April 20, 2018

Colorado Court of Appeals: Juvenile Court Magistrate Has Jurisdiction to Consider Motion to Withdraw Previous Guilty Plea

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of J.D. on Thursday, December 14, 2017.

Juvenile Delinquency—Plea Agreement—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Withdrawal of Plea—Magistrate—Jurisdiction.

J.D. appeared before a magistrate in a delinquency case. He was represented by counsel and signed an “advisement of rights in a juvenile delinquency proceeding” and pleaded guilty to acts that if committed by an adult would have constituted second degree criminal trespass. The magistrate accepted the plea and entered a one-year deferred adjudication. After the prosecution sought restitution and J.D. failed to file an objection within the deadline, the magistrate ordered restitution. Four months later and through new counsel, J.D. moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim. P. 32(d) based on ineffective assistance of plea counsel for improperly advising J.D. as to the likely restitution amount and the bankruptcy consequences of restitution, as well as failing to formally withdraw as J.D.’s counsel. The magistrate granted the motion and vacated the plea. On review, the district court judge held that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear J.D.’s motion and vacated the order.

On appeal, J.D. argued that the magistrate had authority to enter the order withdrawing his guilty plea and the district court erred in vacating that order. Because the issue of which judicial officers have authority in particular cases is substantive, not procedural, the Children’s Code prevails over any conflicting provisions in the Colorado Rules for Magistrates. The Children’s Code authorizes the juvenile court to appoint magistrates “to hear any case or matter under the court’s jurisdiction, except where a jury trial has been requested . . . .” The magistrate had jurisdiction to consider J.D.’s Crim. P. 32(d) motion.

The district court’s order was reversed and the magistrate’s order vacating the plea was reinstated. The case was remanded to the district court to address the merits of the People’s petition to review the magistrate’s order under C.R.S. § 19-1-108(5.5).

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Mother Had No Administrative Right to be Present at Child’s Placement Meeting

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of C.J. on Thursday, December 14, 2017.

JuvenileDependency and NeglectKinship PlacementDue Process.

The Department of Human Services (Department) filed a petition in dependency and neglect after the child was born addicted to methadone and opiates. Several months later, the Department placed the child in foster care due to mother’s continued substance abuse. About six months later, a paternal aunt contacted the Department and expressed interest in caring for the child. Following a home study to evaluate the aunt as a placement option for the child and an administrative review, the Department decided not to recommend placement with the aunt. The trial court, citing the child’s emotional needs, her bond with her foster parents, and her lack of attachment with the aunt, denied mother’s request to permanently place the child with the aunt. Thereafter, the court terminated mother’s parental rights.

On appeal, mother argued that her due process rights were violated because she was denied the opportunity to be heard on the issue of the child’s placement. She asserted that if she or her attorney had been present at the Department’s administrative review, she could have provided evidence or alternatives to refute the Department’s reasons for disapproving the aunt’s home study. Mother’s due process rights were protected by her opportunity to challenge the Department’s recommendation at both the motions and termination hearings. The record establishes that the trial court afforded mother a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in contravention of the Department’s placement recommendation. Mother was not entitled to participate in the Department’s administrative review and thus had no right to assistance of counsel during that administrative review.

Mother also asserted that she did not timely receive a copy of the home study and thus had no notice of the basis for the Department’s decision and could not properly challenge it. Mother knew the home study had been completed and the burden was on her to request a copy of it. Mother failed to avail herself of the procedures that existed by which she could have timely obtained the information she sought and challenged the Department’s recommendation.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Sovereign Immunity Does Not Bar Attorney Fee Award Against Government Entity

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in C.K. v. People in Interest of L.K. on Monday, December 18, 2017.

Discovery Sanctions—Attorney Fees—Sovereign Immunity.

In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court considered the narrow question of whether sovereign immunity bars an award of attorney fees against a public entity. The court concluded that sovereign immunity does not bar an award of attorney fees against a public entity because sovereign immunity does not presumptively protect the state of Colorado and Colorado’s Governmental Immunity Act does not provide immunity for an award of attorney fees against a public entity. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Juvenile Court Did Not Err in Failing to Make Written Finding of Dependency & Neglect

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of J.W. on Monday, December 11, 2017.

Children’s Code—Dependency or Neglect Proceedings—Jurisdiction.

The supreme court reviewed whether a juvenile court validly terminated a mother’s parent-child legal relationship without first entering a formal written order adjudicating her children as dependent or neglected. The juvenile court accepted mother’s admission that her children were neglected or dependent, but did not enter a formal order adjudicating the children’s status as to mother before it terminated mother’s parental rights approximately a year later. The court of appeals held that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to terminate mother’s parental rights because it had not entered an order adjudicating the children’s status as dependent or neglected.

The supreme court held that the juvenile court’s acceptance of mother’s admission established the children’s status as dependent or neglected, thus fulfilling the purpose of the adjudicative process and permitting state intervention into the familial relationship. The juvenile court’s failure to enter an adjudicative order confirming the children’s status did not divest the juvenile court of jurisdiction to terminate mother’s parental rights in this case, nor did it impair the fundamental fairness of the proceedings or deprive the mother of due process under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider mother’s other contentions on appeal.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Gives: Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center Compassionately Transforms the Lives of Abused and Neglected Children

Colorado Gives: CBA CLE Legal Connection is focusing on several legal charities in honor of Colorado Gives Day, December 5, 2017. These charities, and many, many others, greatly appreciate your donations of time and money.

childrens-law-center-logo-gFor over thirty-five years, the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center has provided compassionate legal advocacy and clinical services to children who have been abused or neglected. Through a team of legal professionals and social workers, the Children’s Law Center serves at-risk children and considers the whole child with each recommendation regarding the child’s best interest.

The Children’s Law Center also works for public policy change, working to make children a political priority at the local, state, and national levels. The Children’s Law Center has made great progress in this area. They created the first Colorado Child Protection Ombudsman Program, promoted a 2013 Senate Bill to reduce the number of child abuse fatalities in the state, promoted a 2013 House Bill to streamline the process to report child abuse, and much more.

The Children’s Law Center has several programs devoted to legal advocacy for children. The Education Program promotes the adoption of policies and procedures in the schools and legislature to recognize the impact of trauma on children’s learning behaviors, reduce school transfers for children in the child protection system, and redirect children in the school disciplinary system from the school-to-prison pipeline. The Children’s Law Center also has a caregiver advocacy program, a domestic violence program, a trauma-informed yoga program, and a therapeutic garden.

The Children’s Law Center relies on donations to continue providing compassionate legal advocacy to abused, neglected, and at-risk children. Their annual operating expenses total over one million dollars per year. Donate on Colorado Gives Day by clicking here or any day by filling out the form on this webpage.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Fault-Based Grounds for Dependency and Neglect Must Be Proved as to Each Parent

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of M.M. and P.M. III on Thursday, November 16, 2017.

Dependency and Neglect—No Fault—Summary Judgment.

The Fremont County Department of Human Services (Department) filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning M.M. and P.M. III. Mother admitted that the children were dependent and neglected. Although father did not dispute that the children were in an injurious environment and were without proper parental care through no fault of a parent, he denied the allegations in the petition against him and requested an adjudicatory trial before a jury. The Department moved to adjudicate the children dependent and neglected by summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment and adjudicated the children dependent and neglected.

On appeal, father asserted that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. He contended that the facts concerning him were disputed, the remaining undisputed facts concerned only mother, and the children could not be adjudicated dependent and neglected simply because the Department established that mother was a danger to the children. There are four statutory grounds for adjudication, two of which require a showing of fault as to each parent. The undisputed facts established that, with respect to the “no-fault” grounds, C.R.S. § 19-3-102(1)(c) and (e), the children were dependent and neglected and the trial court properly granted summary judgment on those statutory grounds. With respect to C.R.S. § 19-3-102(1)(a) and (b), however, the material facts concerning father’s conduct were disputed and thus the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those grounds.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case was remanded for the trial court to amend the order of adjudication to reflect that the children were adjudicated dependent and neglected only under C.R.S. § 19-3-102(1)(c) and (e).

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Social Worker Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity after Violating Defendant’s Constitutional Rights

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued is opinion in T.D. v. Patton on Monday, August 28, 2017.

Ms. Patton is a social worker for the Denver Department of Human Services (DDHS) and was responsible for removing T.D., a minor, from his mother’s home, and recommending T.D. remain in the temporary custody of his father, Duerson. T.D. was removed from Duerson’s home after DDHS made a determination that T.D. had suffered physical and sexual abuse at the hands of his father. This case concerns Ms. Patton’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Ms. Patton violated T.D.’s clearly established substantive due process constitutional right to be free of a state official’s creation of danger from a private actor under a danger-creation theory. The court found that Ms. Patton violated T.D.’s substantive due process right by knowingly placing T.D. in a position of danger by recommending that T.D. be placed in Duerson’s custody despite admitted concerns about T.D.’s safety, her knowledge of Duerson’s criminal history and conviction for attempted sexual assault against a minor, and failure to investigate whether Duerson was abusing T.D. despite her awareness of evidence of potential abuse. The court found that Ms. Patton acted recklessly and in conscious disregard of a known and substantial risk that T.D. would suffer serious, immediate, and proximate harm in his father’s home.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person acting under color of state law who subjects any citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution shall be liable to the injured party. However, a defendant in an action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of law. Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden to show that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

The court first evaluated whether the facts satisfied T.D.’s claim of danger-creation. The court considered whether Ms. Patton created or increased the danger posed to T.D. The court concluded that Ms. Patton’s actions amounted to a failure to investigate evidence that Duerson was abusing T.D., satisfying the first element. The second element is whether T.D. was a member of a limited and specifically definable group. The court held that because the state removed T.D. from his natural parent and took him into state custody, T.D. fell within a limited and specifically definable group of children.

Third, Ms. Patton’s conduct put T.D. at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm. This is evidenced by Ms. Patton withholding relevant information and recommending T.D. be placed with his father, by failing to investigate evidence of potential abuse, and by continuing to recommend T.D. remain with his father.

The court discussed the fourth and fifth elements simultaneously. Ms. Patton acted recklessly and in conscious disregard of a risk (element 4) that was obvious or known (element 5). Ms. Patton knew of Duerson’s criminal history, but deleted those concerns for fear of being fired. She further withheld concerns of T.D.’s safety and concerns, stemming from her professional judgment, that T.D. should be removed from the home. Her intentional exclusion of her knowledge and concerns from her hearing report showed she acted recklessly and in conscious disregard of an obvious or known risk that Duerson posed to T.D.

The last element is satisfied by Ms. Patton’s conscience-shocking conduct. Ms. Patton’s conduct was held to significantly exceed ordinary negligence or permitting unreasonable risk and rose to a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.

In sum, Ms. Patton’s conduct violated T.D.’s substantive due process right by creating or increasing T.D.’s vulnerability to the danger of private violence by Duerson.

The court found that the law was clearly established at the time of Ms. Patton’s misconduct. The court held that a reasonable official in Ms. Patton’s shoes would have understood that she was violating T.D.’s constitutional right by creating or increasing T.D.’s vulnerability to the danger posed by Duerson.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the district court’s DENIAL of summary judgment.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Expert Witness Need Not Recite Exact Statutory Language for ICWA Finding

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of D.B. on Thursday, November 2, 2017.

Dependency and Neglect—Indian Child Welfare Act—Termination—Expert Witness—Hearsay.

This dependency and neglect proceeding was governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Mother’s parental rights were terminated after the trial court determined that continued custody of the child by one of the parents would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child due to the parents’ extensive substance abuse, extensive domestic violence, lack of housing, and lack of income to meet the child’s needs.

On appeal, mother contended that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights without testimony from a qualified expert witness that her continued custody of the child would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child, as required by the ICWA. The ICWA provides that a court may only terminate parental rights if it determines that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is likely to suffer serious emotional or physical damage if the child remains in the parent’s care. Such determination must be supported by evidence that includes testimony from qualified expert witnesses. The statute does not mandate, however, that an expert witness specifically opine that the child is likely to suffer emotional or physical damage in the parent’s custody. Rather, the expert testimony must constitute some of the evidence that supports the court’s finding of the likelihood of serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Here, although the expert witness’s testimony did not track the ICWA language, the record as a whole contains sufficient evidence, including testimony from a qualified expert witness, to support the trial court’s determination that the child would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if placed in mother’s care.

Mother also contended that the trial court erred in relying on inadmissible hearsay statements in the termination report to conclude that she had failed to maintain sobriety and that the child would thus likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if he remained in her custody. The trial court, however, had access to other admissible evidence to support its determination that mother had failed to maintain sobriety. Further, this was not the sole basis to terminate mother’s parental rights.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Prosecutor’s Comment on Witness’s Credibility Did Not Constitute Plain Error

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of T.C.C. on Thursday, November 2, 2017.

JuvenileDelinquentRobberyAssaultProsecutorial MisconductSentenceFeesWaiverIndigence.

After T.C.C. removed a package from the front step of Ipson’s neighbor’s house, Ipson confronted T.C.C. and told him to return the package. T.C.C. then slapped, punched, and swore at Ipson. A judgment was entered adjudicating T.C.C. delinquent of an act that would constitute robbery and third degree assault if committed by an adult. At sentencing, T.C.C. asked the court to waive all mandatory fees based on his indigence. Instead of ruling on the motion, the court deferred this decision to probation.

On appeal, T.C.C. contended that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Ipson’s credibility and truthfulness when he argued, “Certainly Mr. Ipson has no reason to make up that he got struck numerous times from [T.C.C.]” The prosecutor’s argument was a reasonable inference from the record and not improper.

T.C.C. also contended that the trial court erred in delegating the waiver decision to probation and in permitting a waiver of fees based on “good behavior.” The plain language of the statutes permits only the court to waive fees and surcharges based solely on a finding of indigence, not based on good behavior. Therefore, the court erred by not ruling on T.C.C.’s motion.

The judgment and sentence were affirmed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to rule on T.C.C.’s motion for waiver of fees and costs based on indigence.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Must Make Inquiry Into Whether Indian Child Welfare Act Applies in Dependency and Neglect Proceeding

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of C.A. on Thursday, October 19, 2017.

Dependency and Neglect—Termination of Parental Rights—Indian Child Welfare Act Inquiry Provisions.

The Montrose Department of Health and Human Services (Department) initiated a dependency and neglect petition on behalf of C.A. At the initial hearing, the trial court asked the parties generally if the child was a Native American and if the child had any Native American heritage. Father said he did not, and mother offered no response. Father and mother were not represented by counsel at this time. The Department ultimately moved to terminate mother’s and father’s parental rights. The Department’s motion did not state the efforts the Department made to determine if C.A. is an Indian child and the trial court did not inquire on the record whether the child is an Indian child. Following a contested hearing, the trial court terminated parental rights and determined that the child was not subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

On appeal, mother contended that the trial court did not comply with the ICWA’s inquiry provisions. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that when a trial court inquires at an initial temporary custody hearing at the commencement of a dependency and neglect proceeding whether there is a reason to know that a child is an Indian child, it must make another inquiry when termination is sought, at least when the court has not already identified the child as an Indian child and the petitioning party has not disclosed what efforts it has made to determine if the child is an Indian child.

Because the record did not show that the trial court made the proper inquiry at the termination proceeding, the case was remanded for the limited purpose of making the ICWA inquiry. The trial court was further directed to make appropriate findings and proceed accordingly with any actions necessary to comply with ICWA. In addition, court of appeals gave the parties detailed directions to take further actions, based on the trial court’s determination, within a specified timeframe.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

JDF Instruction Forms, Motion to Seal Criminal Records, and More Amended in September

The Colorado State Judicial Branch revised 19 JDF forms in September 2017. Most of the revised forms are instructions, but there were a few additional forms amended as well. PDFs of the revised forms are available here, and Word versions of the non-instruction forms are available on the State Judicial forms page.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

  • JDF 1099 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation if There Are No Children of This Marriage or the Children are Emancipated” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1100 – “Instructions to File Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation with Children of This Marriage” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1266 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution or Legal Separation of Civil Union if There Are No Children of the Civil Union or the Children are Emancipated” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1267 – “Instructions to File for a Dissolution or Legal Separation of Civil Union with Children of This Civil Union” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1268 – “Instructions to File for a Declaration of Invalidity of Civil Union (Annulment)” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1399 – “Instructions to File a Motion or Stipulation to Modify or Terminate Maintenace (Spousal/Partner Support)” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1400 – “Instructions to File a Motion or Stipulation to Relocate Minor Children” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1403I – “Instructions to File a Motion or Stipulation to Modify Child Support” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1406I – “Instructions to File a Motion/Stipulation to Modify/Restrict Parenting Time” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1411 – “Instructions to File a Motion or Stipulation to Modify Custody or Decision-Making Responsibility” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1413 – “Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1413I – “Instructions for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1524 – “Instructions to File a Motion to Modify or Set Aside Parentage” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1600 – “Instructions to File for a Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage (Annulment)” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 1800 – “Instructions/Options to Enforce Orders” (revised 9/17)

CRIMINAL

  • JDF 476 – “Instructions to Discontinue Sex Offender Registration for a Colorado and Non-Colorado Juvenile Adjudication or Disposition” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 477 – “Motion to Seal Criminal Justice Records Pursuant to § 24-72-702.5, C.R.S.” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 478 – “Order to Seal Criminal Justice Records Pursuant to § 24-72-702.5, C.R.S.” (revised 9/17)
  • JDF 611 – “Instructions to File a Petition to Seal Criminal Conviction Records Involving Controlled Substances and Petty Offenses and Municipal Violations” (revised 9/17)

For all of State Judicial’s JDF forms, click here.

Tenth Circuit: Social Workers Held to Have Qualified Immunity on Foster Child’s Special-Relationship Claims

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Dahn v. Amedei on Monday, August 14, 2017.

This case concerns an exception to the general rule that states are not liable for harm caused by private actors. This exception, called the special-relationship doctrine, makes a state or its agents liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to protect people from harm if they have deprived those people of liberty and made them completely dependent on the state for their basic needs. In this case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided whether the geographical reach of the special-relationship doctrine crosses state lines.

A foster child, James Dahn, sued two Colorado social workers responsible for investigating reports that he was being abused. Dahn had been in Oklahoma’s custody until, in 2008, a Colorado adoption agency (Adoption Alliance) placed him for adoption with a foster father, Jeremiah Lovato, in Colorado. The foster father physically abused Dahn before and after adopting him. Many reports of suspicious abuse were reported to employees of the Moffat County Department of Social Services, Audrey Amedei and Amanda Cramer. Amedei and Cramer responded to the reports from Dahn’s school regarding Dahn’s suspicious bruising and significant, twenty-eight-pound weight loss, by interviewing Dahn and speaking with Lovato, via telephone. The reports of abuse were then determined to be unfounded. After further reports of suspicious bruising, Cramer chose not to speak with Dahn or Lovato, but instead called Vicki little, an independent contractor hired by Adoption Alliance to act as Dahn’s caseworker. Little visited the home, only speaking with Dahn alone for a few minutes, and shrugged off the concerns, determining Dahn was doing well. After two more visits where Little failed to speak to Dahn alone, she recommended that Lovato be allowed to adopt Dahn.

In 2010, the physical abuse from Lovato had escalated to the point where Dahn had to protect himself by running away. Dahn was taken to the hospital, where it was discovered that Lovato had broken Dahn’s arm months earlier, there was still ongoing abuse resulting in bruising, internal injuries, and bleeding, as well as open lesions. Lovato was tried and convicted of criminal child abuse in Colorado and sentenced to 119 ½ years-to-life in prison.

In 2013, Dahn sued Adoption Alliance, Little, Tem (Little’s supervisor), Amedei, and Cramer for his injuries. Dahn alleged (1) all defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, under a special-relationship theory; (2) all defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, under a state-created-danger theory; and (3) that defendants Adoption Alliance, Tem, and Amedei failed to properly train and supervise their employees in evaluating, monitoring, and investigating the prospective adoptive placement for abuse, resulting in violations of Dahn’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process rights. Dahn also brought state-law claims for negligence and outrageous conduct against all defendants. The issue decided by the Circuit was whether the district court erred in concluding that Amedei and Cramer had a special relationship with Dahn, and whether the law on this issue was clearly established.

Due process claims built on the special-relationship doctrine have four elements. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a special relationship, meaning that the plaintiff completely depended on the state to satisfy basic human needs. Second, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was in danger or failed to exercise professional judgment regarding that danger. Third, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries. And, fourth, the defendant’s actions must shock the conscience. The question the Circuit decided was whether a foster child in the custody of one state can, after being placed by a private adoption agency with a foster father in a different state, establish a special custodial relationship with that second state when the second state takes on the duties to investigate evidence suggesting abuse.

The Tenth Circuit found that the law does not clearly extend constitutional liability under the special-relationship doctrine to employees of a state that did not deprive Dahn of his liberty or supply his basic needs, even though they were social workers in the county where he resided. Although the Circuit stated that Amedei and Cramer owed some duty to Dahn, as they investigated the suspected abuse but failed to take any action to remove Dahn from Lovato’s custody, the court found that Dahn had failed to show clearly established law that created a special-relationship between him, Amedei, and Cramer. This conclusion comes from a previous case which noted that the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the state’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. Because the state had not deprived the child of his liberty, it did not have a custodial relationship with him that required the state to protect him from harm. The Circuit declined to address the other element of his claim, which is whether Amedei and Cramer acted in an unprofessional and conscience-shocking manner.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals REVERSED the district court’s order denying Amedei and Cramer’s motion to dismiss Dahn’s special-relationship claim against them, and REMANDED for further proceedings.