to affirmative acts performed, as is usually the case. However, by analogy and negative implication, Ms. Brush’s actions would be protected by absolute immunity. For example, Ms. Brush’s actions may be analogized to a prosecutor who would be protected by absolute immunity for initiation of a case against a defendant. Indeed, the majority claims that Ms. Brush should have done exactly that — initiated proceedings when Plaintiff surfaced. It follows that since Ms. Brush would have been entitled to absolute immunity had she initiated proceedings against Plaintiff and incorporated her into a case plan, Ms. Brush should be entitled to absolute immunity for her failure to do so. See Buckley, 509 U.S. at 272-73, 113 S.Ct. 2606; Ernst v. Child and Youth Servs., 108 F.3d 486, 495 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, any actions taken by Ms. Brush in
holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasiprosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings holding that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages under  1988 in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the states case including deciding which evidence to present holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity when prosecuting child delinquency petitions 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