explaining in dicta that “[w]hen extending the right [of familial association] to grandparents, however, courts often consider whether the grandparents are ‘custodial fígurefs]’ or ‘acting in loco parentis,’ and “whether there is a potential conflict between the rights of the [grandparent] and the rights or interests of the [child’s] natural parents.’ ” (citations omitted) (second, third, and fourth alterations in original)
How later courts described this case
- explaining in dicta that “[w]hen extending the right [of familial association] to grandparents, however, courts often consider whether the grandparents are ‘custodial fígurefs]’ or ‘acting in loco parentis,’ and “whether there is a potential conflict between the rights of the [grandparent] and the rights or interests of the [child’s] natural parents.’ ” (citations omitted) (second, third, and fourth alterations in original)
- concluding that defendant’s cumulative behavior was conscience-shocking where she failed to interview, failed to report dangers to law enforcement, failed to follow up on law enforcement reports, and took “a more ‘hands off’ approach than she did in her other cases”
- explaining that failing to act “does not forfeit immunity when there is no affirmative action”
- “There is, however, a question as to whether there is sufficiently affirmative conduct on the part of the state in placing the plaintiff in danger. Our precedents consistently conclude that mere negligence or inaction is not enough.” (citation omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the appellee’s Petition For Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. We also have a response from the appellants. Upon consideration by the original panel, we grant panel rehearing in part. The clerk is directed to withdraw our original opinion dated December 19, 2012, and to substitute the amended version attached to this order. The request for panel rehearing is granted to the extent of the amendments made to our original decision, but is otherwise denied.
The request for rehearing en banc, the response, and the panel’s revised opinion were transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. As no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the court requested that the court be polled with regard to en banc consideration of the amended opinion, the suggestion for en banc rehearing is denied.