Lexplug logoLexplug

Jordan v. Jackson

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
15 F.3d 333 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute permitting a post-deprivation delay of up to 72 hours for judicial review of an emergency child removal does not violate procedural due process, as the state's compelling interest in protecting children justifies a weekend delay to ensure review by a specialized judge. Additionally, a single incident of alleged misconduct is sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as no heightened pleading standard applies.


Facts:

  • Philip and Betty Sue Jordan both worked full-time, and their ten-year-old son, Christopher Jordan, was trained to care for himself for about an hour and a half after school.
  • On January 31, 1991, an anonymous person reported to the Prince William County Department of Social Services (DSS) that Christopher was home alone and fighting with other children.
  • The following afternoon, Friday, February 1, 1991, a DSS social worker, Judy Jordan, approached Christopher as he walked home from the school bus stop.
  • When Christopher, frightened at being approached by a stranger, ran and tried to hide, the social worker seized him under a Virginia statute authorizing emergency removal of children in imminent danger.
  • The social worker took Christopher to foster care and left a note on his family's door, about thirty minutes before his father was expected home.
  • The Jordans were informed by police they could not contact their son until the following Monday.
  • On Monday, February 4, 1991, the DSS returned Christopher to his parents' custody.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Jordan family filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Prince William County, the County DSS, and state social services officials in the United States District Court.
  • The complaint alleged that the initial removal of their son violated their constitutional rights and challenged the Virginia removal statute on due process and equal protection grounds.
  • The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • The Jordans, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a Virginia statute permitting up to a 72-hour delay before judicial review of an emergency child removal, resulting in a 65-hour weekend detention, violate the procedural due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Luttig

No, the Virginia statute, as applied to permit a 65-hour delay in judicial review over a weekend, does not violate the Due Process Clause. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and found that while the parents' liberty interest in family integrity is fundamental, it is outweighed by the state's compelling parens patriae interest in protecting children from imminent, life-threatening harm. The state’s justification for the weekend delay—to ensure that the review is conducted by a specialized Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge rather than a less-qualified official—is sound and directly related to protecting the child. The court concluded that while the 65-hour delay is near the outer limit of what is permissible, it represents a constitutional balancing of the substantial private and governmental interests at stake, especially given the catastrophic consequences of erroneously returning a child to an abusive home.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the application of procedural due process in the high-stakes context of emergency child removals, giving significant deference to state legislative judgments. It establishes that a weekend delay for judicial review is constitutionally permissible when justified by the state's interest in having specialized judges handle such sensitive matters. The court distinguishes the procedural rights in this civil child-protection context from the Fourth Amendment's 48-hour rule for criminal arrestees established in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin. Furthermore, the opinion was an early and influential application of the Supreme Court's decision in Leatherman, solidifying that § 1983 claims against municipalities are subject only to liberal notice pleading, not a heightened standard, which makes it easier for such plaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Jordan v. Jackson (1994) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Jordan v. Jackson