any state in this country would be in a standardized restriction. That is the test. No, it is one of the bases that go into the situation. Here, the casebook that came into the situation, there was a domestic violence incident. That dealt with the father. I am trying to find out what was the reasonable suspicion of the mother that caused them to say, this is one we have got to act. The violation of the supervised contact restriction. That is what triggered it. And then you have a situation where that is discretionary. You have a caseworker that needs to make a decision whether they are going to remove the child or they are going to allow for the violation of the supervised contact restriction to continue. Here, the removal occurred on Friday. There is a requirement for a court hearing within two court days. And so they need to make that decision. So here, that is the triggering event. That is what you have tipped the scales. But I think it is also important to keep in mind that there are other factors that go into the situation. What I don't understand is how the scale is tipped so significantly. So the person violated a supervised restriction. Does that mean the child is in imminent danger of being abused by the mother? A piece or neglect. So in that situation it would be imminent harm of here, the background evidence. Was there any indication that the children or the child had been abused? There is no physical evidence of abuse. The question is, is there any evidence of abuse in you responded by saying no evidence of physical abuse? But I think the question was broader than that. There is no evidence. I would agree that there is no evidence of abuse. What you have was a concern of imminent risk because you had a first you had an allegation from a family member. That the mother was using drugs under the influence of drugs at the time. There are the drugs in the context of the very hotly, I was so much for how they always are disputed domestic relations context. Was that allegation was made by the brother-in-law who was the same brother-in-law who she had allowed the evening or the day of the incident that evening she had given the child to or allowed the brother-in-law to take care of the child? That is the undisputed time when she smoked marijuana. At that point when you had the domestic violence incident, the agency is going to come in and begin to conduct the investigation. They are going to interview various family members at that point. There was an allegation from that brother-in-law that she was under the influence while caring for the child. The agency was tested for a time after that and they were given a positive. She was tested after that. She tested positive twice and I think there were four negative posts and then after the removal there is the hair follicle test. Which was inconclusive or negative or positive? It was inconclusive. So what it is is that it was 500 per cent for the cocaine. It was 500 pica grams. And to be positive it needs to be more than 500 pica grams. That is the lies in that negative because you are saying this something. Yes, it is the presence of the cocaine. I think that would be negative but I think that negative test occurred after the removal. So it was not part of... For a bit in the brief, when I read your brief I saw a positive test. I had a very certain mindset. I mean it didn't even say it was not positive test at all. It was inconclusive. And now you can say it was negative. I am sorry, the two positive tests were absolutely positive. The hair follicle. The hair follicle? The cocaine. That was negative. No, we are not saying what our basis is. There were two positive tests from marijuana. Council, neither Taylor V. Barkas, nor San Francisco Vichia, and had been decided at the time that district court evaluated this case. In your view would it be more prudent for us to remand it for reconsideration in light of that intervening Supreme Court precedent? Or in your view, is it more prudent just to decide the case? I think it would be more prudent to decide the case. I think remand is an option option. I did not think of it, but you are right. It wasn't there. And I think that particularly she in seems to at least... Have you got a chance to read those two cases? Yes. And how, in your view, how would they inform the presentation? Would it result in a different presentation of the district court? Yes. I think it does in the sense that she, him, frames the issue and that's looking at the reasonable objectiveness in the context of unlawful entry, but says that it was not clearly established at that time that under the information known by the officers that there was not an immediate need. So putting that issue here is it's not clearly established to these case workers that the information that was known to them did not establish reasonable suspicion. Did you write the brief here? I was involved in writing the brief here. Yes, I'm sure you were involved. Did you write it? Actually, just a little while later, I reviewed made edits. Okay, and let's have a statement. I think you just said that the hair follicle test was negative for cocaine that I miss here that because it's really in a lettering so well. The hair follicle test, right, was... So it was negative for cocaine. What happened was it was reported to the state. No, I don't want the back of it. Okay, so it was negative for cocaine. It was negative for cocaine. Okay, and maybe it's an awful drafts, but on page five of your brief, on November 21, it probably submitted it to a hair follicle test, which was positive for cocaine and marijuana. And I have no proper things left here, or is that just a blatant statement of fact? Okay. I would have agreed that it's inartful. Oh, inartful. It's a bad thing. Was it positive or was it negative? It was negative. And I think you've been able to increase with this representation? Was it positive or was it negative? I guess it would be inconclusive. I just explained it. Can't explain it. Yes. This is like shorting your cat's mouth to live and dead at the same time. No, I think if I just explain the confusion as far as why one could say that it's positive in the sense that it was positive for 500 pg. Well, that's why I said it was positive or negative. And you said negative. And then we got into what you said with a brief and then it became inconclusive. Before we started that in probably it specifically gave you the opportunity to say it was inconclusive. And you said no, it was negative. And you could argue that if it's inconclusive, technically that's negative finding, but that's not what you said. Well, I apologize. I don't mean to necessarily almost mean a misrepresentative. I guess what I'm trying to say is it came back as positive for 500 pg of cocaine. However, the testing company said that that was positive as it turns out, the threshold to be a positive test would be 501 pg or more. So now there's a plus or minus 20% error margin. So I guess the more appropriate answer would be it's inconclusive. But those are the facts surrounding that sort of to the extent that it's saying it's positive for cocaine. It's positive for 500 pg of cocaine. Well, now we're talking about... Go ahead, go ahead. So for these case workers, they need to make... They're confronted with this decision whether to remove or whether to allow for the continuing violation. Now, I just kind of want to circle back to perhaps the original questioning, which was assuming allegations are true. I think at worst the allegations here that they failed to make arrangements would arise that's negligence. Well, they're alleging that they tried to get... They brought to you attention the fact that the supervised situation was not working out. That the people involved here refused to find an alternative housing. So then she took it upon herself to find her own alternative housing. And soon she would argue for the sake of herself and the kid. And then the alternative housing was housing that later on, I think you said five days later, it perturbed an approval. So it wasn't that she moved from one situation into an unimplemented situation, a totally deplorable situation or a crack house. When they ended up going, it was approved a few days later by the agency. But you're saying the fact that they left the housing routine with not getting the response due is going through removing the kid from the family. That's what you're arguing? Correct. And to the extent that... So in their brief, they argue that the case workers purposefully delayed. That's not found in the complaint anywhere that they purposefully delayed. Complaints isn't they failed to make arrangements. And assuming that is true, that amounts to negligence. And the negligence does not arise to a constitutional violation. In Zacardi, this Court had said at least in this context, it would be... It would have to be more than deliberate indifference. And that allegation does not arise to that. So I think the circle back to how that fits into analysis is that it would not be clearly established to these case workers, at least that even assuming that their negligence caused a penalty to have to leave or violate the restriction, it would still be entitled to qualified immunity. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ozzana Musli. Yes, sir. Morning, Your Honours. May it please the Court kind of fosiline? It's only allowed on behalf of the appellate. Miss Michelle Mimaro. We just asked you at the outset, is the Supreme Court ever held the case workers investigating child abuse violated the substantive due process rights of apparent? Not in this context, sir. The extent due process rights have been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court has been in the context of termination of legal rights proceedings, and which they may apply the wrong standard of evidence or the resistive due process is the failure to have a hearing that no case law, unfortunately, from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue that's before this Court, which is the assumption of due process rights. So it doesn't that under Supreme Court precedent, a title, means that there's not clearly established law in this area, and therefore qualified immunity needs to be addressed now. Clearly established robust law has been in existence since the Accrafication, which isn't an extensively briefed in the State of the State of Circuit case. I'm sorry? The Sixth Circuit case. Not the Court, the Third Circuit case, and the Croft. There's also a... There's a book here. And what were the facts in Croft? Let's Croft feed Westmoreland County? Yes, sir. What were the facts in that case? The facts in that case were an allegation of sexual abuse, in which there was a hearsay allegation, and there was some investigation, and in that case, the case worker had given testimony that they really didn't believe one way or the other. They could make a determination whether or not abuse or neglect had actually occurred in that case. Well, that's a case where there's an allegation of actual abuse, as opposed to this case where there's actually no allegation at any time that my client had ever abused or neglected or taught. And there was a factual dispute about whether there was actual abuse in Croft. There was, yes, there was. And there was bad information given about that. Right? Yes, sir. Is it your challenge here that your client... There are some facts in dispute, certainly, but isn't the challenge that you have here that your client has admitted to at least one violation of the war? Well, the issue of, I think, the most important, the focus should be on the issue of... Was there a situation where there was substance and evidence of imminent abuse or neglect? So... Well, didn't your opposing counsel note look at best there's a negligence issue? They found or they determined that there was reasonable suspicion of abuse when, in fact, maybe they didn't have all of the facts and maybe they jumped through some conclusions. But I... You've got a case here that goes way beyond this case. The consequences of this case were we to rule in your favor on these facts means that the next time a case worker goes in or the next times plural. They're going to say, wait a minute, we better not do something, we better hold off, we better hold off, there's backup. And then something happens where the child ends up in a hospital, brain dead. Well, you honor, that's not the situation, there was no... No, no, I'm not telling my disgiv, I'm talking about the next time for somebody else, the next case. Well, the standard here is the same, we're not arguing for... We're not arguing for new law, the law that's been in place since Carl... Well, if there's no clearly established law and no robust consensus of any other of the circuits on this, Croft doesn't... doesn't help you here. Croft just says this, we have held that a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless there's some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is an imminent danger of abuse. They have made... they may have made the wrong calculation here. But that doesn't rise to the level of a substantive due process violation of the Constitution. Were you in here complaint you would let something like those negligence? Well, not... A legend, negligence. I think, of course, I understand what's going on in the family courts and the jurors. It would... it would... it would probably be six. Where are you complaint are you alleging something that is more than negligence, which would probably... Probably not get your pass qualified in unity. Well, it's not negligence because... Where have you complaint are you alleging something more than negligence? Well, throughout the complaint I'm alleging that the case workers knew that... Of the... first of all, they knew that Miss Ramara's time was going to expire. So Miss Ramara had at this shelter that she was in, that she had communicated to the case workers. So you know that's a bad faith? Well, I'm alleging that. Well, I'm alleging that faith. I've just got a search in the article. According to the search I just did, the phrase bad faith does not... The bad faith does not come up anywhere in the appendix which would include your complaint. Or something that came to it, or delivered in a different sort. Sharks the con... Sharks the con... anything like that? Well, the court... the court... the allegations are amounted to a shocking in the conscious because of the bad faith that was exercised by the case workers in which the district court found. You have a situation where the case workers were trying to pressure my client into getting up her child, a placing her child in the forest security. When my client decided to get a restraining order against the husband, the case workers were pushing the wrong thing. They may have overreacted, but how do you write a decision to make sure in the next case that the case workers do not underreact? Well, there's an issue of eminence here. The case workers already had information in their possession of my client that already provided them the house that she was moving. So this is the house I'm providing as an alternative when the went before court. It was approved. They had all the information in their possession to approve the house and there was a proof. So they had all the information in their possession objectively that they knew that they needed to get an extension for the shelter if they wanted my client to continue to stay in the shelters. The issue of eminence is important because the case workers, knowing this for a long period of time, failed to make an application for any court order to either extend the shelter or to make an application for the shelter. So if you're going to be able to do that, you can do that for a removal through a court or see it again. Let's assume you're right on all of that. How is that a violation of substantive due process of the Constitution? Well, because there was no objective evidence that there was an abuse or neglect in this case. The investigation to make evidence. That doesn't give a judgment. You're doing facts. Well, that's an objective. That's the objective standard that replying with the qualified immunity in Harlem when we're arguing a violation of a 19-8-free violation. We have to go beyond this objective violation, but that shocks the conscience and that's where the bad thing is. What is your best case to support a substantive due process violation? Well, I think we have to go to, we start with croft. You're saying croft is the clearly established law because there's no Supreme Court law that's clearly established. That's correct. But one of the things the Circuit Court's appeals have wrestled with in the Supreme Court has criticized the Circuit Court's for doing is defining the constitutional right at too high a level of generality. Why isn't that precisely what the District Court did here and how would you define the right at issue? I think the right is clear. Is the fine and croft that I think the issue here is, what is it? Give us the definition of the right at issue. The right at issue is, as you're on, at the state that the state has no interest in investigating parents for abuse of neglect unless there's substance and evidence of imminent abuse or neglect. And there wasn't any years. And the state has no interest in investigating abuse or neglect? Even investigating, saying when child abuse investigation has started, they're going to go to the government. You're saying investigation? I should be asking. Yes, I'm thinking about it. Well, the only thing we can see there was a, the state had a right to investigate Ms. Romile, right? I mean, there was domestic violence in the house. If that doesn't trigger an investigation, what would? Well, they have a right to do an investigation. In this case, right? Yes, but Ms. Romile does not have to, she has a, if this is the one of issues, they say, well, this is quasi criminal law. And Ms. Romile doesn't have to let them into her homes. She doesn't have to answer their questions. And what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, why was the, why was the, why was the, why is the, what was the, why is the, what's the, that was the, what was the, what was the, what the, what's that thing, what's the, what's the, that wasn't the, it wasn't the, what was the, what was the, I think the, which's the, what's the, the, the, what's the, the, what's the, what was the, what's the, the, what's the, what's the, what's the, the, what's the, what was the, what was the, what was the, what was the, the, what was the, what it has been, the, the, what's the, what was the, what was the, what f, what, what's the, what was the, the, the, what were the, what was the, what's the, like, that's the exact, what was, how was the, the, the required of us as I see it, he needed to define the right ed issue. What constitutional right to Muslim male have in this case that was violated by the State Act? Well, see, the right to be free from interference with their family integrity, where the state would come in and remove her child, where there's no evidence of an abuse of neglect, where she said, with this no evidence of abuse and neglect, that's yes, you can push the fraud the bar behind the path of this case and get it turned down to what turns into what you have alleged. I'm still trying to wrestle with why the face that they complain, you get past the kinds of concerns that were questioning about why it isn't negligence they act and perhaps hastily, which gets you to judge your own concerns, what happens next time. And then the right does seem to mean is a substantive familiar right to not have your children's or your right to your children interfered with. That's the nature of the right investigation here at all. They had an obligation to investigate, given what they heard. I think you agree with that. There's a there's authority for them to do an investigation, my client, within my clients rights, and within the rights of parents, but they remove the child with that, what they have an opportunity to go to court and make an application for a court order if they wanted to remove the children's. Well, then if it's that they have to act it too quickly, and that's a very different picture than I think you're saying with a certain right to a child, because if you delay and waiting you're into the call of the Ambrose scenario, they go through the process they have to to get a court order. And it looks like New Jersey does not have any kind of a good move on. Immersion seat proceeding. Because when I was a state court judge, every different one said, the end of it, and I could cause it three in the morning with somebody would verbally resent to me what they believe was going on and they gave all over the front to remove the child from the house. Well, Jersey doesn't have that. And the Jersey does have that. So that one once that's the issue is that they and set of making that kind of application or emergent application, they made the decision to remove the child and then have my client be subject now to proceeding after going to court afterwards several days later to now go and get her child back. And it's an extreme deprivation of my client's civil rights. Her child has been removed. The child was not in good care once she was removed. That's an issue of knowledge in the complaint, but there's other facts that should be brought out and discovered that there was a great deprivation of my clients. Liberty, the vision in the caseworkers had no authority to come in and take the shot. There was no objective evidence of the abuse or neglect. And they had information in in their possession of the housing situation my client had gone to was so. So you can really rely on is for principally is croft because no Supreme Court case. So what does croft say that says that there is a clearly established right of substantive due process in circumstances like these? Well, the state that has no interest unless there's objective evidence of abuse or neglect in a fear of the integrity of the family and removing child. There's also a while in the case of the Miller case. There's been many cases that have approved the substantive language, although there was no order of supervision in croft. There was no order of supervision. It was prior to a pretty important distinction from this case, right? Well, in this case, here we have a valid order of supervision. How about what are supervision? But when my client was complying with the orders of the caseworkers knew that my client was not going to be able to stay at this facility. Given the caseworkers too much creditors, they're not. The bad fate component is to understand what's really going on, which is that they were pressing my client to give me upper child. This was essentially like an entrabzon. They were trying to have a pretext to remove the child and the only remedy. And the only remedy is that it's usually complaint. Well, I mean, now that it's 12, 6, or 6, none of that appears and is spelled out in the brief. Well, that's not the test. I've alleged the facts that support that. I'm alleging the fact that the factual basis in the complaint. And now I'm putting the facts together. We don't know the conspiracy case. You might be able to weave together facts that would say that these state actors conspired to try to deprive my client of her. It's really what you're trying to do. Well, it's a good, it's a good, yes or a good one. You've got to file that complaint. I mean, that's not the one in front of us, right? Well, there's a conspiracy, there's a conspiracy allegation and there's also allegation that we want to reform the vision to make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. That parents are given proper notice that they're read their rights. That there's an issue of a supervised custody that the communication is done correctly and that the vision does not remove children under these circumstances. The state here in the New Jersey is asserting that they can't remove children without allegations of abuse or neglect under Title 30. And I think that's what the courts can understand. So this is not simply a situation where the state say, well, we made a mistake, maybe way acted too quickly. So, stating the Jersey's actively disregarding the substantive right. They're trying to intervene and interfere with cases involving parental rights in ways that they should not and are not allowed to constitution. That's why they're arguing that there should be no violation here because there's no damage because in the second circuit, there's a determination that, well, even if there is a removal and it's determined to be objectively unreasonable, a few days removal is not a harm that rise to the constitutional right. Well, it is absolutely and the only remedy for that is a 1983 action to hold the case of its own. The frame is we have to use the children conspiracy in terms of the police conspiring with the social service people to remove the child. Yes, sir. How could that be? That's the kind of conspiracy that the furious kind of conspiracy that you're talking about. Arguably, it's simply that it doesn't get past the objective of rude faith believes that the child may be, that initially is, but may be in submission danger and remove the child. And they entered into a focused mercy with the police to get the kid to a safer place. That does not get the kind of bad faith sharps the conscience allegation that you need to cite to date this which is helpful. That isn't a furious kind of conspiracy. That's a furious kind of conspiracy. that you're alleging that you're arguing and that you're arguing and that you're arguing with the brief. Well, you have to look at the objective evidence that was before, and how the state is presenting their case and their brief. So the minor matter, marijuana that it was smoke was not in a child carrying roll. It was months before this situation. When they arrive at the scene, my client is not on marijuana. She's already tested negative for months. But the person was saying that the kid is in danger. Well, but that's months before and that's an allegation that ultimately was proved to be incorrectness. But there was no evidence at the time that they arrived at this house. The child was, there was no abuse. The child was well cared for. The supervision was proper. And my client did not appear to be on drugs. I'll be right back. I'm not repeating myself. Where is there a clearly established legal right? That was of something to do process that was violated here. I think that the other thing, if you're relying on croft or nowhere which talks about investigations, it has to shock the conscience, even in nowhere. Yes. It's hard for me to believe here. This is anything more than possibly negligence. They overreacted. These caseworkers are acting with intent. I was the attorney on this case. I was the attorney on this case. I'm the attorney on this case. They're acting with intent. Usually to try to protect a child from perceived abuse. They may have misprocieved abuse. They may have been wrong. But you're giving the caseworkers far too much credit. They're directives here. The action requires me to do that. Yes. But not at this stage. It's only a test. Well, it shocks the conscience. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We're at it. We were at it. We were at it. We were at it. But, yeah. But, yeah. It's probably about the same. And, yes. If the same. Or, seriously. Yes. which is a limited detection, which is not used, and it was actually 80% of that was within the margin of error. So we're talking about that there was no cocaine in my clients. It's not even a situation that appears that these state is arguing well, they were on the verge or on the 500-pig of grant, that's also a misrepresentation of the facts. And that shows the, in my opinion, the bad faith in behalf of the state. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. What are you since and time, I think, since and time? You sure you want to use it? Yes, I just wanted to point out. It's always happens. It's always happens. It's one of the point out with respect to Croft, and the facts that were at issue there was an anonymous complaint based on sixfold hearsay. So, so Croft, if anything, establishes that the anonymous source, sixfold hearsay, does not arise to a reasonable suspicion. In this case, okay. So, have you conceived that Ms. Momerro advised your clients ahead of time at the move and told them of where she was going? And, you know, so why did they have a violation of the order? Well, you will accept the allegations in the complaint that she had pulled them ahead of time that her time expired at the end of October. So, assuming that they were on notice and assuming that they had... When did she move? October 28th. That's my understanding that she moved in October 28th, which was the date of that they removed the child. Again, that in and of itself, it does not amount to anything more, you have most of the amounts to negligence here. I mean, people didn't do their job. If they know that she's going to be forced out by the end of October, they need to work with her to give her all-term placement. Don't they? And can we really blame her for even three days before the month expired? That does fail. That is your effect. What anyone would do, right? What would you have it find? But what we have here, though, is the decision to remove is certainly not punishment to Ms. Momerro for moving out of the safe house. The decision to remove is the paramount concern is the safety of the child. So, that's what the... So, that's what you have to do. So, do the jury use something else to the jury? It rises in that initial effect. You should have not passed the jimbo's invitation that you might use your rebuttal. It's still only amounts to negligence. If they did not do their job, perhaps they were negligent with respect to Ms. Momerro, but it does not impass the amount of... You could have been experiencing the imprisons for a long time. But you would agree, would you not, that if this complaint said something like these four or five state actors were friends with Momerro as a strange husband, and he prevailed upon them to make Momerro's life miserable and take her child away from you, and he would concede, would you not, that that's a viable constitutional... I think at that point, claim. I think at that point, they've pled more than delivered in difference, which was a standard as a call. So, in Texas, steal somebody's child, basically. Right. That's not what we... Those aren't the allegations. Here are hints of that here. I think here, looking at leading up to the removal... I mean, there are some allegations post-removal regarding the retaliation that was dismissed. There's also many of the allegations were dismissed with respect to what occurred when the verified complaint was filed, because there are absolutely a moon from that. And those facts, they're absolutely a moon from it. It certainly can't be used to overcome the qualified immunity. But here, leading up to the removal, you have the notification, and you have failure to make new arrangements, new living arrangements. And those allegations do not arise to more than delivered in difference. Thank you. Thank you very much. And the funny matter is a guy which is a wooden..