Denial Of Equal Protection Based On Status Of Disabled Child

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution attempted to guarantee “equal protection of the laws” to all people in the jurisdiction of the United States. This means that no person shall be discriminated under the law. This Equal Protection clause does not require identical treatment in all circumstances. Equal protection of the laws, like due process, is a constitutional guarantee of fair treatment for all persons, regardless of sex, race, national origin, religion, or political views. It is rooted in the truth expressed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." Many African Americans believe they were not protected under the Equal Protection clause, because there was still discrimination based on race under

The Court reasoned that the Washington statute violated parents’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it stripped them of the autonomy to make best care decisions for their young.

children, the option of adoption still remains complicated, as disabled individuals are often viewed as incapable as parents in this culture (Lightfoot et al., 2010; Smith, 2015).

In March of 1970, in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the US Supreme Court confirmed that individuals who are denied certain government benefits have a constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker. In accordance with the Mississippi Code § 43-13-116, individuals are allows the opportunity to request in writing a fair hearing in order to appeal decisions of denial, termination, suspension or reduction of eligibility and covered services.

All of the policies and procedures by which I work are defined by The Children's Act 1989 which legislates for England and Wales. All our Safeguarding measures, Health and Safety policies and Child protection procedures must follow the relevant legislations. As a children’s residential home we have to follow The National Minimum Standards too and it is these

While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, I, Officer B. McMillon, #135, of the Mansfield ISD Police Department was on assignment at Legacy High School located at 1263 N. Main in Mansfield, Texas 76063. While leaving the 2nd floor AP’s office, I observed Smith, Taylor W/F, D.O.B. 09101999 slap Wells, Sydney W/F, D.O.B 08291999 in her face and they begin to engage in a physical altercation.

On Sunday November 24, 2016 at approximately 16:02 hrs. Officer L Wilkerson and I Ofc. R. Holcomb were dispatched by dispatcher B Coleman to 304 Hopkins Drive in reference to a disturbance. Upon my arrival I made contact with Ms. Shawntavia Lucky (complainant) who stated that her son Mr. Jousha Lucky (victim) got into a physical altercation with two black males.

ALEX was told by his mother to get in the home and she began screaming at him and/or other children in the home with the back glass door completely open at an excessivly loud level which could be heard several homes away. She never returned back outside to speak with officers as we remained on scene for approximately an additional ten minutes or more while we spoke with MURPHY and her two

The case I found is Baltimore v. Ill. Dep’t of Child & Fam. Serv., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31644 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2011). In this case, Baltimore had custody of his three minor children. Id. at 2. On March 4, 2009, Baltimore claims that DCFS took his children from school and put them in protective custody without notifying him. Id. DCFS took the children because the Plaintiff’s fiancée was previously in an abusive relationship, which required an investigation. Id. The Plaintiff believe the allegations were false, but DCFS found a complaint against the Plaintiff for “improper touching.” Id. at 3. After the children were taken, the Plaintiff visited them in foster care and got a layer to fight to get his children back. Id. Plaintiff got full custody rights on May 21, 2009. Id. The Plaintiff wants “relief that DCFS cannot put his children in protective custody again without conducting a due process hearing or having a good faith belief that the children are in danger of abuse or neglect. Id. Defendants want to dismiss the claims made by the Plaintiff. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff must give reasons as to why he believes DCFS may contact him in the future. Id. at 12. The Court found that the Plaintiff lacked reason for standing and dismissed the Federal claims by Plaintiff against the Defendants. Id. at 14. Defendants argue that since the Federal claims are dismissed the State claims should be too. Id. The

Upon arrival Officer Prugel and I Officer Butram spoke with Daniel Wolfe, Bud Wolfe, and Charmin Wolfe. Charmin and Bud stated they were having a problem with their son Daniel. Bud stated Daniel was arguing with his mother about her not giving him money to go get food.

The plaintiff Neil Roncker, at the time was a nine-year old boy with an intellectual disability that suffered from seizures. He had an IQ of less than 50 and his developmental age was between the ages of between two to three years of age. He also required constant supervision because he was unable to recognize dangerous situations. The school District decided that the proper placement for Neil was in a school that was exclusively for intellectual disabled students. Neil’s parents refused the placement and appealed the decision to a hearing officer. The hearing officer ordered the District to place Neil in a special education class in the regular elementary school setting. He found that the school District had not satisfied its burden

A Wyandotte County coroner is working on a case involving a Kansas City man and a child’s bones that were found on his property. This case has reached national headlines because of claims that say the child was beat to death and the body was fed to pigs. It is known that the bones had been in a pig enclosure in a barn for several weeks. It is believed the victim is the 7-year-old son of Michael A. Jones. Jones has been accused of child abuse, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery, but as the case is further investigated more charges will appear. Police were reporting to domestic violence involving Jones’s wife and police were told the son had been missing. The investigation is being conducted by the prosecution's office, the local Sheriff

American citizens aren't receiving the same rights in the country as out of it because of its disability access. The U.S. does not currently, have the same access on disability rights as the U.N. abroad. When a disabled person wishes to work or live abroad, they must rely on international disability rights for equal access. Although disabled individuals can be scholars, leaders and hard workers, they aren't given the same access as such. The rights of disabled American citizens must extend abroad, in order to truly have equal access.

Over the years, the workplace has experienced several instances of discrimination. In attempt to stop the discrimination, Title VII was passed. Although Title VII helped employers in terms of race, color, gender, religion and national origin, those who had disabilities continued to face the frustration of disability barriers in the workplace, given disability was not one of the listed protected classes. Employers abstained from hiring the disabled in fear of them not being able to perform at the same level as the other employees or the attitudes of such employees towards the disabled workers. Of course, there was some legal protection against discrimination: The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but this law only applied to employees