continued for the more than two month period during which the children were detained. During that time, the children were held in Hill-crest Receiving Home, and moved through at least three different “confidential” foster homes. Their parents were not permitted to know their whereabouts and were only allowed one hour of supervised visitation per week. There is evidence in-the record that the children were traumatized by the separation and cried constantly for their parents. The Wallises contended below that the City was liable for all the damages that flowed from this entire ordeal because the City’s policy was the legal cause of the separation. The City, in response, contended that it could not be held liable for any detention of the children after their removal was ap Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the Second Circuit which held,
holding that governments asserted interest in protecting the privacy of arrestees is substantial under central hudson recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child recognizing that in parental termination proceedings the fundamental liberty interest of parents must be balanced with societys interest in protecting the welfare of children holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents