P.A. v. City of New York (44 F. Supp. 3d 287, 2014)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 2014-09-11

Citations

Full opinion text

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN GLEESON, District Judge:

CONTENTS

BACKGROUND...............:................................................292

A. Historical Facts ........................................................292

B. Procedural History..........................:.. I........................294

C. Claims Alleged ........................'................................295

DISCUSSION..................................................................295

A. General Legal Standards ............:....................................295

1. Summary Judgment Standard ...........................■..............296

2. Municipal Liability..................................................296

3. Qualified Immunity.................................................296

B. Rooker-Feldman Challenge to Jurisdiction on Some Claims..................297

C. Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motions....................................298

1. Claims Arising from the Initial Removal of PA....................-......298

a. Contours of Rights Alleged.......................................299

b. Claims Against the Officers........................... 301

c. Claims Against the City..........................................302

d. Parallel State Law Claims........................................305

2. Claims Relating to PA’s Foster Care...........■........................305

a. Legal Standards.................... 305

b. Claims Against St. Vincent’s......................................306

c. Claims Against the City..........................................309

D. Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions..................................309

1. PA’s Remaining Claims..............................................309

a. Claims About Kinship Placement..................................309

b. Claims About Moran’s English Competency.........................309

c. Claims Against John Mattingly....................................310

d. Other Claims ...................................................310

2. Rodriguez’s Claims..................................................311

3. Remaining Claims of Alford and JA....................................314

CONCLUSION.......................... ......................................314

These two cases arise from the tragic disappearance of a seven-year-old boy, PA, from his temporary custody with a foster mother in early 2010. PA remains missing at the time of this opinion. The plaintiffs in the case are the boy’s two parents—his mother, Jennifer Rodriguez, and his father, Patrick Alford, Sr., proceeding separately—his minor sister, JA; and PA himself, for whom I appointed counsel. All the plaintiffs and all of the defendants have moved for summary judgment on at least some claims. For the reasons given below, I do not grant any of PA’s or Rodriguez’s motions; the defendants’ motions are granted in part and denied in part; and I hold Alford’s and JA’s claims in abeyance pending further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

A. Historical Facts

The following facts are taken from the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 statements and affidavits. Unless otherwise noted, the facts set forth below are uncontroverted, and citations to ECF numbers refer to the docket in No. 10-cv-4661.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Rodriguez and Patrick Alford, Sr. are the biological parents of the minor children PA and JA. PA was born in November of 2002. JA was born in April of 2005. Defendant the City of New York (“City”) is a municipal corporation. The City maintains the Administration for Child Services (“ACS”). P.A’s Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 314; City Def.’s Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 328; Alford’s Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 1-6, ECF No. 325.

Rodriguez was known to ACS at least as early as September of 2009, when she and her boyfriend had a physical altercation in the children’s presence that led to an incident report. See City Defs.’ 56.1 Statement ¶ 2.

On December 26, 2009, Rodriguez and a relative were arrested for shoplifting in the presence of JA and PA. The police permitted Rodriguez to call a family member to pick up the children. At approximately 5:40 p.m. on the day of the arrest, ACS received a. report from the State Central Registry notifying them of Rodriguez’s arrest. A child protective services worker spoke with the source of the report and was told the children had been picked up by Rodriguez’s mother and taken to Brooklyn. City Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 6-9, ECF No. 328.

On December 28, 2009, Robert Salemi, an ACS supervisor, directed Natalia Rosa-do, a Child Protective Specialist (“CPS”), to make contact with Rodriguez. Salemi was concerned about eleven prior cases against Rodriguez’s mother (the children’s grandmother), who had taken physical custody of the children after the shoplifting arrest. Later that day, Rosado went to Rodriguez’s home to speak with Rodriguez. Rodriguez admitted to the shoplifting and told Rosado of a prior arrest she had not reported to ACS. Rosado inquired into Rodriguez’s mental health, and Rodriguez stated she had no mental health issues. That statement was false; Rosado knew Rodriguez was taking psychotropic medications. City Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 12-18, ECF No. 328. An entry was later made into the ACS database, Progress Notes, acknowledging that Rodriguez had support from her family and that she had informal arrangements regarding the children with her maternal aunt and Alford. See Lerner Aff. in Support of Mot. for Summ. Judg., ECF No. 315, Ex. P, at PA-ACS-0039.

At around 3:45 p.m. the next day (December 29, 2009), Rodriguez phoned Sale-mi to request assistance in entering an inpatient drug treatment program to deal with her marijuana usage. Salemi informed Ms. Rodriguez that marijuana use alone would typically not warrant an inpatient program. Ms. Rodriguez then re-wealed that she had also been using PCP in her home. Salemi directed CPS Deborah Pride and CPS Rose Sosa to go immediately to Rodriguez’s home. Pride and Sosa arrived at the home after 5:00 p.m. They found Rodriguez in an impaired state—she could barely stand and was speaking incoherently. JA was present but PA was not. An unknown adult man was also in the home, but he refused to identify himself to Pride or Sosa. CPS tried to elicit PA’s whereabouts from Rodriguez. Due to her impaired state, Rodriguez was able to say only that PA was with an aunt. Rodriguez could not identify the aunt or provide an address. Nor could she provide contact information for a responsible adult who could immediately care for JA. Pride and Sosa reported their findings to Salemi and informed him they had concerns about whether Rodriguez could adequately care for the children at the time. City Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 20-36, ECF No. 328.

Based on the information provided to Salemi, he consulted with his manager, Reinaldo Gibbs (“Gibbs”), a Child Protective Manager (“CPM”). Gibbs authorized the removal of both PA and JA pursuant to an ACS policy in which a decision to remove a child on an emergency basis, without a court order, must be approved by a CPM. PA’s Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 24, ECF No. 314. Pride and Sosa removed JA from the Rodriguez home and headed back to the Staten Island Field Office. Once there, Pride and Sosa conferred with Rosado about PA’s possible location. Rosado recalled that PA had a great-aunt, Blanca Toledo, in Brooklyn. Rosado, Pride and Sosa proceeded to Brooklyn to retrieve PA. PA was in Toledo’s home, which was also home to several other adults. Upon arriving at Toledo’s home, Rosado informed Toledo in Spanish that the three CPS workers were there to remove PA. At the time of the removal, PA was apparently safe in the home and care of Toledo. However, Toledo did not have legal custody and her home had not been cleared by ACS (i.e., no criminal check of family members had occurred, nor had ACS checked for any prior domestic abuses or ACS cases). Toledo did not oppose the removal. City Def.’s Rule 56.1 Statement, ¶¶ 39^46, ECF No. 328.

Later that night,'both PA and JA were transported to the main ACS facility in Manhattan, where they awaited placement in a foster home. ACS employee John McLaughlin located a foster home in Brooklyn. McLaughlin attempted to find a foster home in the children’s home borough of Staten Island, but none was available. JA and PA were placed in the non-kinship foster home of Librada Moran. Id. ¶¶ 47-50. The placement was made at 11:00 p.m. and the children were taken the next morning, December 30, 2009, to Moran’s home.

A hearing—the “initial child safety conference,” or ICSC—was held the same morning. PA’s Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 42, 43. Both parents, as well as various relatives of each, attended. ACS agreed to explore kinship placement. City Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 62. After the December 30 conference, Rodriguez told Alford that Toledo’s husband had sexually molested Rodriguez as a child; this information eventually reached ACS, though the parties dispute precisely when.

Later on December 30, the family court held a formal custody hearing. ACS suggested placing JA and PA with Alford but had two concerns: (1) there was a prior domestic violence incident between Alford and Shareema Bruington, with whom Alford was then living and with whom he had two other children; and (2) the shelter that Alford was living in might not be able to accommodate two more children. City Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 78-80. The family court judge approved the children’s placement in foster care on a temporary basis. Id. ¶ 81.

On January 6, 2010, Alford and Rodriguez again appeared in family court, represented by counsel. ACS had determined that both JA and PA should be paroled into Alford’s custody. But Rodriguez objected and raised a new allegation: that Bruington had previously hit PA and locked him in a closet. Id. ¶¶ 90-95. ACS requested additional time to investigate that allegation, and the judge and counsel for the children agreed that additional time was needed. Id. ¶¶ 97-99. The court set the next hearing for January 26, 2010. Id. ¶ 101.

Meanwhile, PA and JA remained in Moran’s custody. Over the next few weeks, PA showed some alarming behavior. For example, on January 8, 2010, Rodriguez (along with her sister, and Toledo) visited PA and JA under supervision at-St. Vincent’s. PA repeatedly said that he was going to leave with his mother, and that he was going home; he also kept trying to leave the office, even when his mother was present. See Ex. Q at 27, ECF No. 315-17, in No. 10-cv-4661. On a January 21 visit to the foster home, PA kept trying to unlock the door and leave. Id. at 43-44. During that same visit, PA said he wished he were dead and attempted to cut himself with scissors. Ex. Q. His foster mother reported a variety of alarming behavior, such as smearing feces on the wall and hitting other children, id. at 35, and incidents where he would hit himself in the head and say “oh, my head, my head,” id. He also threatened to kill his sister. Id. at 39.

A St. Vincent’s psychologist, Eugene Plotnick, performed an initial evaluation of PA on January 14, 2010. A treatment note discussed PA’s violent outbursts, difficulty concentrating, lying, and claims that he wanted to Mil his sister, JA. PA also exhibited what Dr. Plotnick thought might be psychotic features, saying that “Jason is inside me, he’s telling me what to do,” and saying that his legs were trying to make him get out of his chair. Plotnick felt some of the behavior might be exaggerated, but he also stated that PA needed urgent attention and that he “wanted to expedite a psychiatric evaluation and treatment intervention.” Ex. W to PA SJ Mot., ECF No. 315-23 in No. 10-cv-4661. Nonetheless, Plotnick judged that PA was not an “imminent risk to self or others.” Id.

On January 22, 2010, PA ran away from Moran’s foster home. City Defs.’ 56.1 Statement, ¶ 102. He has not been found. Shortly after PA disappeared, Alford was granted custody of JA.

B. Procedural History

These cases began when Rodriguez filed a complaint on October 12, 2010. See Rodriguez Complaint, ECF No. 1 in No. 10-cv-4661. Alford filed a complaint on behalf of himself and JA on March 31, 2011. See Alford Complaint, ECF No. 1 in No. ll-cv-1583. Because PA’s parents could not agree to jointly represent his interests, I appointed pro bono counsel for PA on June 6, 2011, 2011 WL 2259745, see ECF No. 70. I later clarified that appointed counsel were also appointed as PA’s guardian ad litem. See Order, December 16, 2011.

PA moved for summary judgment in March of 2014. All plaintiffs and all defendants in both cases have now moved for summary judgment on at least some of the plaintiffs’ claims. I heard argument on the motions on July 11, 2014. positions. (I conclude that Alford’s and JA’s claims should not be resolved at this time; see Discussion D.3, infra.)

C. Claims Alleged pa’s Claims

The following table summarizes the claims of PA and Rodriguez and their dis-

Number Against Description Disposition

City Defs. § 1983, improper removal of Dismissed _PA_

All Defs. § 1983, failure to initially place PA with relatives Dismissed against organizations, but may proceed against relevant individuals

All Defs. § 1983, failure to reassign PA May proceed

_to relatives_ All Defs. § 1983, failure to place PA in May proceed _English-speaking home_

All Defs. § 1983, failure to care for PA May proceed _once in custody_

All Defs. NY State Const, art. I, § 6 May proceed to the extent it mirrors federal claims_

City Defs. State negligence mirroring Dismissed _claim 1_

All Defs. State negligence mirroring May proceed _claims 2 & 3_

All Defs. State negligence mirroring May proceed _claim 4_

10 All Defs. State negligence mirroring May proceed _claim 5

11 ACS & St. Vincent’s Defs. State intentional infliction of emotional distress_ Dismissed

12 All Defs. State negligent infliction of May proceed _emotional distress_

13 ACS & St. Vincent’s Defs. State false imprisonment May proceed

Rodriguez’s Claims

Number Against Description Disposition

City Defs. § 1983. procedural due process in initial removal Dismissed

All Defs. § 1983, procedural due process in foster _placement and care_ Dismissed

All Defs. § 1983, substantive due process in foster _placement and care •_ Dismissed

DISCUSSION

A. General Legal Standards

1. Summary Judgment Standard

A court may grant summary judgment where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if its resolution “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. In determining whether there are genuine disputes of material fact, the court must “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003).

The movant may show that summary judgment is appropriate by showing that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party based on the evidence offered in support of the claim. See Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 364 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir.2004) (“[T]he existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in support of nonmovant’s position is insufficient to defeat the motion; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the nonmovant.”) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505).

The mere fact that I have been presented with competing motions for summary judgment, and that all parties contend that the case can be disposed of as a matter of law, does not require that I grant summary judgment to some moving party. Rather, I must evaluate each motion separately, each time viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to (and resolving ambiguities in favor of) the non-moving party. See, e.g., Schwabenbauer v. Bd. of Ed. of City Sch. Dist. of City of Olean, 667 F.2d 305, 313-14 (2d Cir.1981).

2. Municipal Liability

In Monell v. Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court held that in certain instances a municipality may be held liable for the tortious conduct of its employees. 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). However, “governments should be held responsible when, and only when, their official policies cause their employees to violate another person’s constitutional rights.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 122, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); see also Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (“A municipality may not be held liable ... solely because it employs a tortfeasor.”). In the ordinary case, “[establishing the liability of the municipality requires a showing that the plaintiff suffered a tort in violation of federal law committed by the municipal actors and, in addition, that their commission of the tort resulted from a custom or policy of the municipality.” Askins v. Doe No. 1, 727 F.3d 248 (2d Cir. 2013).

3. Qualified Immunity

“[Qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known.” Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 568-69 (2d Cir.1996). “The protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official’s error is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In deciding a question of qualified immunity, “[t]he salient question is whether the state of the law at the time of an incident provided fair warning to the defendants that their alleged conduct was unconstitutional.” Tolan v. Cotton, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). When deciding qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a court must, as in resolving any other summary judgment motion, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and may not resolve genuine factual disputes. See id.

B. The Rooker-Feldman Challenge to Jurisdiction on Some Claims

The City Defendants argue that all of the claims arising from PA’s initial emergency removal are barred by the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The rule derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), as clarified by the Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), prohibits federal courts below the Supreme Court from exercising what amounts to appellate jurisdiction over a state court judgment. The principle follows from the proper interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), which gives the United States Supreme Court the sole authority to review state court decisions, regardless of any other grants of jurisdiction to lower federal courts. See Exxon, 544 U.S. at 291-92, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (“ § 1257, as long interpreted, vests authority to review a state court’s judgment solely in [the United States Supreme Court]”).

As articulated by the Second Circuit, four elements must be satisfied for a federal court to be deprived of jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman:

First, the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court. Second, the plaintiff must complain of injuries caused by a state-court judgment. Third, the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of that judgment. Fourth, the state-court judgment must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commenced—i.e., Rooker-Feldman has no application to federal-court suits proceeding in parallel with ongoing state-court litigation. The first and fourth of these requirements may be loosely termed procedural; the second and third may be termed substantive.

Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir.2005) (internal alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted).

Since Exxon, the Second Circuit has had a few chances to address the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine specifically in the child custody context. First, in a long passage of dicta in Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 87-88, the Court discussed a hypothetical federal suit attacking a state court’s final child custody disposition as an example of the sort of challenge the refined Rooker-Feldman doctrine would bar. Later, in Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97, 101-03 (2d Cir.2009), the Court applied that understanding to a case actually involving child custody. Critical to the outcome of Green was the nature of the state court relief purportedly “appealed” from in the federal case. The plaintiff was a parent whose child had been removed from her custody by state officials; a state family court order permitted the temporary removal of the child. But four days later the child was returned to her custody following a second order of the family court. See id. at 102. Because the removal was temporary, there was no final order from which she could “appeal.” The Second Circuit thus could not find her to be a “state-court loser.” Furthermore, at the time she filed the federal action, she could not “ ‘invite district court review and rejection’ of a state court judgment,” id. (quoting Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85), because her child had been returned to her. For these two reasons, the Court held that Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply to deprive the federal district court of jurisdiction. Finally, in V.S. v. Muhammad, 595 F.3d 426 (2d Cir.2010), the Second Circuit again held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar a § 1983 action challenging the removal of a child. In that case, ACS had, at the time of the federal proceedings, already withdrawn claims against the parents of a child, and the child had been returned to the parents’ custody. Id. at 430.

I find no meaningful distinction between the facts in this case and those in Green. It is undisputed that the state family court in this case never issued a final order depriving-either parent of PA’s custody. Indeed, the state court granted custody of JA, PA’s sister, to Alford shortly after PA disappeared. Because of PA’s tragic disappearance, the state court never had a chance to revisit its earlier ruling permitting PA’s temporary placement in foster care, but that does not render its initial decision to uphold the emergency removal “final” for the purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Just as in Green, the family court proceedings here did not result in an adverse disposition of which the plaintiffs could seek review in federal court. That is true even though the state court’s decision approving the initial removal had the effect of ratifying the officers’ conduct.

My view is reinforced by the purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The family court proceedings never reached a final outcome that would be appealable up the line of state courts and eventually (vi a certiorari) in the United States Supreme Court. As made clear in Exxon, the Rook-er-Feldman doctrine is principally focused on the narrow issue of how Congress has decided to divide up jurisdiction among the federal courts. As in Green, the plaintiffs here “had no reason to seek—and could not have sought—review of the Family Court’s temporary removal order by the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.” 585 F.3d at 102. In sum, the City’s argument that the family court’s order ratifying the officers’ removal decision bars PA’s current claims is inconsistent with Green, and for that reason I reject it here.

C. Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motions

1. Claims Arising from the Initial Removal of PA

PA moves for summary judgment against the City and ACS on his claims under § 1983 that City officials violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when they took custody of him on December 29, 2009. PA’s parents, Rodriguez and Alford, also move for summary judgment on procedural due process claims arising from PA’s removal; because the claims are very similar; I discuss them together (except as noted). In addition, the City Defendants move for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claim's.

a. The Contours of the Rights

A child has a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and that right is implicated when he is taken into custody by state officials: “When a child is taken into state custody, his or her person is ‘seized’ for Fourth Amendment purposes. The child may therefore assert a claim under the Fourth Amendment that the seizure of his or her person was ‘unreasonable.’ ” Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127, 143 (2d Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 980, 184 L.Ed.2d 773 (2013). PA’s argument does not focus on the Fourth Amendment theory that it was “unreasonable” to take him from Toledo’s house (and from the legal custody of his parents). Instead, he focuses on due process, arguing that there is no genuine dispute that emergency circumstances did not exist, and therefore that the City was not authorized to take PA.

Both child and parent possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the child’s remaining in parental custody. See id. at 142; see also Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen, 833 F.Supp.2d 356, 371 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (“Parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children, and children have a similarly protected liberty interest in not being separated from the intimacy of daily family association.”) (citing Kia P. v. McIntyre, 235 F.3d 749, 759 (2d Cir.2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Children have a parallel liberty interest in not being separated from their parents. Southerland, 680 F.3d at 142 (citing, inter alia, Kia P., 235 F.3d at 759).

The due process clause protects these liberty interests by generally forbidding the state from removing a child from his home without notice and an opportunity to be heard. “However, ‘in emergency circumstances, a child may be taken into custody by a responsible State official without court authorization or parental consent.’” Southerland, 680 F.3d at 149 (quoting Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 154, 171 (2d Cir.2003)). In such emergency circumstances, an adequate hearing is still required, but it may occur after the removal. See Southerland, 680 F.3d at 151 n. 22. But even when the child is in danger, officers should not feel free to remove him without an initial hearing and court order when such a pre-removal hearing is feasible: “If the danger to the child is not so imminent that there is reasonably sufficient time to seek prior judicial authorization, ex parte or otherwise, for the child’s removal, then the circumstances are not emergent; there is no reason to excuse the absence of the judiciary’s participation in depriving the parents of the care, custody and management of their child.” Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 594-95 (2d Cir.1999) (footnote omitted); see also E.D. ex rel. V.D. v. Tuffarelli, 692 F.Supp.2d 347, 362 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (discussing Tenenbaum); Porter v. City of New York, 1:03CV6463-ENV-LB, 2007 WL 1791149, at *2-5 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2007) (finding emergency circumstances in part because of the inability, due to time of day, to obtain a family court order).

“To show that emergency circumstances existed, the government must offer objectively reasonable evidence that harm was imminent.” Southerland, 680 F.3d at 149 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The Second Circuit has acknowledged that it “has not attempted to set forth exhaustively the types of factual circumstances that constitute imminent danger justifying emergency removal as a matter of federal constitutional law,” but among the qualifying circumstances are “the peril of sexual abuse, the risk that children will be left bereft of care and supervision, and immediate threats to the safety of the child.” Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). Thus, while only risk of severe harm will justify emergency removal, state officers may justifiably seek to avoid not only affirmative acts of violence or abuse, but also the absence of care and supervision— that is, neglect.

The most relevant emergency circumstance exception here is the. “risk that children will be ‘left bereft of care and supervision.’ ” Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 154, 171 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 80 (2d Cir.1991)). A clear example of such a risk occurred in Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825-26 (2d Cir.1977), in which the Second Circuit held that emergency removal was justified when a mother sought psychiatric treatment at Bellevue Hospital and was unexpectedly admitted for inpatient treatment for six days. Although the children had been left in the care of a neighbor with whom the mother regularly shared babysitting duties, id. at 822, the Court found that City officials were justified in taking custody of the children:

The trial court concluded that ‘(t) he initial custody in December 1969 was clearly proper since the facts show an emergency situation with the mother in the psychiatric ward of Bellevue Hospital and no one to take care of the children.’ We agree that the evidence establishes that the taking of the children was justified at the outset by an emergency. As such, as a matter of constitutional law, the initial removal of the children without parental consent or a prior court order was permissible.

Id. at 825-26 (internal citation omitted). The risk of neglect has also been found to be sufficiently serious to justify removal where a caregiver, though present, would likely be unable to provide adequate care on a short-term basis. For example, in Porter v. City of New York, the Court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on emergency circumstances where a child’s mother and grandmother had a history of serious alcohol abuse problems, the child was found with his inebriated grandmother on a Friday afternoon, and it was impossible to obtain a family court order before removing him. 2007 WL 1791149, at *2-5.

Finally, in determining whether emergency circumstances existed, the facts must not be viewed in hindsight. Rather, the question is whether the officer had a reasonable basis for concluding at the time of removal that it was necessary based on emergency circumstances. This “reasonable basis” standard developed in the context of suspected child abuse. See Wilkinson ex rel. Wilkinson v. Russell, 182 F.3d 89, 104-05 (2d Cir.1999). The “reasonable basis” standard is the merits determination, which applies to the officer’s judgment of the facts; it is separate from the protection of qualified immunity, a legal question which asks whether a reasonable officer could have (erroneously) believed at the time that his conduct was legally permissible. See id. at 107 n. 10. Caseworkers must deal with situations as they unfold, and they must worry about the horrific possibility that a risk to a child will materialize. Furthermore, the state’s power to interfere in the constitutionally protected child-parent relationship is increased “ ‘in circumstances where the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves.’ ” Id. at 104 (quoting Manzano v. South Dakota Dep’t of Social Servs., 60 F.3d 505, 510 (8th Cir.1995)). That concern is especially acute in cases of parental abuse, but the risk of neglect or the possibility that a child will go without care is equally attributable to a parent, and potentially just as dangerous.

In sum, “[t]he question on a summary judgment motion is whether a rational juror ‘could not fail to conclude that defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the prompt separation of [PA from his parents], without pausing to obtain a court order, was necessary.’ ” Porter, 2007 WL 1791149, at *4 (quoting Gottlieb v. Cnty. of Orange, 84 F.3d 511, 519 (2d Cir.1996)).

b. The Claims Against the Officers

Against that legal backdrop, I conclude that no reasonable juror could fail to find that the officers reasonably believed there were emergency circumstances justifying PA’s removal. The plaintiffs’ arguments rest on a misapprehension of the law. An “emergency” for the purposes of the inquiry here is not limited to a burning building or a closed fist. Especially when (as was the case here) the family court is not open, see Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 594-95, it is enough if the facts would cause a reasonable officer to believe that the child is at a substantial risk of neglect.

The plaintiffs vehemently dispute the reasonableness of the agents’ determination that PA was in danger. PA points to specific deposition excerpts in which defendants Salemi and Gibbs admit that, once officers traveled to Rodriguez’s home and spoke to her, Salemi and Gibbs determined that PA should be found and taken into temporary custody—even though they did not then know PA’s condition or whereabouts. See PA Br. in Support at 18-19, EOF No. 313. PA further argues that once officers found him at the house of his aunt, he was in no immediate danger.

However, it is undisputed that ACS officers had a wealth of alarming information about PA’s mother and legal custodian, Rodriguez. Rodriguez personally called ACS and, while high on marijuana and PCP, asked to be placed in drug treatment, which caused Salemi to dispatch Pride and Sosa to Rodriguez’s home. Once they arrived, Rodriguez was unable to tell ACS officers the name of an unidentified man present at her apartment, and she was also too intoxicated to tell officers where PA was (just that he was with an aunt). PA’s 56.1 Response, ECF No. 363-1, ¶¶ 20-36. All of this occurred while JA was present in Rodriguez’s home. Id. ¶ 26. Furthermore, the agents had reason to believe that Rodriguez’s previous delegations of childcare responsibility to relatives were unwise, given the poor record of the children’s maternal grandmother.

Under these circumstances, the fact that Toledo’s home did not immediately appear to endanger PA at the time he was removed does not undermine the reasonableness of the agents’ decision to remove him. Contrary to PA’s suggestion, it is not preposterous to think that Rodriguez might have sobered up enough to wonder where PA was—and then made efforts to get him back from Toledo, placing him back in the dangerous environment that was (indisputably) not suitable for a child, even on a short-term basis. Furthermore, although PA argues that Toledo’s home presented no danger to the child, it is also undisputed that ACS workers had not previously cleared her home and did not have enough time to thoroughly investigate the home and its occupants. A case worker cannot be required, by the federal constitution to leave a child in an unknown home simply because it appears safe.

In considering these claims, I am guided by larger principles of federalism, and of the proper division of authority among child protective workers, state family courts, and the federal courts. I do not take lightly the rights of both parent and child to remain united as a family; it is one of the most fundamental liberty interests that the federal Constitution protects from state interference. But the role of federal courts in protecting that right is reserved for extreme cases. Unlike (for example) the criminal justice system, for which the federal Constitution enumerates many specific rights and even some of the standards for policing violations of those rights, only high-level notions of fairness, due process, and liberty inform federal judicial decision-making about the right of family integrity. The primary authority for protecting that right from state interference rests with our democratically elected state and local governments. Yet at the same time, we also demand that those governments protect children. Given the competing demands we place on the states—not to interfere with families, while still keeping children safe—it cannot be that a reasonable choice to err on one side of that dialectic gives rise to liability under the federal Constitution. PA’s disappearance was tragic, and it would not have occurred but for the agents’ decisions. But I conclude as a matter of law that their conduct was based on a reasonable judgment of what was best for PA under the circumstances.

c. Claims Against the City

Though my conclusion that the individual defendants did not act unlawfully by removing PA precludes the imposition of municipal liability, I write to explain my view that plaintiffs’ theory of municipal liability also lacks support in the legal precedents on which it is based. Furthermore, if I am mistaken about the merits decision on the officers’ conduct, and the officers are protected only by qualified immunity, the following reasoning explains why the City would still not be liable.

As alleged against the City, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the challenged actions represented official policy or custom. PA’s principal argument in favor of Monell liability'' is that even if the decision to remove PA was not the result of an oft-repeated, officially promulgated policy or practice of the City, it was nonetheless made by sufficiently high-ranking officials that the acts must be attributed to the City as official action. This form of Mo-nell liability was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986), where the Court held that a municipality could be liable even for a single decision made by a gov-' ernment official, as long as the decision was “properly made by that government’s authorized decisionmakers,” since such an act “surely represents an act of official government ‘policy’ as that term is commonly understood.” Id. at 481, 106 S.Ct. 1292.

For the municipality to be liable for a single act, the plaintiff must identify a responsible municipal official who “has final authority over significant matters involving the exercise of discretion.” Gronowski v. Spencer, 424 F.3d 285, 296 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The policymaker must, with respect to the particular conduct alleged in the case, be “ ‘responsible under state law for making policy in that area of the [municipality’s] business.’ ” Jeffes v. Barnes, 208 F.3d 49, 57 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (plurality opinion)).

Here, the plaintiffs identify Reinaldo Gibbs, the Child Protective Manager on the case, who made the decision to remove PA on an emergency basis. As a matter of written City policy, “[o]nly the CPM in charge of the case is the decision-maker for each emergency custody decision.” Child Safety Alert from Commissioner John B. Mattingly: Conducting Emergency Removals of Children (Nov. 18, 2010), Ex. S, DE 315-19. The City does not dispute this characterization.

I conclude that Gibbs was not a “policymaker” within the meaning of the cases interpreting Pembaur, nor was his decision one of “policy,” so the City cannot be held responsible under § 1983 for his actions. As my starting point, I note that Pembaur did not intend to turn every exercise of discretion by a higher-ranking municipal official into an act attributable to the municipality:

The fact that a particular official—even a policymaking official—has discretion in the exercise of particular functions does not, without more, give rise to municipal liability based on an exercise of that discretion. The official must also be responsible for establishing final government policy respecting such activity before the municipality can be held liable.

Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 481-83, 106 S.Ct. 1292. The cited section of the opinion garnered only a plurality of the justices, but courts have found useful that language and the following accompanying footnote:

Thus, for example, the County Sheriff may have discretion to hire and fire employees without also being the county official responsible for establishing county employment policy. If this were the case, the Sheriffs decisions respecting employment would not give rise to municipal liability, although similar decisions with respect to law enforcement practices, over which the Sheriff is the official policymaker, would give rise to municipal liability. Instead, if county employment policy was set by the Board of County Commissioners, only that body’s decisions would provide a basis for county liability. This would be true even if the Board left the Sheriff discretion to hire and fire employees and the Sheriff exercised that discretion in an unconstitutional manner; the decision to act unlawfully would not be a decision of the Board. However, if the Board delegated its power to establish final employment policy to the Sheriff, the Sheriffs decisions would represent county policy and could give rise to municipal liability.

Id. at 483 n. 12, 106 S.Ct. 1292; see also, e.g., Hardy v. Town of Greenwich, 3:06CV833 (MRK), 2009 WL 2176117, at *3-4 (D.Conn. July 22, 2009) (discussing the footnote). In Pembaur itself, for example, the challenged action was ultimately attributable to a county prosecutor’s decision to forcibly break down a door. See 475 U.S. at 472-73, 106 S.Ct. 1292. The county prosecutor was authorized under Ohio law to make county policy on law enforcement decisions. Id. at 484-85, 106 S.Ct. 1292. The prosecutor was thus both authorized to make the final decision about whether to break down the door, and in fact did so, consistent with his views on proper law enforcement policy.

Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs have not alleged that Gibbs, though empowered to exercise discretion over the final emergency removal decision, was also the official who made City policy about the circumstances under which such decisions would be made, the factors that would go into them, and so forth. This case is therefore similar to a line of cases in which courts have held that allegedly discriminatory employment decisions were not attributable to municipalities because the final de-cisionmakers did not also set employment policy. See, e.g., Hardy, 2009 WL 2176117, at *5 (citing cases).

The authority plaintiffs rely on to support Pembaur liability is distinguishable. For example, in Bray v. City of New York, No. 04 Civ. 8255(WHP), 2005 WL 2429504 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005), the plaintiffs challenged the seizure of bicycles by the N.Y. PD following a protest ride. The City was found liable on a Pembaur theory because plaintiffs challenged the decision of a high-ranking police officer who had, by his own admission, “responsibility for overseeing the operations of all of the precincts in Manhattan south of 59th Street.” Id. at *8. Although he was “not at the top of the N.Y. PD’s chain of command,” he was “the chief officer directing how the response was going to be to [the protest ride],” and he had in fact “personally directed officers” to remove the bicycles in question. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the officer not only had discretion; he also created the policy that he personally applied to the situation on behalf of the NYPD.

In sum, I grant summary judgment to defendants on all claims under § 1983 arising from the initial action of removing PA.

d. Parallel State Law Claims

Furthermore, I conclude that no reasonable jury could find the City defendants negligent in removing PA from Toledo’s custody on December 29, 2009. They of course owed PA a duty of care when they removed hi m, but the facts would not support a reasonable conclusion that their conduct breached that duty. Plaintiffs do not argue that officers were negligent in any way other than in failing to properly assess whether emergency circumstances justified the removal without a court order. As discussed above, the officers permissibly made a determination that PA was in danger based on his mother’s behavior, and their decision to remove him from his great-aunt’s custody was therefore permissible. No reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. Because the individual defendants were not negligent, the City is not liable on a respondeat superior theory.

2. Claims Relating to PA’s Foster Care

PA alleges in his remaining claims both that his placement in foster care and his treatment while in foster care violated state and federal law. The defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of these claims. PA has moved for summary judgment on his fifth claim (for failure to protect him from harm while in foster care, in violation of the federal constitution) and tenth claim (state negligence for the same conduct). In addition, Alford and JA have moved for summary judgment on their federal claims, including claims that PA was misplaced in foster care and that defendants failed to protect him; and Rodriguez moves for summary judgment on procedural and substantive due process claims.

a. Legal Standards

When a child is placed in foster care, his or her governmental custodian is “charged with affirmative duties,” the breach of which may violate the Constitution. Doe v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 649 F.2d 134, 141 (2d Cir.1981) (“Doe I”). In other words, “children in foster care [have] a substantive due process right to protection from harm.” Mar isol A. by Forbes v. Giuliani, 929 F.Supp. 662, 675 (S.D.N.Y.1996). The right is “violated by professional caretakers ‘only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.’ ” Phelan ex rel. Phelan v. Torres, 1:04-CV-03538-ERK, 2011 WL 6935354, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2011) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982)). The standard of care “ ‘is essentially a gross negligence standard.’ ” Id. (quoting Doe v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 790 (2d Cir.1983) (“Doe II”)).

Here, plaintiffs have sued both the City (and its employees) and a private organization, St. Vincent’s (and its employees), to which the City delegated substantial responsibility. St. Vincent’s concedes for the purposes of the summary judgment motions that it was acting under the color of state law and may therefore be sued under § 1983. See St. Vincent’s Br. at 7 n. 2, ECF No. 345 in No. 10-cv-4661. Courts have extended Monell’s limitations on re-spondeat superior liability to private organizations acting under color of state law, see, e.g., Rojas v. Alexander’s Dep’t Store, Inc., 924 F.2d 406, 408 (2d Cir.1990), and granted the protection of qualified immunity to individual employees of such organizations when acting under color of state law, see, e.g., Finch v. City of New York, 591 F.Supp.2d 349, 363 (S.D.N.Y.2008).

As to the City, although it has delegated responsibility for the care of foster children to agencies such as St. Vincent’s, “the State and City remain ultimately responsible for the child’s welfare” while in foster care. Phillips ex rel. Green v. City of New York, 453 F.Supp.2d 690, 737 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The City may therefore be liable under a Monell theory if it has an official policy or custom that causes violations of foster children’s rights, or if it is deliberately indifferent to those rights when it delegates authority to foster agencies.

b. Claims Against St. Vincent’s

Genuine disputes of material fact persist with respect to these claims, precluding judgment as a matter of law.

Based on record evidence, a jury could reasonably find that St. Vincent’s employees had notice of PA’s need for immediate psychiatric treatment and care, and failed to properly discharge their duties to him. That evidence could reasonably give rise to a finding that St. Vincent’s employees were grossly negligent. For similar reasons, I cannot conclude on this record that, as a matter of law, St. Vincent’s employees should be protected by qualified immunity, since, if the jury finds that their conduct was illegal, it violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable official would have known.

The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs documents occasions on which PA attempted to run away or said that he would do so. For example, on January 8, 2010, Rodriguez (along with her sister, as well as Toledo) visited PA and JA under St. Vincent’s supervision. According to the Progress Notes entry, PA repeatedly said that he was going to leave with his mother, and that he was going home; he also kept trying to leave the office, even when his mother was present. See Ex. Q at 27, ECF No. 315-17, in No. 10-ev-4661. Anderson (the author of the note) admitted that she “was only able to focus on [PA] and keeping him from running away.” Id. at 28. The Progress Notes also show that on a January 21 visit to the foster home, PA kept trying to unlock the door and leave. Id. at 43-44.

The evidence includes indications of stress and erratic behavior sufficient for an expert to believe that PA needed immediate medical attention. An intake interview performed by a St. Vincent’s psychologist, Eugene Plotnick, on January 14, 2010, suggested that PA needed immediate psychiatric evaluation. In several places in his one-page memorandum summarizing the intake (which was sent to Sister Elizabeth Mullane, who was in charge of St. Vincent’s medical department), Dr. Plot-nick stated that PA needed urgent attention and also said that he “wanted to expedite a psychiatric evaluation and treatment intervention.” Ex. W to PA SJ Mot., ECF No. 315-23 in No. 10-cv—4661. The note also discussed PA’s violent outbursts, difficulty concentrating, lying, and claims that he wanted to kill his sister, JA. In addition, PA exhibited what Dr. Plotnick thought might be psychotic features, saying that “Jason is inside me, he’s telling me what to do,” and saying that his legs were trying to make him get out of his chair. Of course, it is also true that Plot-nick judged that PA was not an “imminent risk to self or others,” id., which is among the reasons why summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is also not appropriate.

Other incidents seem to confirm Plot-nick’s concerns. For example, at the January 21 visit, PA said that he wished he were dead; he also attempted to cut himself with scissors. Ex. Q. His foster mother reported a variety of alarming behavior, such as smearing feces on the wall and hitting other children, id. at 35, and incidents where he would hit himself in the head and say “oh, my head, my head,” id. He also threatened to kill his sister. Id. at 39.

From this and other evidence, a jury could reasonably find that PA’s behavior demanded greater urgency and more attention than PA’s caregivers provided. At the same time, a jury could also reasonably conclude that the defendants’ response to the warning signs did not amount to gross negligence. For these reasons, summary judgment is not appropriate on the claims against Anderson and Villalta.

Finally, the determination of qualified immunity in this case turns on the facts, not on any judgment about legal uncertainty. Accordingly, a grant of qualified immunity to these defendants is not appropriate at this time. If a jury finds that the individual defendants were grossly negligent, then their conduct violated clearly established rights, and no reasonable person in their position could have believed otherwise. The availability of qualified immunity is a legal question, to be resolved by the Court. See Negron v. City of New York, 976 F.Supp.2d 360, 370 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Generally, whether qualified immunity applies to the conduct of a law enforcement officer is a question of law for the court to decide.” (citing Stephenson v. Doe, 332 F.3d 68, 80-81 (2d Cir.2003))). Though I acknowledge the possibility that nuanced findings of historical fact may bear on that issue (and may warrant the submission of specific factual questions to the jury), the critical point at this juncture is that the qualified immunity defense is inextricably bound up in the facts of the case, and cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

The foregoing does not settle the question of St. Vincent’s own liability—under either federal or state law—as an agency, or of the City’s potential liability for delegating responsibility to St. Vincent’s.

As to St. Vincent’s, I conclude that the plaintiffs’ factual presentation is insufficient to proceed to trial on the § 1983 claims. The plaintiffs can succeed on the federal claims against St. Vincent’s itself only if the actions of individuals can be attributed to the agency through Monell or a related form of liability. Here, PA argues that St. Vincent’s should be held liable on a failure to supervise theory: where high-ranking officers of an agency are deliberately indifferent to the culpable conduct of ordinary, low-ranking employees, the failure to intervene and properly supervise those employees can be attributed to the agency itself. See Richards v. City of New York, 433 F.Supp.2d 404, 424 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (for substantive due process liability for omission to perform affirmative duties, “(1) the omissions must have been a substantial factor leading to the denial of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest; and (2) the officials in charge of the agency being sued must have displayed a mental state of deliberate indifference in order to meaningfully be termed culpable under § 1983”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Doe I, 649 F.2d at 141). “An agency demonstrates deliberate indifference that supports a failure-to-supervise claim if it should have known that inadequate supervision was so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights” that the agency’s supervisory personnel “can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

PA relies substantially on Doe I, in which the Second Circuit found an agency liable for the culpable conduct of lower-ranking officers because “the causal link between the agency’s alleged failure to supervise and the continuation of [the victim’s] abuse is clear.” 649 F.2d at 144. In Doe I, the Catholic Home Bureau, a foster agency, spent more than a decade gradually coming to the realization that a child had been abused. See id. at 137-40. Agency officials were presented with numerous red flags, including a specific medical assessment that the child had been abused, but did not act for at least two years. Id. at 139. Although the opinion does not give much detail about what makes “clear” the “causal link,” the causal ■link here is anything but clear, and PA’s allegations about supervisory personnel at St. Vincent’s are especially thin. PA points to two specific conversations between Villalta and Theodora Diggs, a director at St. Vincent’s, and Mullane, the head of St. Vincent’s medical department, about Plotnick’s evaluation. But those two conversations over the three-week period in which St. Vincent’s had custody of PA could not reasonably give rise to an inference that high-ranking St. Vincent’s officials were deliberately indifferent to the risks to PA.

However, state law is’ different: ordinary principles of respondeat superior govern whether St. Vincent’s might be liable for its employees’ tortious conduct. The issue is barely argued, but I do not see on this record a basis to grant summary judgment to either side on the plaintiffs’ state negligence claims against St. Vincent’s. Thus, those claims may proceed to trial alongside the state and federal claims against the individual officers.

c. Claims Against the City

Plaintiffs’ allegations that the City has a policy of “abandoning” children in foster care and “abdicating” responsibility over them are insufficient to support their claim. No reasonable jury could find from the evidence adduced that the City has a policy of abandoning care over foster children, or that the City is deliberately indifferent to their care.

D. Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions

Both St. Vincent’s and the City Defendants move for summary judgment on all the plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

1. PA’s Remaining Claims

a. Claims About Kinship Placement

The City Defendants argue that PA’s second and third claims should be dismissed because PA has provided no evidence that the City has a policy of failing to place children with relatives, or a policy of failing to remove children from non-kinship foster care once it is clear that suitable relatives are available.

The record and argument on these claims are not well-developed. As alleged against the City, PA must show that he was harmed by City policy or practice. On the second claim (failure to initially place with kin), PA has adduced essentially no evidence demonstrating that the City has a policy of failing to place children with relatives instead of in foster care. Accordingly, summary judgment on that claim is appropriate in favor of the City. To the extent the claim is alleged against individual ACS agents, the City’s briefing does not make a clear argument why summary judgment should be granted, and the motion is therefore denied.

On the third claim (failure to change placement to kinship), PA has pointed to documents outlining the role of the Initial Child Safety Conference and a follow-up conference held at most twenty days later, during which time ACS will not generally attempt to change the assignment of a child. See, e.g., Initial Child Safety Conference (CSC) Brief Policy at 13, ECF No. 351-5 (describing follow-up conference to be scheduled “no later than twenty (20) days after the first Child Safety Conference”). He also points out that, in this case, the City quickly (within one day) cleared the home of Ms. Mercado, a relative, but did not attempt to move him from foster care to her care. A triable issue therefore remains, and the motion is denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of that claim.

b. Claims About Moran’s English Competency

The City and the St. Vincent’s defendants also claim that PA has failed to raise a triable issue on his claim that he should have been placed with an English-speaking foster mother. The record clearly reflects a genuine dispute over Moran’s competency in English. For example, PA cites a Foster Home Recertification Report in which Moran is listed as having a “weakness” of being “limited in English.” Ex. G to PA Reply at 9, ECF No. 364-7 in No. lO-cv-4661. PA cites other evidence as well, including in Ex. E, F, H, and I to the reply. Thus, the underlying issue is disputed. But that is not enough—the claim is raised against municipal defendants whose potential liability is limited by the principles set forth in Monell. On that score, though the issue is a close one, I conclude that summary judgment is inappropriate. PA has shown that the placement with Moran was a result of an automatic computer match, see PA 56.1 Response ¶ 51, but he has provided very little information about the operation or effects of that system beyond this case. However, Susan Pope, an employee of St. Vincent’s who oversaw PA’s placement into Moran’s home, seems to have admitted in a deposition that competency in English was not a factor in the system’s matching of foster parents with children. See Pope Dep. at 57:25-60:15, ECF No. 364-2. She also said there were no written policies designed to ensure linguistic compatibility, and she had never been instructed to “take language compatibility into account” in making a placement decision. See id. at 69:9-21. Viewed i