to have medical insurance and quality daycare; given the absence of universal provision of such services, however, reliance on factors so closely related to economic status as a justification for removal would border on the unconstitutional. Royal also argues that the cumulative effect of all of the problems in the Rogers household placed the children in imminent danger. However, her argument falls far short of the mark. Even viewing the factors cumulatively, we have no doubt that there was no imminent danger to either or both of the Rogers children. Our conclusion that no exigency existed here is also supported by the fact that the Child Protective Services delayed in investigating the case and in removing the children. See Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Here, the concerned officials classified the
holding that the district court erred by not permitting defense counsel to argue to the jury that the governments case was weakened by a lack of evidence allegedly caused by its failure to investigate holding that a 14day delay by social workers in entering the family home to investigate a report of abuse is evidence of lack of exigency holding that social workers immunity is designed to protect the continu ing exercise of  discretion in favor of the protection of minor children holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding plan fiduciary did not abuse discretion in crediting medical evidence in record showing lack of disability notwithstanding social security award in favor of claimant