Before a Georgia teenager was placed in an adoptive home, state social workers possessed information about his troubled history, inappropriate sexual conduct, threats, and a psychologist’s recommendation that he receive close supervision and not be left alone with other children. The teenager later sexually abused John Doe, a five-year-old child living in the adoptive home. John’s mother sued the social workers under § 1983, alleging that their conduct violated his substantive-due-process right to safety; the district court denied the officials’ motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for dismissal of the individual-capacity federal claims. Because John was not in state custody, the court recognized that the claimed right would require an unusually specific application of substantive due process to harm caused by a third party in an adoptive-home setting. Existing precedent addressed custodial relationships or materially different facts and did not clearly establish that the social workers’ conduct was unconstitutional. The court also found no binding authority requiring all psychological information about a prospective adoptive child to be affirmatively disclosed to the adoptive parents. The lack of fair warning entitled the officials to qualified immunity.