holding that appointed guardians, therapists, and attorney had absolute immunity for claims arising from the function of questioning children because such questioning was “encompassed within the delegated functions” and was “necessary to perform the' functions of determining the children’s needs”
How later courts described this case
- holding that appointed guardians, therapists, and attorney had absolute immunity for claims arising from the function of questioning children because such questioning was “encompassed within the delegated functions” and was “necessary to perform the' functions of determining the children’s needs”
- stating that “neither the Supreme Court nor any other circuit has addressed the application of the fourth or fourteenth amendments in the context of a child abuse investigation” and holding that defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity
- stating that constitutionally protected interest in family relations is limited by compelling government interest in protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where protection may be necessary as against the parents themselves
- holding that police could rely upon the sexual- abuse allegations of two children (ages five and twelve) in finding probable cause
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991)
810 F.2d 1437, 1463 (8th Cir. 1987), abrogated by Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478
The opinion
FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion and judgment, but write separately to express my misgivings with the manner in which the child abuse cases were handled by the Scott County authorities. The detailed accounts of sexual abuse given by the children required the authorities to act, and their action, as the court holds today, is protected. The children’s accounts are so startling and egregious, however, that it is difficult to accept the prosecutor’s dismissal of the charges against the parents and other parties charged. The charges were dismissed by the prosecutor allegedly to avoid compromising an investigation of greater magnitude. Yet even after this investigation was no longer a concern, the charges were not reinstated. The children’s accusations, if true, demand the prosecution of the guilty parties. The prosecutor’s action in dismissing the charges leaves this shocking and abusive affair in limbo.
On the other hand, if, as alleged, the prosecutor fabricated charges, coerced testimony, and withheld and destroyed evidence in pursuing the accusations against the plaintiffs, her conduct demeaned our system of justice and undermined the faith placed in that system by the people of Scott County. Child abuse cases should be handled cautiously from the investigative stage to the final stage, keeping in mind the rights of both the children and the parents. These child abuse cases were not handled in such a manner.
I also express concern over the considerable difficulty in ascertaining what really happened in Jordan, Minnesota during 1983-84. That difficulty may be attributable to the nature of this case. Some cases are more difficult than others, but cases *1471 involving alleged sexual abuse of children are extremely perplexing, and even more troublesome when the children’s parents are the alleged source of that abuse. The difficulty also may be attributable to the circumstances of this particular case. Some children were interviewed numerous times over several months before they acknowledged that they had been abused. Evidence was withheld and destroyed. Ultimately charges were dismissed and some of the children later recanted their accusations.
In any event, I agree with the court’s disposition of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants in this ease.