ABSTRACT
FACTS: Six social workers from the Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS) were sued by four children. The children claimed that the defendant social workers improperly placed them into the home of Jean and Jim Huffman. They also claimed that this was done without a prior investigation of the guardians, that no supervision was performed during the placement despite DFS’s numerous complaints, and that they were not removed from the placement despite knowledge of the violent criminal history of Jim Huffman. Among the specific allegations were that Jim Huffman had been convicted of numerous felonies, including a history of sexual assault; that he had served prison time for rape and murder; and that, over a period of 4 years, despite repeated notifications to the DFS workers, the molestations continued. It was not until almost 5 years after their initial placement that the children were removed. The social workers argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that the law was not clearly established that the caseworkers had a duty to protect the children. ISSUE: May a state department of human services be liable for failing to discover that a foster care placement is abusive? DECISION: Yes. When a state department of human services affirmatively places children in an abusive foster care setting, the state may be liable for damages under the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause. REASONING: The social workers asserted that the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim did not clearly establish a protected interest from private violence. In an earlier ruling, the United State Supreme Court addressed the situation revolving around the potential liability of a state when an abusive situation existed that the state had no part in creating and in which the state did not have custody of the child. In that situation the court concluded that a state’s failure to protect an individual against violence does not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment violation. In this case the DFS took an active role in removing the children from their home and recommending that they live with the Huffmans. The court found that foster care is designed to provide the basic human needs of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety to minor children. If the children could prove their allegations, they could demonstrate that the DFS conclusively “transgressed the substantive limits” of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court expressed its shock at the children’s allegations. Such allegations, it held, were not mere trivial claims of negligence that might trigger innumerable lawsuits. The court therefore allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their case against the social workers and held that qualified immunity did not apply.
