What Is Dcf's Abuse Of Discretion?

“I just knew the phone would ring some day and Joshua would be dead,” stated social worker Ann Kemmeter regarding Joshua DeShaney and the ongoing abuse he endured from his father. Joshua’s father brutally and repeatedly abused his four-year-old son Joshua (Wichenbach). The State of Wisconsin was aware of this abuse, but still did nothing to intervene and stop the mistreatment of this child (Wichenbach). The State’s inaction led to the Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago Department of Social Services, in which Joshua’s mother, Melody, sued the Winnebago Department of Social Services claiming, “the social worker deprived Joshua of his liberty without due process of law” (Alexander). In order to fully understand the DeShaney case, one must conduct thorough background research, delve into the court case itself, and analyze the impact the case has yet today.

Unless the child is at risk of harm, a child should not be taken from their family without family’s agreement

This amicus brief reflects the balance between psychology and law by applying them both to decide which is the best option for child placement. The law states that the child should be place with a relative when possible. However, the attorneys are also reaching out to see what effect this could have on the child psychologically. They are using them together to decide what location would be the best for Arnes. The law does state that they should place with a relative when available, while also referring to the fact that a preexisting attachment to a family could also be the same. They refer to what type of damage could occur, if it is short term or would cause long term complications. The law itself is written to allow for interpretation

According to the 2010 Plan for the Future of the New York City Family Court, the main goal of family court relies on ensuring “the highest standard of justice for each and every litigant who enters the courthouse” (2010). This is done by executing a sequence of processes and by providing different resources to individuals involved in the case. There are three major organizations that serve an important role in Family Court. These organizations ensure justice for individuals entering the family court system by providing a variety of different services. These organizations include the Administration for Children’s Services, the Legal Aid Society and the Panel of 18b Attorneys. Each of the three organizations mentioned, work to ensure the welfare of children and service to families by providing a variety of different services.

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

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.

A report was received on 06/05/2017 alleging that the mother (Hermionne) left Ashante (C-V 17) with a non-relative since 02/2017 without any legal rights. According to the report, the mother refuses to take her child back home and will not engage with Ms. Aarons (caretaker) to provide legal documentation for the child to be enroll in school and taken to a Primary Care Physician. Ashante has not been is school for the past 4 months and are unable to enroll in school without paperwork. According to the report, Ashante self mutilates her arms, and the mother refuses to get counseling. The report indicates Ashante was to follow-up with a Cardiologist for a chest pain and the mother refuses to take her to the doctor.

When children come into the custody of DCFS and are placed into Foster Care they are scared, confused, lonely, and usually conditioned not to tell when they are being mistreated. Most of the children that come into “the system” have learned to accept abuse as normal or natural and are unaware that they are even being mistreated. Therefore, when they are placed in homes where this is occurring it is not in their nature to speak up. Once they are removed from their parents, they are solely reliant on the department for their protection and it is the department’s responsibility to provide that protection which has not always been fulfilled by the department or the foster care agencies. The department should be making reasonable efforts to provide proper services

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’,

Today prisons are overcrowded and over two million Americans, male, and female are sitting in jail or prison, and two thirds of those people incarcerated are parents (U.S. Department of Justice). Approximately two million of these children are separated from their mom or dad because of incarceration of which these are the custodial parent. These children suffer from poverty, inconsistency in caregivers, separation from siblings, reduced education, increased risk for substance abuse, alcoholism and incarceration themselves.

The case plan, in a sense, does follow the principles of family preservation. Downs, Moore, and McFadden (2009) describe how family preservation is a service to help keep children at home with their families rather than in foster homes or institutions (p.243). This service was a reaction to the earlier practice of family breakup, which pulled children out of unfit homes (Downs et al., 2009, p. 282). The services are designed to support families by improving parenting and family functioning while at the same time keeping children safe. The services are built around the belief that many children can be safely protected and treated within their own homes when parents are given services and support that allows them to change (“Family Preservation,” n.d.). Even though it was decided that the mother’s level of care for her children fell below the minimum sufficient level and the children were removed from the home, all but one of the children were placed with relatives, which can serve as part of family preservation in that the children are still within the family unit.

The child-essentially good, as they saw it was made to feel that he is the object of the state's care and solicitude, not that he was under arrest or on trial” (In re Gault, 1967).

Like I said in an other post I think the example of law enforcement is fitting to the definition. Also I liked your definition of Bureaucratic discretion It got to the point and made the meaning easy to understand. You also made a good point in your last paragraph when you talked about the structural differences found in Bureaucratic discretion and street-level responsibility. I haven't really thought about it in those terms before but your point was

(B) Confinement of a child under the age of 13 is against his or her will within the meaning of this subsection if such confinement is without the consent of the parent or legal guardian.

From the outset, Hogan and Morgan make it clear that controlling the review of administrative discretion is a difficult area of law to master, particularly noting “the formulation of a precise test is especially difficult because it has been made to apply to such a wide range of subject matter.” Indeed the practice of reviewing administrative discretion is one that involves many interlinking factors, and has punctuated the judicial system for many years. Even to this day, “the law in relation to…discretionary power is in a state of change.”