Furse and Covington Defendant Furse contends that the plaintiffs’ claims against her must be dismissed because she has absolute immunity for suits against her in her official capacity as a prosecutor for the District. Furse & Covington Mot. to Dismiss at 5-8. Defendant Covington asserts that because defendant Furse cannot be held liable, the plaintiffs’ claims against her employer must also be dismissed. Id. at 8. Furthermore, Covington contends that, at any rate, th unity protects government attorneys for their conduct in initiating and prosecuting civil child neglect cases. Gray v. Poole, 243 F.3d 572, 577 (D.C.Cir.2001) (noting that in so holding, this Circuit joined with every Circuit to have addressed the issue); accord Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 692-94 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387,
holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity when prosecuting child delinquency petitions holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony holding that child social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for initiating and prosecuting dependency hearings as well as the formulation and presentation of recommendations to the court in the course of such proceedings holding that social services attorneys were entitled to absolute immunity for actions related to the prosecution of child neglect and delinquency proceedings holding that social worker was not entitled to absolute immunity for filing complaint becausejudicial proceedings were initiated by district attorney who filed petition for adjudication