care, placed in a foster home, and died there in a fire. Id. at *1. In denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Fullam held that “[Wjhile the day to day care of a child is not the exclusive prerogative of the state, the forcible removal of children from their homes most certainly is, and thus a foster care organization is a state actor for the purposes of section 1983 liability.” Id. Judge FuIIam’s conclusion is consistent with rulings in cases from other circuit and district courts. See In Taylor By and Through Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 797-799 (11 th Cir.1987) (upholding a due process claim by a child who had sued state and county officials for injuries sustained while in custody of the foster parents); B.H. v. Johnson, 715 F.Supp. 1387, 1396 (N.D.Ill.1989) (<HOLDING>); Artist M. v. Johnson, 726 F.Supp. 690, 699
holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child holding that a child has a  1983 action against the state while in foster care where the state is deliberately indifferent to the likelihood that a foster home is unsafe yet places the child there or allows the child to remain there