to the child than does a typical foster parent. See, e.g., Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016, 1024-25 (2d Cir.1982) (finding a liberty interest in a custodial relative who was also a foster parent); Osborne v. Cnty. of Riverside, 385 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1053-55 (C.D.Cal.2005) (finding that a grandmother and an aunt would both have a liberty interest in family integrity where they had a long-standing custodial relationship with related children); A.C. v. Mattingly, 2007 WL 894268 at *5, No. 05 CV 2986(TPG), (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2007) (finding a liberty interest where the foster mother was a biological relative who had raised the children essentially from birth, and there was no indication of objection from the natural parents); see also Berhow v. Crow, 423 So.2d 371, 372 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); cf. Kyees v. Cnty. Dept. of Pub. Welfare of
holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child holding that foster parents selected by the mother and approved of by the father permanently to care for their infant have a liberty interest holding that there was no liberty interest for the typical foster parents in question