rights asserted by plaintiffs — a' substantive due process claim based on familial integrity and a malicious prosecution claim — are not clearly established constitutional rights. Substantive Due Process Plaintiffs allege that Scheer is not entitled to immunity because he instigated and pursued child abuse proceedings without probable cause for suspecting abuse. Defendants claim that Scheer’s is entitled to immunity because Scheer did not violate clearly established substantive due • process rights held by plaintiffs. The Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and supervision of their children. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 258, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 2991-92, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983). However, that interest is not absol .1988) (<HOLDING>); Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1461 (8th
recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children recognizing in dictum parents right to care custody management and companionship of their children holding right to family integrity is nebulous in nature and not sufficiently particularized for government officials to know that their conduct in removing children from parents custody without court order violated parents substantive rights recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children holding court could not require parents to divulge incriminating information but court could consider parents failure to undergo meaningful therapy in deciding whether parents could regain their children