in the welfare of children). The Fourteenth Amendment right to familial integrity, therefore, “involve[s] a weighing of the parents’ rights against the interests of the child and the state. Whether a plaintiffs constitutional rights are violated, then, “would depend on a balancing of these two conflicting interests.’ ” Franz v. Lytle, 791 F.Supp. 827, 833 (D.Kan.1992) (quoting Whitcomb v. Jefferson County Dep’t of Social Servs., 685 F.Supp. 745, 747 (D.Colo.1987)). Because the liberty interest in familial relationships must “always be balanced against the governmental interest involved, it is difficult, if not impossible, for officials to know when they have violated ‘clearly established’ law.” Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir.1992); see also Franz, 791 F.Supp. at 833 (<HOLDING>). The government has a compelling interest in
holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful holding that a reasonable official knowing only that he must not infringe on family integrity would not necessarily know what conduct was prohibited quoting frazier 957 f2d at 931 holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right