the Ninth Circuit has required case workers, as an adjunct to this showing, first to exhaust all “reasonable avenues of investigation.” Id. We think that this sets the bar too high, and that the majority rule better balances the competing interests of the child, the parents, and the state. Because the welfare of the child is paramount, an objectively reasonable suspicion of abuse justifies protective measures. See Lossman v. Pekarske, 707 F.2d 288, 291 (7th Cir.1983) (“When a child’s safety is threatened, that is justification enough for action first and hearing afterward.”). Indeed, evidence of even a single instance of abuse may constitute an exigent circumstance sufficient to warrant immediate state action on a child’s behalf. See Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 350 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the government has a compelling
holding that in such circumstances the interest in familial integrity may be infringed for a short time given the unthinkable consequence of a premature erroneous return of a child to the custody of parents in whose custody the childs life might be in imminent danger holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection holding that the issue of custody was foreign to the dissolution action because the husband was not the natural father but that the husband could seek to intervene to assert a thirdparty custody claim in a pending custody modification proceeding between the childs natural parents holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined