Today, the Tenth Circuit published two civil opinions.
In Thomas v. Kaven (No. 13-2076), the court considered the dismissal of a § 1983 action on qualified immunity grounds. The case arose out of actions taken by medical professionals at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center when a minor child was hospitalized for a mental health evaluation after she was determined to be a suicide risk. The medical professionals repeatedly asked the parents for permission to give the child psychotropic medication and, when the parents refused, reported the parents to the Child, Youth, and Families Department, placed the child on a medical hold that prevented the parents from removing her from the hospital, and filed a petition for involuntary residential treatment of the child. The next day, when the parents’ insurance carrier discontinued coverage of the inpatient treatment, the medical professionals discharged the child from the hospital and abandoned the petition for involuntary residential treatment, but once again reported the parents to the Child, Youth, and Families Department of the state government.
The parents made claims under § 1983 for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their child’s medical care and the right to familial association. The defendant medical professionals moved to dismiss on the basis of both absolute and qualified immunity; the district court granted the motion only with respect to qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the finding of qualified immunity with respect to the claim relating to the child’s medical care, but reversed the dismissal with respect to the claim relating to the right of familial association. The court first concluded that the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient to state a claim for deprivation of the right to familial association when the defendants placed the child on a medical hold. And on a motion to dismiss, the court found that there were insufficient undisputed facts to determine whether reasonable officers would disagree as to whether an immediate threat to the child’s life existed when the medical professionals placed her on a medical hold. The Tenth Circuit therefore reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In re: Vaughn (No. 13-1189) involved an appeal of a bankruptcy court’s decision that the petitioner’s tax liability for two years was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C) because he had filed a fraudulent tax return and sought to evade the taxes. The petitioner had invested in tax shelters known as a BLIPS — Bond Linked Issue Premium Structures — which the IRS concluded did not constitute bona fide losses under the tax code.
For the losses to qualify as non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court had to find both a conduct requirement and a mental state requirement. The bankruptcy court concluded that these requirements were met — the petitioner knew of the IRS opinion on BLIPS and the likelihood that he would be audited and owe additional taxes when he disposed of considerable assets in his divorce. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Colorado Appeals 