v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Serv., 989 F.2d 289, 293 (8th Cir.1993); Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Serv., 959 F.2d 883, 893-94 (10th Cir.1992); K.H. ex rel. Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 848-49 (7th Cir.1990); Meador v. Cabinet for Human Resources, 902 F.2d 474, 476 (6th Cir.1990); Taylor ex rel. Walker v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 795 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc); Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Serv., 649 F.2d 134, 141 (2d Cir.1981). While there is no First Circuit case so holding, the “special relationship” analogy between persons incarcerated or institutionalized and those placed in state care through entities like DCYF with legal custody is generally accepted by federal courts that have considered the issue. See DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 195, 109 S.Ct. 998 (<HOLDING>); Youngberg v. Romeo ex rel. Romeo, 457 U.S.
holding that  relatively shortterm and sporadic  intrusions on an inmates prayer activities did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of his religion recognizing that not all criminal assaults will constitute violations of a constitutional right but that the right to be free from intrusions into bodily security that shock the conscience is unmistakably established in our constitutional decisions as an attribute of the ordered liberty that is the concern of substantive due process recognizing right to be free from unjustified intrusions on personal security holding the constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment may be waived recognizing that state constitution provides mentally ill persons with certain fundamental liberty interests such as the right to be free from unjustified intrusion upon their personal security