Can a court temporarily remove a child from her parent's custody without a pre-deprivation hearing whenever the court deems it in the child's best interest, or must the court find that the child faces an imminent risk of physical or other serious harm?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A New Mexico district court issued an interim order removing a three-year-old girl from her mother’s custody without a prior hearing. The court did not identify any imminent risk of physical or other serious harm to the child; instead, it pointed to the mother’s “psychological testing and diagnosis,” which allegedly showed she was “so highly consumed with this case that it interferes with her ability to spend time with [her daughter] to provide enriching activities.” App. lla. The court scheduled a post-deprivation hearing for 74 days later, but because of delays caused by the New Mexico Attorney General and the court itself, the hearing did not conclude for 493 days. The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld these actions under the federal Due Process Clause, on grounds that the interim order was in the child’s “best interest,” and that the 493-day delay was “reasonable.” App. 9a. That decision created a split with other state and federal courts over when courts may order temporary custody removals without a predeprivation hearing, and deepened a split over how much delay is permissible before a post-deprivation custody hearing. The questions presented are: 1. Can a court temporarily remove a child from her parent’s custody without a pre-deprivation hearing whenever the court deems it in the child’s best interest, or must the court find that the child faces an imminent risk of physical or other serious harm? 2. If a court removes a child from her parent’s custody without a pre-deprivation hearing, is a postdeprivation hearing that concludes 493 days later sufficiently prompt?