DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept of Social Services U.S.

Supreme Court Facts: Father beat petitioner (his son) so badly that he was left permanently injured. Father was awarded custody of son in 1980. Repeated assertions after that of child abuse, but which DSS failed to respond to. In 1982, fathers second wife complained to police that father was abusing child. DSS interviewed father, but he denied accusations, and no other action taken. In 1983, son was admitted to hospital with multiple bruises. Doctor suspected child abuse and notified DSS. County convened an ad hoc Child Protection Team, which decided insufficient evidence of child abuse to remove son from fathers custody. Put precautions in place for father to follow. A month later, son was in emergency room where he was treated for several injuries to his head. DSS noted in its records that father not complying with precautions. Several months later, DSS again notified that son was treated for suspected child abuse by hospital. Caseworker conducted two follow up visits, but was told son too ill to be seen. In March 1984, father beat son so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Suffered brain damage and expected to spend life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Holding: DDS did not deprive son of his 14th amendment rights by failing to intervene to protect him. Distinguishing between private and state action: The Due Process Clause provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Nothing requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is a limitation on the State, not a guarantee of minimal levels of safety and security. No special relationship formed. o Son argued that a duty to provide safety and security arose because the special relationship created or assumed by the State. Son argued that a relationship existed because DDS knew that he faced a special danger of abuse and specifically proclaimed its intention to protect him (i.e., the precautions). By setting precautions and interviewing the father, for example, DDS acquired an affirmative duty under the 14th amendment to do so in a reasonably competent matter. o Son relied on precedent involving prisoners, where the SCT held that when a State takes a person into custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being. o The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the States knowledge of the individuals predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation, which it has imposed, on his freedom to act on his on behalf. In substantive due process analysis, it is the States affirmative act of restraining the individuals freedom that is the deprivation of liberty triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause. Petitioners concede the harms petitioner suffered did not occur while he was in the States custody. The State played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him more vulnerable. At worst, the State stood by and did nothing when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role. Had they moved too soon, it could have been charged with improperly intruding into the parent-child relationship. Brennans Dissent: DDSs inaction constitutes state action for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. Focuses on the fact that DDS controlled decision of whether to take steps to protect the son. The people who reported the abuse to DDS thought they did not need to do anything else because they believed that DDS would take necessary measures to protect son. Through its child-welfare program, in other words, the State of Wisconsin has relieved ordinary citizens and governmental bodies other than the Department of any sense of obligation to do anything more than report their suspicions of child abuse to DSS. If DSS ignores or dismisses these suspicions, no one will step in to fill the gap. Wisconsin's child-protection program thus effectively confined Joshua DeShaney within the walls of Randy DeShaney's violent home until such time as DSS took action to remove him. Conceivably, then, children like Joshua are made worse off by the existence of this program when the persons and entities charged with carrying it out fail to do their jobs. In re N.M.W. Iowa Court of Appeals

Facts: Mother appeals the adjudication of the juvenile court determining N.M.W. to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) and the subsequent order directing continuing foster care of her. Daughter lived with her mother. DHS involved in familys life since 1984 and had filed several abuse reports. The primary concerns were the extreme filth of the house, inadequate food, inadequate supervision and refusal of services by mother. In April 1989, daughter found in front of a house a block from mothers home. Bas on this situation, CPS worker visited mothers apartment, where she found a stench of cat feces and urine, garbage everywhere, other clutter, and 11 cats living in the apartment. In the bathroom, the cats had defecated along the bathtub and some of the childs clothing was tuck to the feces. CPS worker returned to house multiple times, but there was never improvement. Holding: The majority found that removal from the mothers house was warranted based on the extreme squalor found at the apartment and the potential harm that could arise from such squalor. Parents who devote time and attention to their children, who allow their children to have pets and projects in their home are contributing substantially to their children's emotional development. But that is a much different setting than requiring a child to live in the stench of cat feces and urine. It is also much different than to require a child to live in a home that is strewn with a collection of garbage, clothing, and other general clutter. It is also different than requiring the child to live in a home where the cats defecated along the bathtub where some of the child's clothing was stuck to the feline fecal material. Dissent: The reason for the removal is that the mother is an inadequate housekeeper and does not keep what the majority terms a sanitary house. I agree that it is in the childs best interests to live in a cleaner house, but the house could have been cleaned without taking the child from her mother. I do not believe that removal was in the childs best interests. Furthermore, the majority decision is concerning because it could present precedent for setting standards for housekeeping that need to be met before we allow parents to keep their children. In re Rood Michigan Court of Appeals Facts: Father appealed termination of his parental rights, complaining that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to contact him and to provide him with services. At the time of childs removal from his mothers care, the father was incarcerated. Fathers actions: After child removed, father contacted CPS worker and provided his contact info. Father did not follow through on CPSs advice to contact the foster care worker. He did not pursue visitation, explaining at the termination hearing that because the child would be reunited with the mother, he did not want to become part of the childs life, only to have mother push him back out. Between 2005 and 2007, father did not have any contact with child or foster care worker and did not provide any financial support. DHS actions: DHS worker tried contacting father once by phone on an outdated number at the start of the case. DHS worker did not try any of the other numbers provided. Worker did not attempt to contact father by mail. Waited several months before asking mother of fathers whereabouts. Then sent a later that came back. Without any more effort, filed termination petition. Holding: Court overturned fathers termination because of lack of reasonable efforts by DHS. Although fathers absence from the childs life and lack of financial support constituted a serious failures to provide his child proper care in the past, these failures in large part owed to petitions lapses. Father had demonstrated a willingness to act on what little information he receivedhe contacted CPS following the childs removal from the mothers home and he attended both hearings for which he received adequate notices. Given these undisputed facts, it was reasonable to expect that respondent would become involved in the childs life, provided that he received proper notice of the protective proceedings. In re AH D.C. Superior Court Facts: 5 children between ages of 7 months and 7 years old were removed from the apartment of mother and grandmother because of the housing conditions. Mother appealed trial courts determination that she neglected her children. When CPS worker visited apartment, found trash all over the floor, children minimally clothed, children playing in kitchen when oven and burners were on, and meat that had been sitting on table. CPS worker arranged fro

maintenance and repairs on the apartment, but when she visited a second time, the house was still filthy. This happened a third time. A social worker was assigned, but no improvement. Mother said she could not get up early enough to hold a job. Also seemed to think that the housing conditions were of no concern. Conditions got worst over time when the social worker came to the house and found feces all over the floor. Also found out that mother had whooped the children. Holding: Court held that trial courts finding of neglect was proper because the conditions were not only caused by poverty, but also because of her own lack of will to provide proper care and custody. Family poverty is not a reason, in and of itself, to find a child neglected, even if it plausibly could be argued that the childs best interests would be served by removal to a materially wealthier home. Mothers lack of initiative undermined her claim that the deplorable conditions in her home were due to a lack of financial means. Factors considered: o Mothers ability to work o Mother receipt of welfare benefits o No honest, sincere effort to find work over this long period when she hasnt even had to worry about caring for her children. o No serious effort to obtain GED.