# The Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen

> Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · March 19, 2013 · 710 F.3d 1168

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505849

## Case

- **Full name:** The ESTATE OF B.I.C., a Minor Child, Deceased; Larry F. Crosetto, Individually and as Next Friend of C.S.C., a Minor Child; Mary Lou Crosetto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Linda GILLEN, Individually and as an Agent of the Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 19, 2013
- **Citations:** 710 F.3d 1168; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5686; 2013 WL 1111922
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Kelly, Holloway, Matheson
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505849

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505849. Public record. Not legal advice.