On June 10, 2010, the plaintiff, a 2-year-old child, was placed in temporary protective custody at Polinsky Children’s Center, in San Diego. Earlier that day, the child’s sister, another plaintiff, who was 6 weeks old, arrived at Kaiser Permanente Zion Medical Center, in San Diego, with a fractured femur. The treating physician at the hospital suspected that the injury was from “non-accidental trauma,” so he called the County of San Diego Child Welfare Services. As a result, a “hospital hold” was placed on the infant to prevent her parents from taking her. In addition, the infant’s brother, the 2-year-old child, was placed in temporary protective custody at Polinsky Children’s Center. Eventually, a physician opined that the 6-week-old infant likely had “brittle bone disease.” As a result, both children were returned to the full custody of their parents. The children and their parents, Trevor Reynolds and Heather Reynolds, sued San Diego County; the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency; Polinsky Children’s Center; the social workers who handled the matter, Maya Bryson, Kristie Campbell and Shari Medeiros; and the social workers’ supervisors, Laura Zetmeir and Cheryl Berglund. The Reynolds family alleged that their civil and constitutional rights were violated, as the 2-year-old child was examined without his parents’ knowledge or consent, without court order, without exigent circumstances, and without an opportunity for his parents to be present at the examination. All of the social workers and supervisors, except for Campbell, prevailed against the plaintiffs on summary judgment. However, Campbell was added to the lawsuit after those motions were filed, but the Reynolds ultimately dismissed Campbell because her situation was essentially addressed by the motions. Defense counsel contended that the key issue remaining for trial was the propriety of the intake examination of the 2-year-old child at Polinsky Children’s Center, an issue that was decided against the county by the Ninth Circuit in another case while the subject action was pending. Defense counsel asserted that Child Welfare Services was appropriately contacted since the children’s parents could not explain how the 6-week-old child’s injury initially happened. Counsel also asserted that the 2-year-old’s medical examination was brief and non-invasive, much like a well-child check at a pediatric office, so it did not violate the child’s or his parents’ rights., The Reynolds claimed that their children suffered emotional and mental distress as a result of the incident. The parents also claimed that they also suffered from emotional distress as a result of having their children taken away from them. The Reynolds family sought recovery of damages for their respective emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that the children were very young at the time of the incident and that as a result, they did not need or receive any psychological or psychiatric treatment.