action, we are reluctant to cast doubt upon the Judge’s conduct, or to find that this procedure violated a constitutional right in any way. 2. Insufficiency of the court order Although the court order did not inform plaintiffs of the reason L.B. was being taken to shelter care, the police officers who took her informed her parents that there had been a report of child abuse and there would be a hearing within 48 hours. A post-deprivation hearing was not held, however; because the child was released to her parents the following morning. Therefore, plaintiffs’ claim that they might not have been able to prepare for a hearing because of the scant order is too speculative for our review. Cf. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 160-61, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 1725-26, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 3.. Reliability of the interview Although the
holding that speculative theory of possible injury insufficient to establish injury in fact under article ills case or controversy requirement holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that the constitutional requirement for ripeness is injury in fact holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation