family as an institution, that interest must be substantially attenuated where the proposed removal from the foster family is to retur n question themselves held a liberty interest in preserving the integrity and stability of their extended family, where they were not being removed in order to be reunited with their natural parents, and that the court “must ensure that due process is afforded in situations like that presented here where the state seeks to terminate a child’s long-standing familial relationship.” 696 F.2d at 1026. Additionally, some courts have found prospective adoptive parents to have protected liberty interests in their family unit. Thelen v. Catholic Soc. Serv., 691 F.Supp. 1179,1185 (E.D.Wis.1988). But see Rodriguez v. McLoughlin, 214 F.3d 328, 341 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1051, 121 S.Ct. 2192,
holding that there was no liberty interest where adoption placement agreement made it clear that adoption was not a foregone conclusion holding that prospective adoptive parents do not have a fundamental liberty interest in adoption holding that placement in disciplinary segregation does not implicate a liberty interest because it falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence holding there is no protected liberty interest in maintaining the foster family relationship holding that there was no liberty interest for the typical foster parents in question