Officials may remove child from custody of its parent without prior judicial authorization only if information they possess at the time of the seizure is such as provides reasonable cause to believe that child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.

Existence of reasonable cause to remove child from custody of its parent without prior judicial authorization is question of fact to be determined by jury.

State may not remove children from their parents' custody without a court order unless there is specific, articulable evidence that provides reasonable cause to believe that child is in imminent danger of abuse.

Police cannot, without a court order, seize children suspected of being abused or neglected unless reasonable avenues of investigation are first pursued, particularly where it is not clear that a crime has been or will be committed; whether a reasonable avenue of investigation exists, however, depends in part upon the time element and the nature of the allegations.

Material fact issues existed as to whether police officers' actions in placing children in county institution and having them subjected to invasive vaginal and anal medical examinations, based primarily on mental patient's statement that father intended to ritually sacrifice his son to Satan, violated parents' and children's Fourteenth Amendment right of family association and Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, thus precluding summary judgment.

Parents and their children brought action against city and others, alleging that their constitutional and state-law rights were violated when police officers removed children from parents and had them subjected to invasive medical examinations based in part on mental patient's statements that father intended to ritually sacrifice his son to Satan. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Marilyn L. Huff, Chief Judge, entered summary judgment in favor of city. Parents and children appealed. The Court of Appeals, Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) fact issues existed as to whether information in possession of police officers gave them reasonable cause to believe that children faced immediate threat of serious physical injury or death; (2) fact issues existed as to police exceeded permissible scope of action necessary to protect children from alleged threat; (3) fact issues existed as to whether placing children in institution and having them subjected to invasive medical examinations violated parents' and children's constitutional rights; (4) fact issues existed as to whether alleged constitutional deprivations were caused by a city practice or custom; and (5) fact issues existed as to whether city was immune from state claims under California statute immunizing public employees for liability resulting from discretionary acts. Reversed and remanded. Rymer, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion. Opinion, 193 F.3d 1054, amended and superseded.

To avoid summary judgment in action against a municipality for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom, plaintiff need only show that there is a question of fact regarding whether there is a city custom or policy that caused a constitutional deprivation. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.

The right of parents and children to live together without governmental interference is an essential liberty interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

The same legal standard applied in evaluating children's claim that their removal from their parents violated their Fourth Amendment right against illegal seizure, and parents' claim that removal violated their Fourteenth Amendment right of family association. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14.

Officials may remove child from custody of its parent without prior judicial authorization only if information they possess at the time of the seizure is such as provides reasonable cause to believe that child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14.

Existence of reasonable cause to remove child from custody of its parent without prior judicial authorization is question of fact to be determined by jury. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14.

State may not remove children from their parents' custody without a court order unless there is specific, articulable evidence that provides reasonable cause to believe that child is in imminent danger of abuse. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14.

Police cannot, without a court order, seize children suspected of being abused or neglected unless reasonable avenues of investigation are first pursued, particularly where it is not clear that a crime has been or will be committed; whether a reasonable avenue of investigation exists, however, depends in part upon the time element and the nature of the allegations. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14.

Material fact issues existed as to whether information in possession of police officers, including institutionalized mental patient's statement that father was planning to ritually sacrifice his son to Satan, gave officers reasonable cause to believe that son and daughter faced immediate threat of serious physical injury or death, thus precluding summary judgment in parents' and children's action against city alleging that removal of children without a court order interfered with their right of family association and right against unreasonable search and seizure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.

Material fact issues existed as to whether police officers' action of removing children from their mother, and detaining them for more than two months, exceeded permissible scope of action necessary to protect them from alleged immediate threat evidenced by, inter alia, mental patient's statement that father intended to ritually sacrifice his son to Satan, thus precluding summary judgment in parents' and children's action against city alleging that removal of children interfered with their right of family association and right against unreasonable search and seizure. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.

Merely because some intrusion on a child's protected privacy and security interests may be reasonable, based on evidence providing reasonable cause to believe that child is in imminent danger of abuse, does not mean that any intrusion is reasonable.

Material fact issues existed as to whether police officers' actions in placing children in county institution and having them subjected to invasive vaginal and anal medical examinations, based primarily on mental patient's statement that father intended to ritually sacrifice his son to Satan, violated parents' and children's Fourteenth Amendment right of family association and Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, thus precluding summary judgment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.

Fourteenth Amendment right to family association includes the right of parents to make important medical decisions for their children, and of children to have those decisions made by their parents rather than the state. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

The Constitution assures parents that, in the absence of parental consent, physical examinations of their child may not be undertaken for investigative purposes at the behest of state officials unless a judicial officer has determined, upon notice to the parents, and an opportunity to be heard, that grounds for such an examination exist and that the administration of the procedure is reasonable under all the circumstances. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

Barring a reasonable concern that material physical evidence might dissipate, or that some urgent medical problem exists requiring immediate attention, the state is required to notify parents and to obtain judicial approval before children are subjected to investigatory physical examinations. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

Parents have a right arising from Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in family association to be with their children while they are receiving medical attention, or to be in a waiting room or other nearby area if there is a valid reason for excluding them while all or a part of medical procedure is being conducted. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

Under Fourteenth Amendment right of family association, children have right to the love, comfort, and reassurance of their parents while they are undergoing medical procedures, including examinations, particularly those that are invasive or upsetting. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

Interest in family association protected by Fourteenth Amendment is particularly compelling when children are undergoing invasive and upsetting medical procedures, in part because of the possibility that a need to make medical decisions will arise, and in part because of the family's right to be together during such difficult and often traumatic events. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

State has no interest whatever in protecting children from parents unless it has some reasonable evidence that the parent is unfit and the child is in imminent danger, for purposes of determining whether state has violated family association right protected by Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

Government may not, consistent with the right of family association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, interpose itself between a fit parent and her children simply because of the conduct, real or imagined, of the other parent. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

Material fact issues existed, precluding summary judgment in § 1983 action, regarding existence of municipal custom or practice of taking children from their homes without adequate safeguards to ensure that removal was legal, and of subjecting such children to investigatory medical examinations without prior judicial authorization and parental notification, and regarding whether such custom or practice caused alleged constitutional deprivations resulting from police officers' actions in removing children from home, placing them in institution, and having them subjected to medical examinations, based primarily on mental patient's statement that father intended to ritually sacrifice son to Satan. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 4, 14.

Any absolute and qualified immunities possessed by individual police officers with respect to §1983 constitutional claims resulting from removal of children from their parents could not be transferred to city itself. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

There are no personal immunities available vicariously or otherwise to municipal actors under § 1983. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

State statutory immunities for child abuse investigations could not protect city from federal constitutional claims asserted in § 1983 action. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

Immunity under § 1983 is governed by federal law, and state law cannot provide immunity from suit for federal civil rights violations. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

Municipal entities are not subject to respondeat superior liability for federal civil rights claims. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

California statute providing immunity from liability arising from prosecution of judicial or administrative proceeding did not immunize city from claims arising from police officers' removal of children from their parents, where city repeatedly asserted that it had nothing whatever to do with prosecution of juvenile dependency proceeding, and that such prosecution was responsibility of county agency. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 821.6.

California statute immunizing public employees from liability resulting from discretionary acts applies to county social workers engaged in investigating allegations of child abuse, and extends to other public employees whom those social workers reasonably enlist to assist in the investigation. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 820.2.

Under California law, county social workers' statutory immunity from liability resulting from their discretionary acts provides complete protection for the decision to investigate, to make an in-person response, and for actions necessary to make a meaningful investigation; it does not extend, however, to non-discretionary actions or to at least some intentional torts committed in the course of making the investigation, such as battery and false imprisonment. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 820.2.

Genuine fact issues existed as to whether police officers took children into custody pursuant to request from county agency in which discretion to make such decisions was vested, and as to whether officers' action in having children subjected to invasive medical examinations was pursuant to mandatory city policy not involving the exercise of discretion, thus precluding summary judgment as to whether California statute immunizing public employees from liability for discretionary acts immunized city from parents' and children's state-law claims for abduction, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 820.2.