(1) Ethan’s right to be free from bodily harm by a state agent; (2) Neil and Heidi’s right to due process at court hearings; and (3) Neil and Heidi’s substantive due process right to the custody and care of their son. In the Court’s view, the allegations against Malac most directly implicate the first of these rights: the right of a child taken into state custody not to be placed with a foster parent who abuses him. As noted above, this is a recognized, protected liberty interest un der the due process clause. See Southerland, 4 Fed.Appx. at 37; K.H., 914 F.2d at 852. With respect to eciding ... that the foster parents, even if paid by the state, are not state agents for constitutional purposes”); Milburn v. Anne Arundel County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 871 F.2d 474, 479 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Plaintiffs suggest that it is unnecessary
holding that foster parents are not state actors holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability holding that a private actors conduct was not state action just because the government failed to supervise that partys conduct holding that extensively regulated public utilities are not state actors