in the shelter care center sooner and without requiring overnight detention.” 905 F.Supp. at 987 n. 13. Given the extraordinary situation facing them, we conclude that the procedures employed were reasonably calculated to balance the competing interests and to achieve an interview with the child untainted by either parent’s influence. See Hollingsworth, 110 F.3d at 739 (“Removal of children from the custody of their parents requires predeprivation notice and a hearing ‘except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.’ ”) (quoting Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377, 1385 (10th Cir.1989) (internal quotations omitted)). Cf. Doe v. Hennepin County, 858 F.2d 1325, 1326-29 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we agree with the district court
holding no constitutional violation occurred where children removed from home after reports of sexual abuse postdeprivation hearings were held the following day and children were subsequently kept from home for 16 days and returned to home after reports of abuse proved unfounded holding in termination of fathers rights that evidence was sufficient to support finding children were removed for abuse or neglect when previous decree reflected trial court made findings that children were removed from mother under chapter 262 for abuse or neglect holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother    because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians holding that although the father did not have physical custody of his children at the time they were removed the children were nonetheless effectively removed from both their parents when they were removed from the physical custody of the mother and placed in another home pursuant to the dispositional decree