With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reached by the social workers in order to rule that they are covered by qualified immunity; it need only , find that they acted reasonably”). Reasonableness is judged in light of all the information Defendants possessed about the twins and the Sykes home from November 1996 through May 1998. Although the inaction at issue was more “reflective” than, for example, a split second judgment in police chase or a quick decision to remove a child from a parent suspected of abuse, DCYF workers monitoring foster care are by no means without some “pressurized circumstances.” Carroll v. Ragaglia, 109 Fed.Appx. 459, 461 (2d Cir.2004) (DCY employees entitled to qualified immunity on claim they investigated abuse allegation in a “shocking” manner); Carter v. Lindgren, 502 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). For all the reasons discussed above, Ms.

A: recognizing dcyf workers difficult choices when removing children from parents and need for onthespot judgments on the basis of limited and often conflicting information
B: recognizing the need for police officers to take swift action based upon onthespot observations that lead to reasonable suspicion
C: holding right to family integrity is nebulous in nature and not sufficiently particularized for government officials to know that their conduct in removing children from parents custody without court order violated parents substantive rights
D: recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis
A.