and protected by state law, and we have repeatedly ruled that the procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment apply whenever the State seeks to remove or significantly alter that protected status .... It was this alteration, officially removing the interest from the recognition and protection previously afforded by the State, which we found sufficient to invoke the procedural guarantees contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul, 424 U.S. at 710-11, 96 S.Ct. at 1165 (citations and footnote omitted). The Court also pointed out that other interests are "protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been 'incorporated' in 2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Procopio v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 325, 329 (7th
holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child holding there is no protected liberty interest in maintaining the foster family relationship