—held "that a child involuntarily placed in a foster home is in a situation so analogous to a prisoner in a penal institution and a child confined in a mental health facility that the foster child may bring a section 1983 action for violation of fourteenth amendment rights."

—the Eleventh Circuit held that the State had a duty to protect a child's safety when it involuntarily placed a child in a foster home.

The state's action in assuming the responsibility of finding and keeping the [foster] child in a safe environment placed an obligation on the state to insure the continuing safety of that environment

—holding that a child involuntarily placed in a foster home may state a cause of action under § 1983 for the state official's deliberate indifference to her right to safety

A child abused while in foster care, in order to successfully recover from state officials in a section 1983 action, will be faced with the difficult problem of showing actual knowledge of abuse or that agency personnel deliberately failed to learn what was occurring in the foster home

Numerous courts of appeals have held that a special relationship exists between state foster care agencies and the children held in their charge,

Like many of its sister circuits, the Sixth Circuit has recognized the right of a foster child to bring a substantive due process claim where state officials have taken the affirmative action of involuntarily removing the child from his or her home and placing the child into a foster home known as a dangerous environment, in deliberate indifference to the child's right to …

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that this due process right to be reasonably safe while in state custody under the fourteenth amendment extends to children in foster care.

In this case, Wood has raised genuine issues of fact tending to show that Trooper Ostrander had acted with gross negligence, recklessness, or "deliberate indifference" to Wood's safety.

"The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test."