Questions On Deshaney V. Winnebago Department Of Social Services

DeShaney v. Winnebago County was a landmark Supreme Court Case which was ruled on in February, 1989. The case revolved around Joshua DeShaney, a child who who was reportedly abused by his father, Randy DeShaney. In 1980, Joshua's parents divorced and his father won full custody. In 1983, Joshua was hospitalized for suspected abuse by his father. Winnebago County Department of Social Services got involved and four year old Joshua DeShaney was kept in the hospital's custody for three days. However, “On the recommendation of a 'child protection team,' consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and

When Jennings was just a kid at the age of 8 years old he was put into his first foster home. He wasn’t told anything by anyone, but his mom promised that she would “be right back”. Jennings didn’t know where he was or what to do so when he didn’t follow one of the many commands that the foster home had established, he was punished, he was abused. Jennings was waiting for his mom to pick him up that same day but she didn’t show up. He was waiting for her everyday for months until she was finally there to pick him up. The foster system didn’t care to even look for a new home for him or the other kids, they didn’t care. They didn’t even try to reconnect Jennings or any of the other kids with their families, the government

In the case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, the mother of an abused child, Ms. DeShaney (Petitioner) sued Winnebago County Department of Social Services and several of their employees, (Defendant) for failing to protect the child from physical abuse by his father. In 1984, four-year-old Joshua DeShaney became comatose and then severely retarded due to traumatic head injuries inflicted by his father who beat him over an extended period of time. The county department of social services received complaints that the boy was being abused by his father and took various steps to protect him. They did not, however, remove Joshua from his father's custody. Ms. DeShaney subsequently sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services,

Exceptional Child Center and 4 others companies filed a lawsuit against the Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare. The federal district court granted the plaintiff summary of judgement. The ninth circuit confirmed that action. Richard Armstrong, the defendant petitioned for a hearing at the supreme court. The supreme court gave write of certiorari to the court of appeals for the 9th circuit. Exceptional Child Center filed a lawsuit against Richard Armstrong , head of the Idaho health’s departments and Leslie Clement. The case is about the provider challenge to the state of Idaho’s reimbursement rates for Medicaid Providers, meaning that whether Medicaid providers could sue a state because it violates the federal Medicaid Act. The

The facts in this case are regarding the petitioner, Joshua DeShaney and the respondent, the county department of social services. In 1979, Joshua DeShaney was born and in 1980, a Wyoming court granted his parents a divorce and awarded custody to his father, Randy DeShaney. In January of 1982, Randy DeShaney’s second wife complained that he had previously “hit the boy, causing marks, and was a prime case for child abuse” (DeShaney v. Winnebago County). This would turn out to be the first of many complaints against Randy DeShaney regarding the abuse of Joshua DeShaney. Winnebago County Department of Social Services interviewed the father, and when asked if he abused his son, he denied such accusations and they did not pursue him any further. In January 1983, one year later, Joshua was admitted to a local hospital with bruises and abrasions, because of which, the physician suspected child abuse and notified the DSS. The DSS subsequently placed Joshua in temporary custody of the hospital but decided there was insufficient evidence of child abuse. They then recommended that Randy DeShaney enroll his son in preschool, provided Joshua’s father with counselling, and encouraged

In order to fully understand the outcomes of this case, it is necessary to briefly review the legal issues that prompted the appellants and respondent to pursue legal action. The initial factor was the apprehension of a six week old infant named Leticia Grace Woods, on October 20th, 1976, by C.A.S. of central Manitoba. Upon removing her from her mother’s custody, in an effort to protect her, she was placed in a foster home as stipulated in the Child Welfare Act, C.C.S.M., c. C80. After several months in foster care, Mrs. Woods’,

In Attorney General v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 394 Mass. 624 (1985); Guardianship of Anthony, 402 Mass. 723 (1988), “The Court cannot exercise the function of the executive branch of the government by ordering the agency to fulfill certain obligations in a specific manner”. However, if an agency has failed to act in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory imperatives, the court may find that said agency has abused its discretion, as measured by the arbitrary or capricious test. Care and Protection of Isaac, 419 Mass. 602, 614 (1985). The most important and apparent DCF’s abuses of discretion in this case is by removing the child away from her best comfort place, where she has been nursed by her natural mother. DCF possessed the legal custody of the child in this case, and decided to entrust the child to be housed at the prison facility, where the child’s mother is also housed. DCF considered that, according to its rules, regulation and professional practices, it was its best decision, best placement and best interest of the child.

This is possibly the hardest assignment I’ve had to do to date. It’s difficult to examine how much this little boy had to suffer at the hands of his father. The crimes that took place here were more than abuse. I believe that the case worker is culpable for refusing to protect the child and should have been disciplined if not charged with a crime. The mother deserved a more severe sentence for allowing this abuse to go on for so long and should have been charged as an accessory to the crime. This case did lead to outrage and sweeping legislation in the state of Washington was enacted. Most of the legislation was aimed at allowing and even mandating that child protective services make protecting the child a higher priority than keeping the family together.

The Book of David discusses how preserving families in some cases can cost the lives of innocent children. Richard J. Gelles was once a prominent defender of family preservation and believed that keeping troubled families together was what was best for the child. However, he changed his mind after he reviewed the tragic case of David Edwards, who was an infant killed by his mother after falling through the gaps of the child welfare system. David had an older sister who was taken from their home after obtaining juries leading to hospitalization. She was later removed from her parents care after they pleaded guilty to child neglect. A month after David’s birth, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards voluntarily terminated their parental rights and a year later, David was killed. Even with the red flags that the Edwards exhibited with the neglect of Marie, did not prompt social workers to monitor the welfare of David. The case of David completely transformed Gelles’s opinion of family preservation and how our child welfare system is fundamentally flawed and has to be changed so other children do not end up like David. He believes that David’s death could have been prevented and that the idea of family preservation should not be applied to every abuse case. Gelles claims that the child welfare system needs to be reformed and that family preservation does not need to be as strictly reinforced to all cases of child abuse or neglect. Throughout the book, Gelles

I started my reading with the New York Times Magazine article (I could not resist an article from the Times). During my internship, I had an experience where I suggested to a client that she might reach out to Allegheny County Children, Youth, and Families (CYF) for assistance. I could not understand her apprehension. Reading about Marie and her sons gave me an entirely different perspective. When Marie walked into the DCF office pregnant and the department decided to petition the court to claim her sixth child permanently - while still in her womb; made our clients apprehension real.

Since the early settlers came to live in the United States, slaves were also shipped over from Africa. Since they had been brought over they had not been granted any rights nor were they treated any better after a couple hundred years. However, abolitionist groups became increasingly more popular in the 1840s and 1850s. Many slaves also began to run away and want their freedom, such as Dred Scott. The Dred Scott vs Sanford Supreme Court case decided that blacks were not entitled a U.S. citizenship and Congress cannot ban slavery in U.S. territories.

My spring internship with Charles L. Levy Law Firm introduced me to the complexities of children protective services (CPS) cases and contractual law. While working with Mr. Levy on CPS cases, I was able to observe over 30 civil cases at the Waco courthouse and help supervise child visits. I developed a more complete understanding of the importance of CPS cases through attending meetings with caseworkers, investigating suspect parents, and visiting children that had been placed in new homes. Mr. Levy also gave me the opportunity to collaborate on various insurance cases that exposed me to legal materials, such as depositions, that are common in many legal practices. Although tedious at times, helping Mr. Levy with insurance cases was interesting

In 1964, the average percentage of black males with a high school diploma was 14.6%, which is exactly 13% less than the white male population. In December of 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for not standing up on a bus to allow a white person to sit. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on April 16, 1963 during a protest. He then wrote the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" making an argument that citizens should have the right to disobey unfair laws. The civil rights movement caused very much change in America: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessey v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of education.

Javon was placed in therapeutic foster by order of the court on October 2, 2015. His previous guardian, Ms. Terrell had sought psychological testing for Javon on numerous occasions, but never felt she was able to access the community resources and after-care appropriate help for Javon’s diagnoses. She reports not being able to obtain SSI benefits for Javon that would allow for additional treatment and supervision in the community. There is no prior involvement with the Department of Social Services or Child Protective Services.

Joshua and his mother filed a complaint against the DSS, which alleged that the DSS deprived Joshua DeShaney of his liberty without due process, which would be violating his rights under the 14th amendment, by failing to protect him against his father’s abuse which they knew of or should have known of yet didn’t intervene. The district court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents’. They held that the Due Process Clause doesn’t require the state to protect its citizens from “private violence or other mishaps not attributable to the conduct of its employees” (DeShaney v. Winnebago). By doing this, the Court of Appeals was overturning several precedents, including Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York (1985) and Jensen v. Conrad (1984) which held that once the State has knowledge that a child is in danger of abuse and actually takes action to protect him/her from that danger, a “special relationship” emerges between the State and the child thus imposing a constitutional duty to provide adequate protection. Furthermore, in relation to Martinez v. California, the “casual connection” between the DSS’ conduct and Joshua’s injuries was too diminished to establish a deficiency in his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals therefore found it unnecessary to answer whether the respondents’ conduct showed the “state of mind” needed to make a due process claim after the precedents set in place by Daniels v. Williams and Davidson v. Cannon.