Rachel Scanlon v. County of Los Angeles
Not available in provided text (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An application for a warrant to remove a child from parental custody violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments if it contains material misrepresentations or omissions—such as the existence of medical supervision for a child's treatment—made deliberately or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Facts:
- Rachel Scanlon and Steven Sawyer's nine-year-old daughter, K.X., suffered from severe autism, which caused frequent episodes of aggression and self-harm.
- After conventional treatments proved ineffective, Scanlon consulted Dr. Peter Mendelsohn, a licensed physician, who evaluated K.X. and provided a written recommendation for her to begin medical marijuana therapy.
- Following the doctor's recommendation, the Parents began giving K.X. THC oil, which her teacher, Alida Turner, observed led to a significant decrease in tantrums and an improvement in her compliance and calmness at school.
- In September 2017, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) received two anonymous referrals alleging K.X. appeared to be under the influence of marijuana at school.
- Social worker Lourdes Olarte was assigned to investigate. She interviewed K.X.'s teacher and Rachel Scanlon, with the substance of these conversations being sharply disputed by the parties.
- As part of the investigation, Olarte went to the school of K.X.'s five-year-old sister, G.X., and interviewed her alone without parental consent or knowledge.
- Based on her investigation, Olarte prepared a Statement of Cause to obtain a warrant for the removal of both children.
- DCFS social workers removed K.X. and G.X. from their parents and placed them in separate foster homes for five days.
Procedural Posture:
- Rachel Scanlon and Steven Sawyer sued the County of Los Angeles and individual social workers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on the Fourth Amendment claim concerning the interview of G.X. at school, finding the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court later granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs' judicial deception, Monell, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims.
- The remaining claims concerning G.X.'s removal proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the defendants.
- The Parents (Plaintiffs-Appellants) appealed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 social worker's application for a warrant to remove children from parental custody violate the constitutional right to be free from judicial deception when it falsely claims the parents acted without medical consultation and materially misrepresents the child's behavior at school?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Bybee
Yes, a social worker's application for a warrant to remove children violates the constitutional right to be free from judicial deception under these circumstances. The court found that the Statement of Cause contained material misrepresentations and omissions that a reasonable jury could find were made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth. The statement falsely asserted that the parents had 'not consulted with a medical professional,' which was contradicted by the social worker's own notes about Dr. Mendelsohn's recommendation. This omission was material because medical supervision is the key factor that makes medical marijuana use lawful for a minor under California's Compassionate Use Act. Furthermore, the application materially misrepresented statements from K.X.'s teacher, Alida Turner, by portraying K.X. as stumbling, non-responsive, and unable to function, when Turner's deposition testimony indicated the treatment was highly effective and had improved K.X.'s behavior. Because the right to be free from judicial deception in child custody proceedings was clearly established, the social workers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant constitutional protections surrounding the right to familial association and the high bar government officials must clear before interfering with it. The court's analysis emphasizes that social workers cannot use judicial process as a tool for their own judgment by selectively presenting or falsifying facts. By holding that misrepresenting the existence of medical supervision for a controversial but legal treatment is a material falsehood, the court sets a strong precedent protecting parents who pursue alternative, doctor-approved medical care for their children. The reversal of summary judgment on the Monell claim also signals that a county's systemic failure to train social workers on their constitutional duty to include exculpatory evidence in warrant applications can create municipal liability.
