ÿWPC ×¶£+ï»ÄÇc¤ÇœåP_Ô¢CcѾˆ† e2€ªGF¹VT.»•Å c¿’­“.óï€ NIPUfxÑ7’‘e}sG=Ÿ´Cîw |¯’ê©20258æReÜéNÒìX~Å…•½ŒOénìW „3A§é Ô!«O8¦ØØ«>æ0òÝÅ*&› =úÊ?æ‰ÞžÞdGÞÖ‚3òŽv‘™@n1|º86ak902Ì*Ϫ]4{êó2¾¥Íl†îZrµ|ПlDG§¥Ö}½°4ý)_¢g€\ðÍlÝœŸh–üÄ]°ñe1ËAäÕ=\šâ-° ÈhUw¯F1žÿ %Ë.2Žå9•VÑùzVØŽÿ¬¶áŒHzů¬a¿»Å/e¥·pœÐÎÔM§ã³…ïe°èH”¼Bgå ìiçÞæ$1P œW“î)’9½øÙ1Ñ}ª$rŒKŽÿkêÂ`kc’7̶_Sã¨3:ª†ÈôDY¡Ë¶Ûá}÷IJRü š"¾ÖåK8c¦ºŠsŸÔ.·¾Òæ™ £jÚ:£ûÿ‹ˆ@†¥øQ.zLÏ÷ލY;‘yÚm1¹›T'P/s¹ørJnk@¼¼”áuÝzìù>#!d %… 0D‹ 0(Ï÷ 0ÆÿNÅÅ^ Çw@Ó4'6 m88bOEWfYa[[UFoooCµµ*ø ø ø ‘"c³³³³³³³³³ BUF3UNyU>ǘHP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡ (d:2ä¼$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€;òO;XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóøŒ‘+Æ ( ) E* D+ , - E. / 0 1 ïýˆe+6X¢Ø+003|x1 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-øÀTABLE A<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular 9Ý ƒ ¼$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€;’E;XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOnce€the€state€takes€temporary€custody€of€a€child,€it€mustÐ ° Ðfollow€procedures€adequate€to€justify€that€detention.€€òòSeeóó€òòJordanóóÐ †Ö Ðv.€òòJacksonóó,€15€F.3d€333,€345„46€(4th€Cir.€1994).€€This€processÐ \¬ Ðoften€takes€the€form€ð"ð€as€here€ð"ð€of€an€ex€parte€order€of€temporaryÏcustody,€followed€by€a€hearing€on€the€merits€of€the€allegations€ofÏabuse.€€€òòE.g.óó,€òòThomasonóó€v.€òòSCAN€Volunteer€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€85€F.3dÐ Þ. Ð1365,€1369„70€(8th€Cir.€1996).€€In€his€proposed€amended€complaint,Ïthe€appellant€charges€Brown€with€both€substantive€and€proceduralÏviolations€of€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€His€arguments€on€appeal,Ïhowever,€relate€only€to€the€former.€€Accordingly,€we€deem€hisÏprocedural€due€process€claims€abandoned.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð  \  ÐòòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.€1990). Ý ƒ ¼$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€;’E;XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNotwithstanding€the€òòóóCourt's€sequencing€of€the€relevantÐ ° Ðinquiries,€òòóósome€circuit€courts€have€held€that,€under€particularÐ †Ö Ðcircumstances,€a€court€may€cut€directly€to€the€question€of€whetherÏthe€constitutional€right€was€clearly€established€at€the€time€of€theÏalleged€violation.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòKalkaóó€v.€òòHawkóó,€215€F.3d€90,€96„98€(D.C.Ð X ÐCir.€2000);€òòHorneóó€v.€òòCoughlinóó,€191€F.3d€244,€249€(2d€Cir.€1999).€Ð Þ. ÐBecause€we€follow€the€Supreme€Court's€suggested€protocol,€we€needÏnot€consider€the€propriety€of€such€a€deviation€here. ‡Ý ƒ ¼$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€;’E;XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDCYF€hardly€can€be€faulted€for€retaining€custody€thereafter,Ð ° Ðinasmuch€as€the€Family€Court,€acting€on€much€the€same€information,Ïissued€an€ex€parte€order€ratifying€John's€separation€from€hisÏfather. YÝ ƒ ¼$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€;’E;XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€parties€dispute€the€exact€time€that€DCYF€custodyÐ ° Ðattached,€but€that€dispute€is€not€material€to€our€decision.€ÏConsequently,€we€need€not€resolve€it. dÿ.Courier New Regular(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular&Courier RegularÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXà3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡°y °XXÔÔ‡<°—d°°°y ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†<XàìX°<°—dÅ#ÔÔ‡<„³Ó„X<XàìÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†<XàìX„<„³ÓY#ÔÔ#†X2jXX<Xàìä#Ôó óÐ à ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE<£ ` AßÐ ¤ ô ÐÌNo.€01„1442ÌÌà@ÄÄìàRICHARD€H.€HATCH,€JR.,ˆÌà@ ìàPlaintiff,€Appellant,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@ppìàDEPARTMENT€FOR€CHILDREN,€YOUTH€AND€THEIR€FAMILIESˆÌà@LLìà(STATE€OF€RHODE€ISLAND),ˆÌà@<< ìàDefendant,€Appellee,ˆÌÌßA€') °°` dE<º` AßÐ »  ÐÌà@\ \ ìàSTEVEN€BROWN€AND€MARY€Ô_ÔMCKEEÔ_Ô,ˆÌà@¨ ¨ ìàProposed€Defendants,€Appellees.ˆÌà@XX%ìà___________ˆÌÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÌà@l l ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€RHODE€ISLANDˆÌÌà@œ œ ìà[Hon.€Ernest€C.€Torres,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ zÊ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<%` AßÐ &v ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð á1 ÐCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð ·  Ðand€Saris,*€òòDistrict€Judgeóó.Ð Ý! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<8!` AßÐ 9!‰# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòJoseph€R.€Ô_ÔPalumboÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó,€for€appellant.Ð "n% Ðà  àòòLinn€F.€Freedmanóó,€Deputy€Chief,€Civil€Division,€with€whomÐ ô"D& ÐòòSheldon€Ô_ÔWhitehouseÔ_Ôóó,€Attorney€General,€State€of€Rhode€Island,€was€onÐ Ê#' Ðbrief,€for€appellees.ÌÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  "'r"+ ‹‹ÐÓÂÓñ1 ñÐ SI†'Ö",  /â@37241„„‰ /â@‰‹‹SÐñ1 ññ1 ñÐ 0&†'Ö", „„‹‹0Ðñ1 ñÌñ0 ñDecember€17,€Ô_Ô2001ñ0 ñÔ_ÔÌÐ SID2)‚$/"  /â@37241  /â@ ‹‹SÐÐ(†'Ö"0  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  Ó_____________Ì*Of€the€District€of€Massachusetts,€sitting€by€designation.Ð  º, (3? ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€=¢É=X XdÈXXdÖ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€case€comes€before€usÐ ° Ðfollowing€the€district€court's€entry€of€summary€judgment€adverse€toÏplaintiff„appellant€Richard€H.€Hatch,€Jr.,€and€the€court'sÏconcomitant€refusal€to€grant€leave€to€amend.€€On€appeal,€HatchÏchallenges€only€the€latter€ruling.€€Concluding,€as€we€do,€thatÏamendment€would€be€futile€because€the€qualified€immunity€of€theÏprospective€defendant€would€render€nugatory€the€proposed€amendedÏcomplaint,€we€affirm.Ìò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ,|  Ðà ` àWe€divine€the€following€account€of€the€facts€from€theÏrecord€below,€drawing€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€appellant'sÏfavor.Ìà ` àIn€the€spring€of€1997,€the€appellant€inquired€aboutÏadopting€a€child.€€Two€months€later,€he€accepted€an€emergencyÏplacement€of€John€Doe,€then€age€seven,€at€the€behest€of€the€RhodeÏIsland€Department€for€Children,€Youth€and€their€Families€(DCYF).€ÏWhile€in€the€appellant's€custody,€John€exhibited€serious€behavioralÏand€emotional€problems€stemming€from€past€abuse€ð"ð€problems€that€theÏappellant€alleges€were€known€to€DCYF€at€the€time€of€the€placement.€ÏIn€particular,€John€tended€to€be€deceitful€and€to€fly€into€tantrumsÏ(often€hurting€himself€during€bouts€of€uncontrolled€rage).€€DespiteÏthese€problems,€the€appellant€adopted€John€in€August€of€1998.Ìà ` àIn€the€two€years€following€his€adoption,€John's€demeanorÏimproved,€and€the€appellant€attributes€that€improvement€to€hisÐ \+¬&. Ðparenting€skills.€€Then€came€a€chain€of€events€that€culminated€inÏJohn's€temporary€removal€from€the€appellant's€custody.€€That€chainÏwas€forged€when€the€appellant€left€John€with€a€friend€for€sevenÏweeks€to€participate€in€the€television€show€"Survivor."€€JohnÏgained€weight€during€that€interval€and€the€appellant,€upon€hisÏreturn,€decided€to€institute€a€fitness€regime.Ìà ` àThe€first€step€in€this€initiative€occurred€at€4:30€a.m.Ïon€April€27,€2000,€when€the€appellant€directed€John€to€accompanyÏhim€on€a€four„or„five„mile€run.€€During€this€excursion,€John€beganÏto€complain.€€The€appellant€responded€by€declaring€that€the€lengthÏof€the€run€would€be€extended.€€John€then€threw€a€tantrum€and€theÏappellant€pulled€back€his€arms€and€jacket€to€keep€him€from€harmingÏhimself.€€At€some€point,€John€fell€to€the€ground€and€bumped€hisÏforehead.€€After€things€had€quieted€down,€the€appellant€took€JohnÏto€school.Ìà ` àAt€the€start€of€class,€John's€teacher€noticed€the€bumpÏand€questioned€John€about€its€origins.€€John€replied€that€he€hadÏfallen€on€cement.€€The€teacher€sent€John€to€the€school€nurse,€whoÏapplied€an€ice€pack€and€inquired€about€the€bump.€€John€repeated€theÏsame€story.€€The€nurse€also€observed€red€marks€across€John's€neckÏand€asked€about€those€as€well;€John€told€her€that€he€had€scrapedÏhimself€during€the€run.€€Although€the€nurse€doubted€this€account,Ïshe€sent€the€lad€back€to€the€classroom€with€the€ice€pack€andÏinstructions€that€he€report€to€her€at€recess.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àWithin€the€hour,€John's€teacher€also€remarked€the€redÏmarks€on€his€neck.€€John€told€her€that€he€had€been€scraped€byÏbranches€during€the€run.€€The€teacher€and€the€nurse€conferred€laterÏthat€morning,€and€the€nurse€indicated€that€she€would€telephone€theÏappellant€to€secure€his€explanation€of€what€had€happened.€€ForÏwhatever€reason,€she€did€not€make€the€call.Ìà ` àJohn€returned€to€the€nurse€at€noon€with€a€very€differentÏversion€of€the€facts.€€He€stated€bluntly:€€"You€saw€all€this€stuffÏthat€happened€to€me,€my€father€did€it."€€When€asked€to€amplify,€heÏclaimed€that,€during€the€run,€he€could€not€continue€and€fell€to€theÏpavement€as€his€father€pulled€him€by€the€earlobe.€€John€furtherÏclaimed€that€his€father€compelled€him€to€do€pushups€by€manipulatingÏhis€neck€and€pushing€his€head€into€the€cement€surface.€€He€addedÏthat€he€had€been€hit€in€the€past€and€that€he€was€afraid€to€returnÏhome.Ìà ` àAlarmed€by€this€account,€the€nurse€took€John€to€theÏprincipal's€office.€€John€told€the€principal€what€he€had€told€theÏnurse.€€The€principal€then€sent€John€back€to€class,€but€telephonedÏÔ_ÔDCYFÔ_Ôò òó ó€and€related€the€details€of€John's€statement.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àÔ_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô€assigned€appellee€Steven€Brown,€an€investigator,€toÏfollow€up€on€John's€allegations€of€abuse.€€Brown€called€the€schoolÏshortly€before€2:30€p.m.€and€spoke€with€the€principal.€€She€advisedÏBrown€that€the€school€was€closing€soon€and€expressed€fear€that€theÏappellant€might€come€for€his€son€before€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô€had€a€chance€toÐ $+t&. Ðinterview€the€boy.€€Brown€advised€the€principal€to€put€matters€inÏthe€hands€of€the€local€constabulary€pending€his€(Brown's)€arrival.Ìà ` àThe€principal€followed€this€advice€and€called€the€police.€ÏThe€officers€responded€immediately.€€John€again€related€his€tale€ofÏabuse€and€the€officers€transported€him€to€the€Middletown€policeÏstation.€€Brown€arrived€at€the€station€at€approximately€3:30€p.m.€ÏHe€intended€to€interview€John€there,€but€the€boy€complained€ofÏdizziness€and€headaches,€so€Brown€arranged€for€him€to€be€taken€toÏNewport€Hospital.€€John€told€the€rescue€personnel€essentially€theÏsame€story€that€he€had€told€to€the€nurse,€the€principal,€and€theÏpolice.€€The€appellant€appeared€at€the€police€station€at€about€theÏsame€time€as€Brown.€€He€was€unceremoniously€arrested€for€felonyÏchild€abuse.Ìà ` àMeanwhile,€Brown€had€followed€John€to€Newport€Hospital.€ÏJohn€was€seen€by€an€on„call€physician,€Dr.€Ô_ÔAltreuterÔ_Ô,€who€found€hisÏinjuries€consistent€with€his€tale€of€abuse.€€Dr.€Ô_ÔAltreuterÔ_Ô€placedÏJohn€under€a€"physician's€hold"€pending€the€institution€ofÏproceedings€before€the€Family€Court.€€òòSeeóó€R.I.€Gen.€Laws€ðð€40„11„Ð !l" Ð5(a)€(granting€to€physicians€who€encounter€injuries€consistent€withÏabuse€the€right,€without€parental€consent,€to€place€an€injuredÏchild€on€a€seventy„two€hour€hold€pending€an€adjudicative€hearing).ò òó ó€Ð  &p!( Ðâ âThe€doctor€then€notified€Brown€of€his€action€and€gave€Brown€a€copyÐ Ì'#* Ðof€his€report.€€Brown€immediately€placed€the€child€under€theÏprotective€custody€of€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àBrown€proceeded€to€interview€the€boy,€heard€his€accountÏof€abuse€at€first€hand,€and€took€photographs€of€his€injuries.€ÏBrown€also€learned€of€the€appellant's€involvement€in€"Survivor,"Ïprompting€him€to€call€his€supervisor,€Mary€Ô_ÔMcKeeÔ_Ô,€to€warn€her€thatÏthis€might€prove€to€be€a€"high„profile€case."€€He€then€attempted€toÏinterview€the€appellant€ð"ð€whether€before€or€after€he€repaired€toÏthe€courthouse€is€not€clear€ð"ð€but€the€appellant€refused€to€speakÏwith€him€on€advice€of€counsel.€€At€the€close€of€his€investigation,ÏBrown€sought€the€aid€of€the€Family€Court,€which€issued€an€ex€parteÏorder€of€temporary€custody.Ìà ` àJohn€remained€in€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô's€custody€pending€a€furtherÏadjudication.€€On€May€24,€2000,€the€Family€Court€heard€testimonyÏand€determined€that€there€was€no€probable€cause€to€believe€thatÏJohn€had€been€abused.€€The€court€therefore€concluded€that€returningÏhome€would€not€place€John€at€risk,€rescinded€the€order€grantingÏprovisional€custody€to€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô,€and€restored€John€to€the€appellant'sÏcare.Ìà ` àThe€matter€did€not€end€there.€€On€July€3,€2000,€theÏappellant€filed€suit€against€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô€in€the€United€States€DistrictÏCourt€for€the€District€of€Rhode€Island.€€The€complaint€soughtÐ Ì'#* Ðmonetary€damages€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€for,€inter€alia,€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô'sÏalleged€violation€of€the€appellant's€constitutional€rights€toÏfamilial€integrity€and€to€freedom€from€undue€interference€in€theÏcare,€custody,€and€control€of€his€child.€€After€the€completion€ofÏpretrial€discovery,€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô€moved€for€summary€judgment€on€the€groundÏthat€the€Eleventh€Amendment€protects€states€(and,€therefore,€stateÏagencies)€from€section€1983€liability.€€ò òòòóóó óRelying€on€the€SupremeÐ ¸  ÐCourt's€decision€in€€òòWillóó€v.€òòMichigan€Department€of€State€Policeóó,Ð d´  Ð491€U.S.€58,€70€(1989),€the€district€court€granted€this€motion.Ìà ` àThe€appellant€sought€to€resuscitate€his€action€by€movingÏto€amend€his€complaint,€essentially€by€substituting€Brown€and€Ô_ÔMcKeeÔ_ÔÏas€parties€defendant.€€The€district€court€denied€the€motion€toÏamend€as€futile,€emphasizing€that€the€doctrine€of€qualifiedÏimmunity€safeguarded€the€proposed€defendants€against€liability€forÏmoney€damages.€€This€timely€appeal€followed.€€In€it,€the€appellantÏchallenges€only€the€district€court's€denial€of€leave€to€file€anÏamended€complaint€against€Brown.Ìò òII.€€STANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÐ !l" Ðà ` àAs€a€general€rule,€we€will€reverse€a€district€court'sÏdecision€granting€or€denying€a€motion€to€amend€a€complaint€only€forÏabuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔAoudeÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòMobil€Oil€Corp.óó,€892€F.2d€1115,Ð <&Œ!( Ð1121€(1st€Cir.€1989).€€We€view€the€court's€exercise€of€discretionÏin€this€area€of€the€law€through€the€prism€of€Federal€Rule€of€CivilÏProcedure€15(a),€which€indicates€that€leave€to€amend€a€complaintÐ @+&. Ð"shall€be€freely€given€when€justice€so€requires."€€In€practice,Ïthis€means€that€the€denial€of€such€a€motion€will€be€upheld€so€longÏas€the€record€evinces€an€arguably€adequate€basis€for€the€court'sÏdecision€(e.g.,€futility,€bad€faith,€undue€delay,€or€a€dilatoryÏmotive€on€the€Ô_ÔmovantÔ_Ô's€part).€€òòGrantóó€v.€òòNews€Group€Boston,€Inc.óó,€55Ð ` ° ÐF.3d€1,€5€(1st€Cir.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔCorreaÔ_Ô„Martinezóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔArrillagaÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔBelendezÔ_Ôóó,Ð  \  Ð903€F.2d€49,€59€(1st€Cir.€1990).Ìà ` àHere,€the€district€court€cited€the€first€of€theseÏrationales€ð"ð€futility€ð"ð€as€the€linchpin€of€its€ruling.€€In€theÏabstract,€futility€is€fully€sufficient€to€justify€the€denial€of€aÏmotion€to€amend.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔCorreaÔ_Ô„Martinezóó,€903€F.2d€at€59€("Where€anÐ h¸ Ðamendment€would€be€futile€or€would€serve€no€legitimate€purpose,€theÏdistrict€court€should€not€needlessly€prolong€matters.").€€TheÏquestion,€then,€is€whether€the€circumstances€of€this€case€justifyÏthe€court's€characterization.Ìà ` àBefore€addressing€this€question,€we€pause€to€identify€theÏyardstick€by€which€futility€is€to€be€measured.€€The€appropriatenessÏòòvelóó€òònonóó€of€a€district€court€decision€denying€a€motion€to€amend€onÐ !l" Ðthe€ground€of€futility€depends,€in€the€first€instance,€on€theÏposture€of€the€case.€€If€leave€to€amend€is€sought€before€discoveryÏis€complete€and€neither€party€has€moved€for€summary€judgment,€theÏaccuracy€of€the€"futility"€label€is€gauged€by€reference€to€theÏliberal€criteria€of€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€12(b)(6).€€òòSeeóóÐ x)È$, ÐòòÔ_ÔGlassmanÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔComputervisionÔ_Ô€Corp.óó,€90€F.3d€617,€623€(1st€Cir.€1996).€Ð $+t&. ÐIn€this€situation,€amendment€is€not€deemed€futile€as€long€as€theÏproposed€amended€complaint€sets€forth€a€general€scenario€which,€ifÏproven,€would€entitle€the€plaintiff€to€relief€against€the€defendantÏon€some€cognizable€theory.€€òòSeeóó€òòRoseóó€v.€òòHartford€Underwriters€Ins.Ð ´  ÐCo.óó,€203€F.3d€417,€421€(6th€Cir.€2000)€(explaining€that,€in€such€aÐ ` ° Ðposture,€"a€proposed€amendment€is€futile€only€if€it€could€notÏwithstand€a€12(b)(6)€motion€to€dismiss").€€If,€however,€leave€toÏamend€is€not€sought€until€after€discovery€has€closed€and€a€summaryÏjudgment€motion€has€been€docketed,€the€proposed€amendment€must€beÏnot€only€theoretically€viable€but€also€solidly€grounded€in€theÏrecord.€€òòResolution€Trust€Corp.óó€v.€òòGoldóó,€30€F.3d€251,€253€(1st€Cir.Ð h¸ Ð1994).€€In€that€type€of€situation,€an€amendment€is€properlyÏclassified€as€futile€unless€the€allegations€of€the€proposed€amendedÏcomplaint€are€supported€by€substantial€evidence.€€òòId.óóÐ l¼ Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€hand,€discovery€had€closed€and€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô€hadÏmoved€for€summary€judgment€before€the€appellant€filed€his€motionÏfor€leave€to€amend€the€complaint.€€Since€the€appellant€has€had€theÏfull€run€of€discovery€and€all€the€pertinent€evidence€is€in€theÏrecord€ð"ð€the€appellant€does€not€suggest€that€additional€discoveryÏwould€reveal€new€facts€sufficient€to€put€the€case€in€a€differentÏlight€ð"ð€we€apply€the€more€rigorous€"substantial€evidence"€standard.Ìò òIII.€€ANALYSISó óÐ Ì'#* Ðà ` àPersons€acting€under€color€of€state€law€are€liable€underÏ42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€for€infringing€on€the€constitutional€rights€ofÐ @+&. Ðprivate€parties.€€But€this€liability€is€not€absolute:€€the€doctrineÏof€qualified€immunity€provides€a€safe€harbor€for€a€wide€range€ofÏmistaken€judgments.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔMalleyÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòBriggsóó,€475€U.S.€335,€341€(1986)Ð X Ð(explaining€that€qualified€immunity€"provides€ample€protection€toÏall€but€the€plainly€incompetent€or€those€who€knowingly€violate€theÏlaw").€€Through€this€doctrine,€"the€law€strives€to€balance€itsÏdesire€to€compensate€those€whose€rights€are€infringed€by€stateÏactors€with€an€equally€compelling€desire€to€shield€public€servantsÏfrom€undue€interference€with€the€performance€of€their€duties€andÏfrom€threats€of€liability€which,€though€unfounded,€may€neverthelessÏbe€unbearably€disruptive."€€òòÔ_ÔBuenrostroÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔCollazoÔ_Ôóó,€973€F.2d€39,€42Ð h¸ Ð(1st€Cir.€1992).Ìà ` àDetermining€whether€qualified€immunity€is€available€to€aÏparticular€defendant€at€a€particular€time€requires€a€Ô_ÔtrifurcatedÔ_ÔÏinquiry.€€We€ask,€first,€whether€the€plaintiff€has€alleged€theÏviolation€of€a€constitutional€right.€€If€so,€we€then€ask€whetherÏthe€contours€of€the€right€were€sufficiently€established€at€the€timeÏof€the€alleged€violation.€€Finally,€we€ask€whether€an€objectivelyÏreasonable€official€would€have€believed€that€the€action€taken€orÏomitted€violated€that€right.€òòóó€òòStarlight€Sugar,€Inc.óó€v.€òòSotoóó,€253Ð t$Ä& ÐF.3d€137,€141€(1st€Cir.€2001).€€We€make€these€three€inquiries€inÏsequence,€mindful€that€a€single€negative€answer€suffices€to€defeatÏthe€plaintiff's€claim€for€damages.€€òòId.óóÐ x)È$, ÐÐ $+t&. Ðà@tt)ìàò òòòA.óóó óˆÐ ° Ðà ` àWe€start,€as€the€Supreme€Court€has€suggested,€with€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€appellant€has€alleged€the€violation€of€aÏconstitutional€right.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòWilsonóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔLayneÔ_Ôóó,€526€U.S.€603,€608„09Ð Ð  Ð(1999);€òòCounty€of€Sacramentoóó€v.€òòLewisóó,€523€U.S.€833,€841€n.5Ð | Ì Ð(1998).€€The€appellant€predicates€his€claim€on€what€he€visualizesÏas€the€right€to€familial€integrity€and,€as€a€subset€of€that€right,Ïthe€parental€interest€in€the€care,€custody,€and€control€ofÏchildren.Ìà ` àAt€a€certain€level€of€generality,€this€right€is€plainlyÏof€constitutional€dimension.€€The€interest€of€parents€in€the€care,Ïcustody,€and€control€of€their€children€is€among€the€most€venerableÏof€the€liberty€interests€embedded€in€the€Constitution.€€òòÔ_ÔTroxelÔ_Ôóó€v.Ð Ü, ÐòòGranvilleóó,€530€U.S.€57,€65€(2000).€€As€such,€it€is€protected€by€theÐ ˆØ ÐDue€Process€Clause.€€òòId.óó€at€66.€€We€must€go€further,€however,Ð 4„ Ðbecause€a€right€cannot€be€stated€at€so€high€a€level€of€generalityÏfor€the€purposes€of€a€qualified€immunity€inquiry.€€òòSeeóó€òòAndersonóó€v.Ð ŒÜ  Ðâ âòòÔ_ÔCreightonÔ_Ôóó,€483€U.S.€635,€639€(1987).Ð 8!ˆ" Ðà ` àIn€this€vein,€the€law€recognizes€that€the€protectionÏâ âafforded€to€the€parents'€interest€must€be€balanced€against€otherÏvalid€interests,€particularly€the€best€interests€of€the€child€andÏthe€interest€of€society€in€the€maturation€of€children€as€futureÏcitizens.€€òòSeeóó€òòFrazieróó€v.€òòBaileyóó,€957€F.2d€920,€929„30€(1st€Cir.Ð ` ° Ð1992).€€Thus,€the€state€may€freely€investigate€allegations€of€childÏabuse,€òòÔ_ÔWattersonÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòPageóó,€987€F.2d€1,€8€(1st€Cir.€1993),€and€if,€asÐ ¸  Ða€result,€it€develops€clear€and€convincing€evidence€of€parentalÏunfitness,€it€may€move€to€terminate€the€relationship€between€parentÏand€child.€€òòÔ_ÔSantoskyÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòKrameróó,€455€U.S.€745,€747„48€(1982).€€As€anÐ ¼  Ðinterim€measure,€the€state€may€separate€the€child€from€the€parent,Ïprior€to€a€hearing,€for€cause€shown.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔCecereÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòCity€of€NewÐ d ÐYorkóó,€967€F.2d€826,€829€(2d€Cir.€1992).Ð À Ðà ` àThe€appellant's€proposed€amended€complaint€focuses€onÏsuch€a€temporary€custodial€interruption:€€Brown's€decision€to€takeÏJohn€into€state€custody€prior€to€obtaining€a€Family€Court€order.€ÏThe€Court€has€not€had€occasion€to€formulate€the€contours€of€theÐ pÀ  Ðconstitutional€rule€under€which€a€state€official€lawfully€may€takeÏtemporary€custody€of€a€child€during€an€investigation€of€abuse€orÏneglect,€nor€has€this€court€dealt€definitively€with€the€issue.€ÏOther€courts€have€grappled€with€it,€however,€and€most€of€them€haveÏconcluded€that€a€case€worker€ð"ð€we€use€that€term€generically€ð"ð€mayÏplace€a€child€in€temporary€custody€when€he€has€evidence€giving€riseÏto€a€reasonable€and€Ô_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€suspicion€that€the€child€has€beenÏabused€or€is€in€imminent€peril€of€abuse.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBrokawóó€v.Ð d´  ÐòòMercer€Countyóó,€235€F.3d€1000,€1019€(7th€Cir.€2000);€òòCroftóó€v.Ð `  ÐòòÔ_ÔWestmorelandÔ_Ô€County€Children€&€Youth€Servs.óó,€103€F.3d€1123,€1126Ð ¼  Ð(3d€Cir.€1997);€òòÔ_ÔGottliebÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòCounty€of€Orangeóó,€84€F.3d€511,€518€(2dÐ h¸ ÐCir.€1996);€òòManzanoóó€v.€òòS.D.€Ô_ÔDep'tÔ_Ô€of€Soc.€Servs.óó,€60€F.3d€505,€511Ð d Ð(8th€Cir.€1995).€€The€justification€for€such€a€rule€is€easilyÏgrasped:€€where€a€state€official€has€a€reasonable€basis€to€suspectÏabuse,€"the€interest€of€the€child€(as€shared€by€the€state€as€Ô_ÔparensÔ_ÔÏÔ_ÔpatriaeÔ_Ô)€in€being€removed€from€that€home€setting€to€a€safe€andÏneutral€environment€outweighs€the€parents'€private€interest€inÏfamilial€integrity€as€a€matter€of€law."€€òòThomasonóó€v.€òòSCAN€VolunteerÐ !l" ÐServs.,€Inc.óó,€85€F.3d€1365,€1373€(8th€Cir.€1996).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€the€Constitution€imposes€aÏhigher€standard€on€the€state.€€He€would€have€us€adopt€the€minorityÏview,€espoused€on€the€appellate€level€only€by€one€court,€whichÏrequires€that€prior€to€assuming€temporary€custody,€a€case€workerÏhave€"reasonable€cause€to€believe€that€the€child€is€in€imminentÐ $+t&. Ðdanger€of€serious€bodily€injury€and€that€the€scope€of€the€intrusionÏis€reasonably€necessary€to€avert€that€specific€injury."€€òòWallisóó€v.Ð \¬ ÐòòSpenceróó,€202€F.3d€1126,€1138€(9th€Cir.€2000).€€This€rule€borders€onÐ X Ðan€obligatory€showing€of€probable€cause€(or€something€fairly€closeÏto€probable€cause).€€Equally€as€important,€the€Ninth€Circuit€hasÏrequired€case€workers,€as€an€adjunct€to€this€showingñ/ ñ,ñ/ ñ€first€toÏexhaust€all€"reasonable€avenues€of€investigation."€€òòId.óóÐ ¸  Ðà ` àWe€think€that€this€sets€the€bar€too€high,€and€that€theÏmajority€rule€better€balances€the€competing€interests€of€the€child,Ïthe€parents,€and€the€state.€€Because€the€welfare€of€the€child€isÏparamount,€an€objectively€reasonable€suspicion€of€abuse€justifiesÏprotective€measures.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔLossmanÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔPekarskeÔ_Ôóó,€707€F.2d€288,€291Ð d Ð(7th€Cir.€1983)€("When€a€child's€safety€is€threatened,€that€isÏjustification€enough€for€action€first€and€hearing€afterward.").€ÏòòóóIndeed,€evidence€of€even€a€single€instance€of€abuse€may€constituteÐ h Ðan€exigent€circumstance€sufficient€to€warrant€immediate€stateÏaction€on€a€child's€behalf.€€òòSeeóó€òòJordanóó€v.€òòJacksonóó,€15€F.3d€333,Ð pÀ  Ð350€(4th€Cir.€1994)€(holding€that,€in€such€circumstances,€theÏinterest€in€familial€integrity€may€be€infringed€for€a€short€timeÏgiven€"the€unthinkable€consequence€of€a€premature,€erroneous€returnÏof€a€child€to€the€custody€of€parents€in€whose€custody€the€child'sÏlife€might€be€in€imminent€danger").Ìà ` àMoreover,€the€government€has€a€compelling€interest€inÏsafeguarding€children€that€it€suspects€are€victims€of€abuse€and€inÐ $+t&. Ðacting€quickly€on€their€behalf.€€We€live€in€an€era€in€which€caseÏworkers€operate€under€enormous€pressure,€confronted€with€theÏnecessity€of€making€on„the„spot€judgments€on€the€basis€of€limitedÏand€often€conflicting€information.€€Circumstances€frequently€forceÏthem€to€make€difficult€choices€without€time€for€extensiveÏinvestigation.€€When€presented€with€evidence€of€apparent€childÏabuse,€a€case€worker€must€have€a€fair€amount€of€leeway€to€act€inÏthe€interest€of€an€imperilled€child€ð"ð€and€it€is€better€to€err€onÏthe€side€of€caution€than€to€do€nothing€and€await€incontrovertibleÏproof.€€Given€these€realities,€the€existence€of€a€reasonableÏsuspicion€of€child€abuse€warrants€protecting€the€child€by€takingÏhim€or€her€into€custody€ð"ð€subject,€of€course,€to€appropriateÏprocedural€safeguards,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó€note€3€ð"ð€while€investigatingÐ À Ðfurther.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilkinson€ex€rel.€Wilkinsonóó€v.€òòRussellóó,€182€F.3d€89,Ð l¼ Ð105€(2d€Cir.€1999).Ìà ` àThat€settles€the€matter.€€We€reject€the€appellant's€viewÏthat€a€case€worker,€even€after€he€has€a€reasonable€suspicion€ofÏchild€abuse,€must€conduct€a€full„blown€investigation€and€elevateÏthat€suspicion€to€the€level€of€probable€cause€before€assumingÏtemporary€custody.€€We€hold€instead€that€the€Constitution€allows€aÏcase€worker€to€take€temporary€custody€of€a€child,€without€aÏhearing,€when€the€case€worker€has€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€childÏabuse€has€occurred€(or,€alternatively,€that€a€threat€of€abuse€isÏimminent).€€It€follows,€therefore,€that€a€parent's€right€to€theÐ $+t&. Ðcare,€custody,€and€control€of€a€minor€child€is€inviolate€unless€aÏcase€worker€has€such€a€suspicion.€€In€this€instance,€theÏappellant's€complaint€(though€it€unsuccessfully€espouses€a€broaderÏstatement)€sufficiently€identifies€this€clearly€establishedÏconstitutional€right.€€Thus,€the€appellant€satisfies€the€firstÏprong€of€the€tripartite€test.Ìà@tt)ìàò òòòB.óóó óˆÐ ¸  Ðà ` àWe€now€must€determine€whether€the€contours€of€theÏconstitutional€right€that€we€have€identified€ð"ð€a€parent's€right€toÏcustody€in€the€absence€of€a€case€worker's€reasonable€suspicion€ofÏchild€abuse€ð"ð€were€clearly€established€at€the€time€of€the€criticalÏevents.òòóó€€òòÔ_ÔBuenrostroÔ_Ôóó,€973€F.2d€at€42.€€The€appellant€contends€thatÐ 0€ Ðthe€right€here€was€sufficiently€defined€at€the€time€of€Brown'sÏactions.€€Brown€disagrees,€maintaining€that€our€previous€decisions,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòÔ_ÔWattersonÔ_Ôóó,€987€F.2d€at€8;€òòFrazieróó,€957€F.2d€at€930„31,Ð 4„ Ðhighlight€the€amorphous€nature€of€the€constitutional€interestÏinvolved€and€thus€compel€the€conclusion€that€the€contours€of€theÏright€were€not€clearly€established.Ìà ` àThe€critical€inquiry€here€is€whether€the€dimensions€ofÏthe€right€were€sufficiently€well„defined€that€a€reasonable€officialÏwould€have€understood€that€his€actions€violated€that€right.€ÏòòAndersonóó,òòóó€483€U.S.€at€640.€€This€does€not€mean€that€a€court€mustÐ è'8#* Ðalready€have€outlawed€similar€conduct;€the€test€is€satisfied€if,Ïviewed€in€the€light€of€preexisting€jurisprudence,€the€unlawfulnessÐ @+&. Ðof€the€conduct€is€apparent.€€òòId.óó€€We€emphasize€that€this€test€isÐ ° Ðtime„sensitive.€€Unless€the€law€was€clearly€established€at€the€timeÏwhen€an€official€acted,€he€"could€not€reasonably€be€expected€toÏanticipate€subsequent€legal€developments,€nor€could€he€fairly€beÏsaid€to€'know'€that€the€law€forbade€conduct€not€previouslyÏidentified€as€unlawful."€€òòHarlowóó€v.€òòFitzgeraldóó,€457€U.S.€800,€818Ð  \  Ð(1982).€€Absent€such€notice,€the€official€is€excused€from€liabilityÏfor€money€damages€under€the€doctrine€of€qualified€immunity.€ÏòòAndersonóó,€483€U.S.€at€646.€€If€such€notice€exists,€however,€theÐ `  Ðinquiry€proceeds.Ìà ` àTo€determine€the€contours€of€a€particular€right€at€aÏgiven€point€in€time,€an€inquiring€court€must€look€not€only€toÏSupreme€Court€precedent€but€to€all€available€case€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÐ À ÐStatesóó€v.€òòLanieróó,€520€U.S.€259,€268„69€(1997);€òòBuckleyóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔRogersonÔ_Ôóó,Ð l¼ Ð133€F.3d€1125,€1129€(8th€Cir.€1998).€€The€Court€has€not€yet€spokenÏto€the€propriety€òòvelóó€òònonóó€of€the€reasonable€suspicion€standard.€€OurÐ Ä Ðown€precedents€are€likewise€inconclusive€both€as€to€the€correctnessÏof€the€standard€and€as€to€when€(or€under€what€circumstances)€anÏofficer's€belief€that€a€child€has€been€abused€justifies€him€inÏtaking€temporary€custody€without€a€hearing.€€The€closest€of€ourÏcases€is€òòDeCostaóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔChabotÔ_Ôóó,€59€F.3d€279€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(perÐ  &p!( Ðcuriam).€€There,€parents€brought€suit€against€a€social€workerÏcharging€a€violation€of€their€right€to€familial€integrity€duringÏher€investigation€of€possible€child€abuse.€€òòId.óó€at€280.€€We€heldÐ $+t&. Ðthat€the€social€worker€enjoyed€qualified€immunity,€noting€that€sheÏhad€acted€on€the€grandmother's€statements€about€ongoing€abuse€ð"ðÏstatements€later€corroborated€by€the€children€themselves.€€òòId.óó€atÐ X Ð280„81.€€This€is€consistent€with€the€"reasonable€suspicion"Ïstandard,€but€the€òòÔ_ÔDeCostaÔ_Ôóó€court€neither€articulated€a€general€legalÐ ` ° Ðrule€governing€such€cases€nor€discussed€the€circumstances€underÏwhich€a€state€actor€might€take€temporary€custody€of€a€child€whileÏprobing€charges€of€abuse.Ìà ` àIn€òòFrazieróó,€we€upheld€a€grant€of€qualified€immunity€toÐ `  Ðsocial€workers€who€had€played€a€role€in€a€family€dispute.€€In€soÏdoing,€we€stated€that€a€father's€right€to€the€care,€custody,€andÏcontrol€of€his€children€"can€rarely€be€considered€'clearlyÏestablished'€.€.€.€in€the€absence€of€closely€corresponding€factualÏand€legal€precedent."€€òòFrazieróó,€957€F.2dòòóó€at€931€(citation€omitted).€Ð l¼ ÐBut€òòFrazieróó€did€not€involve€a€situation€in€which€a€child€was€takenÐ h Ðinto€temporary€custody€prior€to€a€hearing,€and€we€were€careful€toÏrefrain€from€pronouncing€any€rule€applicable€to€that€specificÏcircumstance.€€So€too€òòWattersonóó,€987€F.2d€at€8,€in€which€we€heldÐ !l" Ðsimply€that€a€case€worker€is€not€liable€for€violating€the€right€toÏfamilial€integrity€merely€because€he€conducts€a€child€abuseÏinvestigation.òòóóÐ  &p!( Ðà ` àSeveral€years€elapsed€between€the€dates€on€which€òòFrazieróóÐ Ì'#* Ðand€òòWattersonóó€were€decided€and€the€date€on€which€Brown€tookÐ x)È$, Ðtemporary€custody€of€the€appellant's€son.€€During€that€interval,€anÐ $+t&. Ðemerging€body€of€decisional€law€outside€our€own€circuit€has€shed€aÏbrighter€light€on€the€contours€of€the€constitutional€right€assertedÏby€the€appellant.€€Although€our€sister€circuits€have€reachedÏdifferent€conclusions€on€the€constitutional€standard€to€be€appliedÏwhen€a€state€actor€takes€a€child€into€temporary€custody,€thoseÏdecisions€share€a€common€denominator:€€at€an€irreducible€minimum,Ïa€case€worker€must€have€no€less€than€a€reasonable€suspicion€ofÏchild€abuse€(or€imminent€danger€of€abuse)€before€taking€a€childÏinto€custody€prior€to€a€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrokawóó,€235€F.3d€at€1019;Ð `  ÐòòCroftóó,€103€F.3d€at€1126;€òòÔ_ÔThomasonÔ_Ôóó,€85€F.3d€at€1373;€òòÔ_ÔManzanoÔ_Ôóó,€60Ð ¼  ÐF.3d€at€511;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòÔ_ÔMabeÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòSan€Bernardino€Countyóó,€237€F.3d€1101,Ð h¸ Ð1106„09€(9th€Cir.€2001)òòóó€(elevating€the€suspicion€needed€to€a€levelÐ d Ðakin€to€probable€cause);€òòWallisóó,€202€F.3d€at€1138€(adding€theÐ À Ðrequirement€that€case€workers€pursue€reasonable€avenues€ofÏinvestigation€before€depriving€parents€of€custody).€€RecentÏdistrict€court€decisions€have€hewed€to€the€same€line.€€òòE.g.óó,òòóó€òòÔ_ÔStrailÔ_ÔóóÐ Ä Ðv.€òòDCYFóó,€62€F.€Supp.€2d€519,€530€(Ô_ÔD.R.I.Ô_Ô€1999);€òòÔ_ÔHebeinÔ_Ô€ex.€rel.Ð pÀ  ÐBermanóó€v.€òòYoungóó,€37€F.€Supp.€2d€1035,€1044€(N.D.€Ill.€1998).€€GivenÐ !l" Ðthe€widespread€agreement€that€has€developed€as€to€the€applicableÏlegal€regime,€we€conclude€that,€in€the€spring€of€2000,€anÏobjectively€reasonable€case€worker€surely€would€have€believed€thatÏtaking€temporary€custody€of€a€child€prior€to€a€hearing€wouldÏviolate€the€parents'€interest€in€the€child's€care,€custody,€andÏcontrol€if€he€acted€without€a€reasonable€suspicion€of€child€abuseÐ $+t&. Ð(actual€or€imminent).€€That€conclusion€has€important€implicationsÏfor€this€case:€€since€clearly€established€law€gave€reasonableÏwarning€to€Brown€that€he€risked€liability€for€violating€theÏappellant's€constitutional€rights€if€he€took€custody€of€JohnÏwithout€a€reasonable€basis€for€his€suspicions€of€child€abuse,€theÏappellant€has€survived€the€second€step€of€our€inquiry.Ìà@tt)ìàò òòòC.óóó óˆÐ ¸  Ðà ` àWhile€the€first€two€steps€in€the€qualified€immunityÏpavane€deal€with€abstract€legal€principles,€the€final€step€dealsÏwith€the€facts€of€the€particular€case.€€The€question€here€isÏwhether€Brown€had€reliable€information,€sufficient€to€support€aÏreasonable€suspicion€of€abuse,€when€he€removed€John€from€hisÏfather's€custody.Ìà ` àIn€answering€this€question,€it€is€important€to€understandÏthe€parameters€of€the€qualified€immunity€defense.€€We€have€writtenÏthat€"the€defense€of€qualified€immunity€offers€sanctuary€not€onlyÏto€government€officials€who€act€with€impeccable€propriety,€but€alsoÏto€those€who€err€but€could€not€reasonably€have€understood€thatÏtheir€actions€infracted€a€prospective€plaintiff's€federally€assuredÏrights."€€òòÔ_ÔQuinteroÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔQuinteroÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔAponteÔ_Ô„Roqueóó,€974€F.2d€226,€228Ð $à& Ð(1st€Cir.€1992).€€This€means€that€an€official€is€entitled€toÏqualified€immunity€as€long€as€"he€had€an€objectively€reasonableÏbasis€for€believing€that€his€conduct€would€not€abridge€the€rightsÏof€others."€€òòÔ_ÔIacobucciÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔBoulterÔ_Ôóó,€193€F.3d€14,€23€(1st€Cir.€1999).€Ð @+&. ÐThe€district€court€concluded€that,€taking€the€facts€in€the€lightÏmost€hospitable€to€the€appellant's€theory€of€the€case,€Brown€actedÏon€such€an€objectively€reasonable€basis.€€Accordingly,€the€courtÏdeemed€the€appellant's€proposed€amended€complaint€an€exercise€inÏfutility.€€We€examine€that€determination.Ìà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€Brown€acted€unreasonablyÏbecause€he€did€not€investigate€the€matter€fully€(e.g.,€obtain€theÏappellant's€side€of€the€story,€interview€John's€babysitter,Ïacquaint€himself€with€John's€prior€inconsistent€statements,€delveÏinto€John's€troubled€past)€before€taking€temporary€custody€of€John.€ÏThat€argument€will€not€wash.€€As€we€have€said,€if€what€Brown€knewÏafforded€him€a€reasonable€basis€for€suspecting€abuse,€he€was€underÏno€obligation€to€investigate€further€before€removing€the€boy€fromÏan€apparently€dangerous€situation.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔRobisonÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòViaóó,€821€F.2dÐ l¼ Ð913,€921„22€(2d€Cir.€1987).Ìà ` àThe€appellant€next€argues€that€Brown€lacked€a€reasonableÏbasis€for€his€suspicions€because€he€relied€primarily€on€hearsayÏinformation€ð"ð€an€account€relayed€by€the€principal€(who€merelyÏparroted€what€she€had€heard€that€morning€from€John€and€the€schoolÏnurse).€€Despite€the€hearsay€nature€of€the€principal's€statement,Ïwe€think€that€Brown€had€a€reasonable€basis€for€suspecting€childÏabuse.€€We€explain€briefly.Ìà ` àWhen€he€took€custody,€Brown€knew,€at€the€very€least,€thatÏtwo€responsible€faculty€members€(the€principal€and€the€schoolÐ $+t&. Ðnurse)€took€John's€claim€of€abuse€seriously;€that€John€had€repeatedÏthat€claim€to€the€police;€that€he€bore€marks€consistent€with€hisÏclaim;€that€the€boy€had€expressed€fear€for€his€safety€should€he€beÏforced€to€return€home;€that€he€was€complaining€of€headaches€andÏdizziness;€and€that€a€neutral€physician,€after€examining€John,€hadÏreported€that€his€injuries€were€consistent€with€abuse€and€hadÏplaced€him€under€a€"physician's€hold."€€We€believe€that€this€wasÏmore€than€sufficient€to€raise€a€reasonable€suspicion€of€abuse€(and,Ïthus,€to€justify€a€temporary€assumption€of€custody).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€fact€that€the€principal's€statements€were€hearsayÏdoes€not€alter€this€result.€€Hearsay€evidence,€if€cloaked€withÏindicia€of€reliability,€may€establish€a€reasonable€suspicion€ofÏunlawful€activity€in€the€preliminary€stages€of€an€investigation.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€elaborated€on€this€point€a€decade€ago:ÌÓÓà8 ` àReasonable€suspicion€.€.€.€is€dependent€uponÏboth€the€content€of€information€possessed€byÏpolice€and€its€degree€of€reliability.€€BothÏfactors€ð"ð€quantity€and€quality€ð"ð€areÏconsidered€in€the€'totality€of€theÏcircumstances€ð"ð€the€whole€picture,'€that€mustÏbe€taken€into€account€when€evaluating€whetherÏthere€is€reasonable€suspicion.€€Thus,€if€a€tipÏhas€a€relatively€low€degree€of€reliability,Ïmore€information€will€be€required€to€establishÏthe€requisite€quantum€of€suspicion€than€wouldÏbe€required€if€the€tip€were€more€reliable.Ð ` x` x Ðâ âÐ  &p!( ÐÓÓòòAlabamaóó€v.€òòWhiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330€(1990)€(citation€omitted).€€TheÐ ° Ðâ âcritical€question,€then,€is€not€whether€Brown€relied€on€hearsay,Ïbut,€rather,€whether€information€possessed€by€Brown€at€the€time€heÏremoved€John€from€the€appellant's€custody€was€sufficientñ& ñ€ñ& ñto€dispelÏthe€notion€that€he€acted€on€a€mere€hunch.ñ, ñ€ñ, ñ€òòSeeóó€òòñ' ñWoodñ' ññ( ñid.ñ( ñóóñ) ñ,ñ) ñ€ñ* ñ89€F.3d€ñ* ñat€ñ- ñ9ñ- ññ. ñ3ñ. ñ29ñ+ ñ„30ñ+ ñ.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€hearsay€at€issue€here€passes€this€screen.€€After€all,Ïthe€principal€herself€had€observed€John's€injuries€and€had€receivedÏmaterial€information€from€him€and€from€the€school€nurse.€€Moreover,Ïshe€provided€Ô_ÔDCYFÔ_Ô€with€a€detailed€account€of€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€supposed€abuse€and€the€child's€fear€of€reprisal.€ÏGiven€the€authority€of€the€principal€and€her€proximity€to€theÏpurported€victim,€the€indications€of€reliability€were€very€strong.Ìà ` àEven€more€compelling€were€the€statements€of€Dr.ÏÔ_ÔAltreuterÔ_Ô.€€The€physician€provided€Brown€with€an€expert€medicalÏopinion€that€the€child€had€injuries€consistent€with€abuse.€Ï(Indeed,€the€doctor€felt€constrained€to€place€the€child€on€aÏseventy„two€hour€"physician's€hold.")€€Dr.€Ô_ÔAltreuterÔ_Ô's€recentÏexamination€of€John€and€his€expert€authority€in€medicine€areÏpowerful€indicators€of€reliability,€and€his€statementsÏsubstantiated€the€conclusion€that€John€had€been€abused€thatÏmorning.Ìà ` àTo€say€more€would€be€to€paint€the€lily.€€We€hold€that€theÏinformation€known€to€Brown€when€he€took€temporary€custody€of€JohnÏmet€both€the€qualitative€and€quantitative€requirements€of€theÐ $+t&. Ðreasonable€suspicion€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔThomasonÔ_Ôóó,€85€F.3d€at€1371;Ð ° ÐòòÔ_ÔRobisonÔ_Ôóó,€821€F.2d€at€922.€€Consequently,€the€appellant€falters€atÐ \¬ Ðthe€third€step€of€the€qualified€immunity€inquiry.Ìò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óà ¨ àÐ ´  Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€The€record€shows€that€Brown€hadÏa€reasonable€basis€both€for€suspecting€child€abuse€and€forÏbelieving€John€to€be€in€danger€(and,€therefore,€that€he€actedÏjustifiably€in€taking€the€boy€into€temporary€custody).€€The€factÏthat€this€suspicion€proved,€in€the€long€run,€to€be€unfounded€doesÏnot€strip€Brown€of€his€entitlement€to€qualified€immunity€in€regardÏto€a€claim€for€damages.€€òòSeeóó€òòMalleyóó,€475€U.S.€at€341€(emphasizingÐ „Ô Ðthat€the€qualified€immunity€standard€protects€many€mistakenÏjudgments);€òòBrennanóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔHendriganÔ_Ôóó,€888€F.2d€189,€192€(1st€Cir.€1989)Ð Ü, Ð(similar).€€Hence,€the€district€court€supportably€characterized€theÏappellant's€proposed€amended€complaint€as€futile€and€appropriatelyÏdenied€the€motion€for€leave€to€amend.ÌÌò òòòAffirmedóó.ó ó