Doe v. Connecticut Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Doe v. Connecticut Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2017–2021 · 2 courts · …a violation of state law neither gives plaintiffs a 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper 1983 claim. ✓
79 citation events (41 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lewis v. Delmar (nywd, 2023-01-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lewis v. Delmar
W.D.N.Y. · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
violation of state law neither gives a 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper 1983 claim.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Miller v. Nye County
D. Nev. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a violation of 23 state law neither gives plaintiffs a 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper 1983 claim.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Raquinio v. Kohanaiki Community Association
D. Haw. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a violation of state law neither gives plaintiffs a 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper 1983 claim.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.
E.D. Cal. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a violation of state law neither gives plaintiffs a 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper 1983 claim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Uwadiegwu v. Department of Social Services
E.D.N.Y · 2015 · confidence medium
“The question presented [in a § 1983 action] is not whether ... defendants violated state law, but whether they violated plaintiffs federal constitutional or statutory rights.” Young, 999 F.Supp. at 287 (citing Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child and Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Taylor
2d Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
While failure to comply with a state law or administrative directive does not by itself establish a violation of § 1983, see Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child & Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990), the record demonstrates that the defendants complied with the directives Harris cites in his brief.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pace v. Montalvo
D. Conn. · 2001 · confidence medium
Of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 870 (2d Cir.1990) (granting qualified immunity to state social workers who, inter alia, placed 96-hour hold on parental custody and placed child in foster home).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tenenbaum v. Williams
2d Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
It is precisely the function of qualified immunity to protect state officials in choosing between such alternatives, provided that there is an objectively reasonable basis for their decision, whichever way they make it. 52 van Emrik, 911 F.2d at 866 (footnote omitted); see also Defore v. Premore, 86 F.3d 48, 50 (2d Cir. 1996) (emphasizing the importance of the qualified immunity defense to ensure publicly employed caseworkers the necessary latitude to exercise their professional judgment in matters related to child welfare).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McLaughlin v. Town of Front Royal
Warren Cir. Ct. · 1996 · confidence medium
E.g., Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1113 (3d Cir. 1990); Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir. 1990); Pesce v. J.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tenenbaum Ex Rel. Tenenbaum v. Williams
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · confidence medium
The removal remained objectively reasonable when it was undertaken. 911 F.2d at 870 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Woodmark Corp. v. City of Winchester
Winchester Cir. Ct. · 1994 · confidence medium
E.g., Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1113 (3d Cir. 1990); Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir. 1990); Pesce v. J.
cited Cited as authority (rule) McLaughlin v. Town of Front Royal
Warren Cir. Ct. · 1994 · confidence medium
E.g., Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1113 (3rd Cir. 1990); Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir. 1990); Pesce v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cecere v. City of New York
2d Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Al-Jundi v. Mancusi, 926 F.2d 235, 237 (2d Cir.) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 182 , 116 L.Ed.2d 143 (1991); see also Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987) (police officer and state attorney shielded by qualified immunity where they removed children from mother’s custody after schoolmates reported sexual and physical abuse); Doe v. Conn. Dept, of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990) (same as to state welfare officials).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cecere v. City of New York
2d Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Al-Jundi v. Mancusi, 926 F.2d 235, 237 (2d Cir.) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 182 , 116 L.Ed.2d 143 (1991); see also Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987) (police officer and state attorney shielded by qualified immunity where they removed children from mother's custody after schoolmates reported sexual and physical abuse); Doe v. Conn. Dept. of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990) (same as to state welfare officials).
cited Cited "see" Bost v. CSCO Henson
N.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Conn. Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see" Baltas v. Hardy
D. Conn. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris v. Taylor, 441 F. App’x 774, 775 (2d Cir. 2011) (noting that failure to comply with state law or administrative directive does not establish a violation under section 1983) (citing Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child & Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990) (“[A] violation of state law neither gives [plaintiffs] a § 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper § 1983 claim.”) (quoting Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987))).
discussed Cited "see" Richard v. Martin
D. Conn. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris v. Taylor, 441 F. App’x 774, 775 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[F]ailure to comply with a state law or administrative directive does not by itself establish a violation of § 1983.”) (citing Doe v. Conn. Dep’t of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir. 1990)); Old St.
discussed Cited "see" Mejia v. Kurtzenacker
D. Conn. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holland v. City of New York, 197 F. Supp. 3d 529 , 548–49 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“An alleged violation of a prison policy, directive, or regulation, in and of itself, does not give rise to a federal claim, because ‘[f]ederal constitutional standards rather than state law define the 21 requirements of procedural due process.’”) (quoting Russell v. Coughlin, 910 F.2d 75 , 78 n.1 (2d Cir. 1990) and citing, inter alia, Doe v. Conn. Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990) (“[A] violation of state law neither gives [plaintiffs] a § 1983 claim nor deprives defendant…
discussed Cited "see" Salaman v. Semple
D. Conn. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harris v. Taylor, 441 F. App'x 774 , 29 775 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[F]ailure to comply with a state law or administrative directive does not by itself establish a violation of § 1983.”) (citing Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child & Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir. 1990)).
cited Cited "see" Lewis v. Erfe
D. Conn. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 7:20 – 7:50, 16:20 – 17:00.
cited Cited "see" Mills v. Fischer
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Conn. Dep’t of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" Pc v. Connecticut Department of Children and Families
D. Conn. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Rivera v. Wohlrab
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hyman, 2001 WL 262665 , at *6. (“Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, not for violations arising solely out of state or common-law principles”) (citing Doe v. Connecticut Dept. of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990) (other citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Adoption Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Ragaglia
D. Conn. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Conn. Dep’t Children & Youth Servs., 712 F.Supp. 277, 286-87 (D.Conn.1989) (indicating that the possibility there was no wrongdoing must give way to protection of a child where a reasonable basis exists for the belief that such protection is necessary), aff'd, 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" Jacqueline Ford v. Edward Moore
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Conn. Dep't of Children and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1990); van Emrik v. Chemung County, 911 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1990).
cited Cited "see" Ford v. Moore
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Conn. Dep’t of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir.1990); van Emrik v. Chemung County, 911 F.2d 863 (2d Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" Young v. County of Fulton
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" Young v. County Of Fulton
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see" DeRosa v. Bell
D. Conn. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Children and Youth Services, 712 F.Supp. 277 , 281 n. 3 (D.Conn.1989), aff'd 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir.1990), (citing Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 202 , 106 S.Ct. 496 , 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985)).
cited Cited "see" Kia P. v. McIntyre
E.D.N.Y · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child and Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990); Robison, 821 F.2d at 922 ; Dietz, 932 F.Supp. at 453 .
discussed Cited "see" Young v. County of Fulton
N.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990); see also Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 194 n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984)(“Neither federal nor state officials lose their immunity by violating the clear command of a statute or regulation — of federal or of state law — unless that statute or regulation provides the basis for the cause of action sued upon.”).
cited Cited "see" Spencer v. Lavoie
N.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child and Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see" Dietz v. Damas (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut, 911 F.2d 868 (2d Cir.1990) and the discussion of Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913 (2d Cir.1987), supra p. 444.
cited Cited "see" Campbell v. Burt
D. Haw. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe, 911 F.2d 868 .
discussed Cited "see" Field v. Kirton (2×)
D. Conn. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dept. of Child & Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868 , 869 (2d Cir.1990) (citing Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 922 (2d Cir.1987)).
cited Cited "see" Gray v. State
Me. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe v. Connecticut Dept. of Child & Youth Svcs., 911 F.2d 868 , 870 (2d Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ward v. Murphy
D. Conn. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nevertheless, the fact that a state official did not act immediately upon a report of abuse, “standing alone, proves nothing.” Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 595 (2d Cir.1999); see also Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child & Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868 , 870 (2d Cir.1990) (concluding that delay of three days' in acting on report of abuse did not deprive circumstances of emergency status).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services
W.D. Pa. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See e.g., Doe v. Connecticut Dep’t of Child and Youth Services, 911 F.2d 868, 869 (2d Cir.1990) (violation of state law regarding removal of child under protective custody neither establishes due process violation under section 1983 nor de *538 prives defendant of qualified immunity); Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Doe B/k/a Mary Doe, Mary Doe and Frank Doe
v.
Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services and Mark J. Marcus, Raymond Farrington, Patricia Simpson, and David Goldner, Individually and Officially as Employees of the Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services
536.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Aug 13, 1990.
911 F.2d 868
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 4 cases
Pinpoint authority: #20,656 of 633,719
Citer courts: E.D. California (1) · D. Hawaii (1) · D. Nevada (1) · W.D. New York (1)

911 F.2d 868

John DOE b/k/a Mary Doe, Mary Doe and Frank Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES and Mark
J. Marcus, Raymond Farrington, Patricia Simpson, and David
Goldner, individually and officially as employees of the
Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 536, Docket 89-7601.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Feb. 7, 1990.
Decided Aug. 13, 1990.

Joseph D. Garrison, New Haven, Conn. (Garrison, Kahn, Silbert & Arterton, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Daniel R. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn. (Clarine Nardi Riddle, Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before TIMBERS, NEWMAN, and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge:

[*~868]1

This appeal, like van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep't of Social Services, 911 F.2d 863 (2d Cir.1990), decided this day, concerns the availability of the qualified immunity defense in the context of temporary interruption of parental custody. Two parents and their minor child appeal from the May 19, 1989, judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Peter C. Dorsey, Judge) dismissing, on motion for summary judgment, their suit against the Connecticut Department of Social Services and some of its employees. The suit sought damages for the actions of the defendants in removing the minor child from the parental home on an emergency basis for a 96-hour period, see Conn.Gen.Stat. Sec. 17-38a(e) (1988), and placing him in a state home. The defendants acted in response to serious allegations of sexual child abuse perpetrated upon the child by his older brother, with the toleration, and perhaps the participation of, the child's parents.

2

In a thorough opinion, Judge Dorsey concluded that the defendants were entitled, as a matter of law, to the defense of qualified immunity. Doe v. Connecticut Dep't of Children and Youth Services, 712 F.Supp. 277 (D.Conn.1989). The facts are fully set forth in the District Court's opinion and need not be recounted here.

[*~868]3

Appellants challenge Judge Dorsey's conclusion, essentially on two grounds, neither of which has merit. First, they contend that factual issues remain as to whether the defendants fully complied with the requirements of state law. Even if true, the claim is irrelevant. The question is whether " 'no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to, and drawing all inferences most favorable to, the plaintiffs, could conclude that it was objectively unreasonable for the defendant[s]' to believe that [they were] acting in a fashion that did not clearly violate an established federally protected right." See Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987) (quoting Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180, 189 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Scalia, J., sitting by designation)) (emphasis added). "[A] violation of state law neither gives [plaintiffs] a Sec. 1983 claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper Sec. 1983 claim." Id. at 922.

4

Second, appellants contend that qualified immunity is precluded, or at least that the issue requires a trial, because of the timing of the defendants' action. This claim is based on the facts that the most specific allegations of the parents' involvement related to events several months before the removal and that the defendants waited three days after receipt of their most recent information before acting. Neither circumstance defeats the defense of qualified immunity on the facts of this case. The psychologist who interviewed another victim of the older brother's sexual abuse just prior to the removal reported to the defendants that "[g]iven the extent of sexual, physical, and mental abuse which allegedly occurred in the [Does'] home, in my opinion, this is an extremely volatile situation and a potentially dangerous one as well" (emphasis added). The fact that some of the information reported to the defendants had occurred a few months earlier did not make it objectively unreasonable for them to conclude, based on all the reported information, that temporary removal of the child was warranted.

5

Nor does the fact that the defendants waited three days from receipt of the psychologist's report before invoking their authority under the state statute preclude the availability of qualified immunity. The suit sought damages for the removal of the child, not for the delay in taking such action. The removal remained objectively reasonable when it was undertaken.

[*~869]6

We agree with Judge Dorsey, for the reasons set forth in his opinion, that the undisputed facts establish the availability of the qualified immunity defense. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.