First Circuit
Suboh v. Borgioli, 298 F.Supp.2d 192, 205-06 (D. Mass. 2004) (stating that “the undisputed facts of this case establish that Suboh’s procedural due process rights were violated by her failure to receive any hearing attendant to the loss of custody of her daughter”).
Suboh v. District Attorney’s Office of the Suffolk District, 298 F.3d 81, 94-95 (1st Cir. 2002) (stating that it was “clearly established . . . that a state official could not effectively resolve a disputed custody issue between a parent and another without following any due process procedures at all”).
Second Circuit
Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127, 161 (2d Cir. 2012) (“For the same reasons as in our procedural due process analysis—that we cannot conclude as a matter of law on the current record that it would have been objectively reasonable for Woo to believe that his actions did not violate the Children’s constitutional right not to be removed from their home barring exigent circumstances—we cannot conclude as a matter of law that Woo must prevail on the ‘objectively reasonable’ inquiry as to the violation of the children’s Fourth Amendment illegal seizure claims.”).
Eighth Circuit
Stanley v. Finnegan, 899 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2018) (stating that “it is clearly established that the removal of children from their parents’ custody violates a constitutional right if the removal occurs without reasonable suspicion of child abuse”).
Williams v. Johnston, CIV. 14-369 DWF/FLN, 2015 WL 1333991, at *10 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, CIV. 14-369 DWF/FLN, 2015 WL 1334015 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2015) (stating that “at the time Plaintiff was denied visitation from Defendants, it was clearly established that Plaintiff had at a constitutional right to association with family members”).
Knutson v. Ludeman, CIV. 10-357 PJS/LIB, 2011 WL 821253, at *10 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2011), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 10-CV-0357 PJS LIB, 2011 WL 808189 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2011) (“As discussed in Section C above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated his constitutional right to maintain close relations with his minor daughter. That right was clearly established as of late 2009, when Defendants allegedly prohibited Plaintiff from having any further in-person visits with his daughter.”).
Heartland Acad. Community Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 809 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The state of the law on October 30, 2001, gave the Officials fair warning that effecting or at least conspiring to effect the mass removal of HCA students with bogus ex parte orders potentially would violate Heartland’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to family integrity, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizures, First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free association, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process. The Supreme Court has long recognized the constitutional rights the Officials allegedly infringed.”).
Swipies v. Kofka, 419 F.3d 709, 713 (8th Cir. 2005) (“As a general matter, parents have a liberty interest in the ‘care, custody, and management of their children.’”).
Swipies v. Kofka, 348 F.3d 701, 704 (8th Cir. 2003) (“We further conclude that it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that removing Kendra in those circumstances would violate Mr. Swipies’s parental liberty interest.”).
Whisman Through Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1310 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Even if defendants had a right to take temporary custody of Joel, defendants had a corresponding obligation to afford Michelle and Joel an adequate post-deprivation hearing. . . . The right to an adequate post-deprivation hearing was clearly established in February of 1995.”).
Pinkney v. Clay County, 635 F. Supp. 1079, 1083 (D. Minn. 1986) (“Some of plaintiffs’ allegations may, however, state a violation of a clearly established constitutional right: the parents’ ‘fundamental ‘liberty interest’ in the care, custody, and management of their children.’”).