Jerger v. Blaize

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-state child welfare officials’ motion for summary judgment on ground that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs-parents’ section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs’ daughter’s 4th Amendment rights and plaintiffs’ due process rights to make medical decisions on behalf of daughter by coercing them to take daughter to hospital for purposes of testing daughter’s blood for existence of anti-seizure drug that had been prescribed by doctors to treat daughter’s epilepsy. While Dist. Ct. found that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to identify case law that would have put defendants’ case worker on notice that her conduct in procuring consent to draw blood by threats was problematic, Ct. of Appeals found that case law existed to support plaintiffs’ contention that defendants could not use threats to obtain instant consent. Moreover, Ct. found that: (1) plaintiffs could have reasonably believed that case worker used coercion to obtain blood draw, where: (1) case worker told plaintiffs that daughter would become Child in Need of Services (CHINS) that would result in losing their right to make medical decisions on behalf of their daughter if they failed to take daughter to get blood draw; (2) plaintiffs did not understand CHINS proceedings or their rights; and (3) plaintiffs had no real choice but to take daughter to obtain blood draw and had no time to seek legal counsel. Moreover, Ct. noted that: (1) any failure to obtain valid consent meant that search or seizure pursuant to child welfare investigation would be reasonable only if defendant could show existence of either court order, probable cause or exigent circumstances; (2) defendant argued only that it had obtained valid consent; and (3) without showing of valid consent, plaintiffs had created jury question as to whether defendants violated their and their daughter’s rights.