MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants Diana Mann and Julie Brandt appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss Leticia Romero’s claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of *409 qualified immunity. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Where a defendant presents a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “dismissal is not appropriate unless we can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity applies.” Groten v. California, 251 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2001). An allegation that sexual abuse occurred in the home, without additional facts regarding exigency, is insufficient to show the imminent danger of serious bodily injury necessary to intrude on a parent’s custody of her child without prior judicial authorization. Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2001). Romero’s complaint does not address whether Mann and Brandt had reasonable cause to believe that MMR was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or whether the failure to obtain a warrant was reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury. See id. at 1108-09 (holding that qualified immunity is inappropriate if “a material question of fact exists regarding whether ... there was reasonable cause to believe” that the “child[ ] faced an immediate threat of serious physical injury or death” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly denied their motion to dismiss with leave to pursue their qualified immunity defense at summary judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.