to judicial process and accusations of child abuse without basis for doing so. (Amended Complaint at 53.) Further, plaintiffs allege that the City and DHS failed to adequately discipline and t L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Here, plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action against City of Philadelphia and DHS premised on Scheer’s conduct in obtaining temporary custody of Miller’s children. Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to state a claim against DHS and City of Philadelphia regarding their policy and custom for investigating child abuse allegations because plaintiffs fail to identify any persons, groups of persons or official offices that are responsible for the alleged unconstitutional policy. Simmons, 947 F.2d at 1062; Wendy H. v. City of Philadelphia, 849 F.Supp. 367, 376-77 (E.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>). This defense is premature at this stage of
holding that plaintiffs must identify officials with ultimate policymaking authority in the area in question and adduce scienterlike evidence  with respect to them holding to that effect with respect to rule 64 holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that the phrases in connection with and associated with are synonymous with the terms with respect to with reference to and relating to which mean connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment