procedure.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir.1996). The Wallises adduced testimony from Pitcher, Burkett, and Claytor that there was a practice — a “longstanding agreement,” in Burkett’s words — of enforcing “orders” to take protective custody of children without ever seeing the order. This is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a custom or practice of ta ng the evidence presently in the record in the light most favorable to the Wallises, that the moving force behind the removal of the children from the parents’ custody was the policy of accepting telephonic representations from CPS without any procedure for checking on the accuracy or validity of the supposed orders. See McMurry v. Sheahan, 927 F.Supp. 1082, 1090 (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>). That would be true whether a CPS employee had
holding county liable for false arrests when it has no system to check validity of warrants on computer system holding that investigator employed by the etowah county district attorney was a state employee not covered by a county merit system holding the city and county not liable for the local judges bond directive because the judge was acting as an officer of the indiana judicial system holding that a municipal sewer system is liable for the acts of a third party that discharged hazardous waste into the system holding that defendant was not free to leave when officer directed defendant to stay while he conducted a warrants check