children from their homes based on telephone calls from CPS without adequate safeguards to ensure that the removal is legal. Furthermore, the Wallises presented evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the Escondido Police Department customarily took children that it placed at Hillcrest Receiving Home for invasive investigatory examinations at Palomar Hospital without obtaining a court order and without notifying their parents. Detective Pitcher, who ordered the investigatory examinations, acknowledged that she may have done so in fulfillment of her function as the juvenile detective who removed the children from their parents’ custody, and that there was a contract between Palomar and the Escondido Police Department for the performance of such investigatory examin 92) (<HOLDING>). A reasonable jury could readily conclude,
holding that in a slanderous or libelous per se context actual damages need not ever be proved holding that such any and all language is per se unconstitutional for lack of particularity holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation