Petitioner
Melody DeShaney for her son, Joshua DeShaney
Respondant
Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Petitioner's Claim
That the social workers and the county had violated Joshua DeShaney's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by its failure to intervene to protect Joshua from his father's violence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Donald J. Sullivan
Chief Lawyer for Respondant
Mark J. Mingo
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 February 1989
Decision
That Winnebago County Department of Social Services was not responsible for Joshua's severe beating, even though they had ample evidence that abuse was occurring and did nothing to prevent it.
Significance
That the state could not be held liable for child abuse, even if they knew that abuse was occurring and did nothing to prevent it.
"Undeniably tragic"
The facts of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services are, as Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his majority opinion, "undeniablytragic." Despite the tragic nature of the case, however, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, found that states did not have a constitutional duty to protect children from abusive parents.
Young Joshua DeShaney was at the center of the case. Joshua was born in 1979in Wyoming. In 1980, his parents divorced, and Joshua's father was awarded custody. Joshua and his father left Wyoming and moved to Wisconsin. Soon afterarriving in Wisconsin, child welfare agencies were notified that Joshua was being abused by his father. The first indication came in 1982 when DeShaney'ssecond wife reported that her soon to be ex-husband regularly abused her step-son. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services (DSS) interviewed the father, but did not take any action because he denied the charges.
Soon after, in January of 1983, Joshua was brought to the emergency room forhis first of many visits. After treating his bruises, the attending physicians notified the DSS that Joshua's injuries were consistent with child abuse. At this time, the DSS brought together a team of child-care workers to discussthe case, and even placed Joshua under the state's care for three days. No charges were brought against the father, however, although the team did recommend that Joshua be enrolled in a head-start program and that his father should attend counseling. In addition, a social worker, Anne Kemmeter, was assigned to take charge of the case.
Over the next year, Kemmeter visited Joshua's home approximately 20 times. She did not see Joshua at every visit, but did note bumps and bruises on his body when she was allowed to see him. At one time, Kemmeter even described a lesion on his chin that looked like a cigarette burn. In addition, Joshua's father had failed to follow through with enrolling Joshua in pre-school and hadnot attended counseling sessions. At the same time Kemmeter made her numeroushouse visits, Joshua appeared in the emergency room at least two more times,and again the doctors reported suspicions of child abuse to the DSS. Still,the state did not make any move to remove Joshua from the custody of his father, despite the fact, as Kemmeter later admitted, "I just knew the phone would ring one day and Joshua would be dead."
Who was protecting Joshua?
Although Joshua did not die from his father's abuse, on 8 March 1984, JoshuaDeShaney was beaten so badly by his father that he fell into a coma. Despiteemergency brain surgery--where the doctors found evidence of months of bleeding--when Joshua came out of his coma he was paralyzed and profoundly retarded. Joshua would need to be institutionalized for the rest of his life and could never again function on his own. The final beating occurred only one day after Kemmeter had visited DeShaney's home.
For his crimes, Randy DeShaney was found guilty of child abuse, and sentencedto serve two to four years in prison. He served less than two years before being paroled. Not content with her husband being punished for his crimes, Melody DeShaney, Joshua's mother, sued the Winnebago County Department of SocialServices for sitting idly by and writing notes on the case, while not takingany concrete steps to remove her son from danger. DeShaney's lawyers arguedthat the social workers and the county had violated her son's right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment by its failure to intervene to protect Joshua from his father's violence. According to the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment, "[n]o state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The case charged that Joshua's rights to liberty had been violated by the state's passive handling of theabuse they witnessed.
The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff and decided that Joshua's Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his majority opinion, "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clauseitself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of itscitizens from invasion by private actors." In other words, Joshua's father hurt Joshua, not Kemmeter, the emergency room doctors, or the police officers.Joshua had been deprived of his liberty, but at the hands of his father, andnot the Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The Fourteenth Amendment said that people needed to be protected from the state, but not from eachother.
Despite the fact that Randy DeShaney had hurt Joshua, and not the state, theplaintiff charged that Joshua had entered into a "special relationship with the state" that required them to take care of him. Once again, the Court rejected this claim. Rehnquist wrote: "While the state may have been aware of thedangers that Joshua faced . . . it played no part in their creation, nor didit do anything to render him more vulnerable to them." The state "does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual's safety by once having offeredhim shelter."
Three of the justices dissented, saying that the county had an obligation toprotect Joshua from his father's abuse once they learned about it, even if the Fourteenth Amendment did not specifically address this issue. As Justice Blackmun wrote: "Poor Joshua! Victim of repeated attacks . . . and abandoned byrespondents [the county] who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on yet did essentially nothing . . . "
Impact
After the ruling, there was an outcry against the case from child welfare advocates, who claimed that children were being denied their constitutional rights. Newspapers across the nation criticized the decision, in commentaries such as "No Comment From Joshua" in the Washington Post, and "An `Undeniably Tragic' Ruling" in The Boston Globe. Critics charged that the court based its decision on a cold, detached, and rational reading of the law, without considering the ramifications of their decision on children.
Other critics, looking back on the DeShaney decision, have charged that the case set a dangerous precedent for taking away the rights of children.For example, Kathleen Fischer, writing in the Journal of Juvenile Law,entitled her article "Where Have all the Heroes Gone? A Study of Juvenile Related Decisions Following DeShaney." Fischer argues that following in the wake of the DeShaney case, courts have ruled against supporting the rights of children against abusive adults. She writes: "One would conclude that each actor's rights [in cases following DeShaney] are being protected except for thoseof the children, who need the protection most of all."
Related Cases
The Custody Battle
One Friday afternoon during the O. J. Simpson trial, Marcia Clark had to leave the courthouse early in order to pick up her two boys. On the following Monday she faced accusations from the defense that she had used her children asan excuse to stall in her case preparation. Also on that day, Clark's formerhusband Gordon filed a suit for custody of the boys, charging that she was "never home and never has any time to spend with them."
According to Department of Labor statistics, there are 23 million working mothers in America, and 80 percent of all divorced mothers are among their ranks. Legal practice has tended to favor custody for the woman, with men only gaining custody in 11 percent of cases. In the 1800s, though, husbands usually got custody, and in the 1970s, a number of courts tried the approach of joint,or shared, custody. But as LynNell Hancock and Judith Regan observed in a Newsweek article on the Clark case, "It turns out that couples who couldn't live together often can't manage children together, either."
Sources
Hancock, LynNell and Judith Regan. "Putting Working Moms in Custody." Newsweek, 13 March 1995.
Melody DeShaney for her son, Joshua DeShaney
Respondant
Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Petitioner's Claim
That the social workers and the county had violated Joshua DeShaney's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by its failure to intervene to protect Joshua from his father's violence.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Donald J. Sullivan
Chief Lawyer for Respondant
Mark J. Mingo
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
22 February 1989
Decision
That Winnebago County Department of Social Services was not responsible for Joshua's severe beating, even though they had ample evidence that abuse was occurring and did nothing to prevent it.
Significance
That the state could not be held liable for child abuse, even if they knew that abuse was occurring and did nothing to prevent it.
"Undeniably tragic"
The facts of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services are, as Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his majority opinion, "undeniablytragic." Despite the tragic nature of the case, however, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, found that states did not have a constitutional duty to protect children from abusive parents.
Young Joshua DeShaney was at the center of the case. Joshua was born in 1979in Wyoming. In 1980, his parents divorced, and Joshua's father was awarded custody. Joshua and his father left Wyoming and moved to Wisconsin. Soon afterarriving in Wisconsin, child welfare agencies were notified that Joshua was being abused by his father. The first indication came in 1982 when DeShaney'ssecond wife reported that her soon to be ex-husband regularly abused her step-son. The Winnebago County Department of Social Services (DSS) interviewed the father, but did not take any action because he denied the charges.
Soon after, in January of 1983, Joshua was brought to the emergency room forhis first of many visits. After treating his bruises, the attending physicians notified the DSS that Joshua's injuries were consistent with child abuse. At this time, the DSS brought together a team of child-care workers to discussthe case, and even placed Joshua under the state's care for three days. No charges were brought against the father, however, although the team did recommend that Joshua be enrolled in a head-start program and that his father should attend counseling. In addition, a social worker, Anne Kemmeter, was assigned to take charge of the case.
Over the next year, Kemmeter visited Joshua's home approximately 20 times. She did not see Joshua at every visit, but did note bumps and bruises on his body when she was allowed to see him. At one time, Kemmeter even described a lesion on his chin that looked like a cigarette burn. In addition, Joshua's father had failed to follow through with enrolling Joshua in pre-school and hadnot attended counseling sessions. At the same time Kemmeter made her numeroushouse visits, Joshua appeared in the emergency room at least two more times,and again the doctors reported suspicions of child abuse to the DSS. Still,the state did not make any move to remove Joshua from the custody of his father, despite the fact, as Kemmeter later admitted, "I just knew the phone would ring one day and Joshua would be dead."
Who was protecting Joshua?
Although Joshua did not die from his father's abuse, on 8 March 1984, JoshuaDeShaney was beaten so badly by his father that he fell into a coma. Despiteemergency brain surgery--where the doctors found evidence of months of bleeding--when Joshua came out of his coma he was paralyzed and profoundly retarded. Joshua would need to be institutionalized for the rest of his life and could never again function on his own. The final beating occurred only one day after Kemmeter had visited DeShaney's home.
For his crimes, Randy DeShaney was found guilty of child abuse, and sentencedto serve two to four years in prison. He served less than two years before being paroled. Not content with her husband being punished for his crimes, Melody DeShaney, Joshua's mother, sued the Winnebago County Department of SocialServices for sitting idly by and writing notes on the case, while not takingany concrete steps to remove her son from danger. DeShaney's lawyers arguedthat the social workers and the county had violated her son's right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment by its failure to intervene to protect Joshua from his father's violence. According to the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment, "[n]o state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The case charged that Joshua's rights to liberty had been violated by the state's passive handling of theabuse they witnessed.
The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff and decided that Joshua's Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his majority opinion, "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clauseitself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of itscitizens from invasion by private actors." In other words, Joshua's father hurt Joshua, not Kemmeter, the emergency room doctors, or the police officers.Joshua had been deprived of his liberty, but at the hands of his father, andnot the Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The Fourteenth Amendment said that people needed to be protected from the state, but not from eachother.
Despite the fact that Randy DeShaney had hurt Joshua, and not the state, theplaintiff charged that Joshua had entered into a "special relationship with the state" that required them to take care of him. Once again, the Court rejected this claim. Rehnquist wrote: "While the state may have been aware of thedangers that Joshua faced . . . it played no part in their creation, nor didit do anything to render him more vulnerable to them." The state "does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual's safety by once having offeredhim shelter."
Three of the justices dissented, saying that the county had an obligation toprotect Joshua from his father's abuse once they learned about it, even if the Fourteenth Amendment did not specifically address this issue. As Justice Blackmun wrote: "Poor Joshua! Victim of repeated attacks . . . and abandoned byrespondents [the county] who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on yet did essentially nothing . . . "
Impact
After the ruling, there was an outcry against the case from child welfare advocates, who claimed that children were being denied their constitutional rights. Newspapers across the nation criticized the decision, in commentaries such as "No Comment From Joshua" in the Washington Post, and "An `Undeniably Tragic' Ruling" in The Boston Globe. Critics charged that the court based its decision on a cold, detached, and rational reading of the law, without considering the ramifications of their decision on children.
Other critics, looking back on the DeShaney decision, have charged that the case set a dangerous precedent for taking away the rights of children.For example, Kathleen Fischer, writing in the Journal of Juvenile Law,entitled her article "Where Have all the Heroes Gone? A Study of Juvenile Related Decisions Following DeShaney." Fischer argues that following in the wake of the DeShaney case, courts have ruled against supporting the rights of children against abusive adults. She writes: "One would conclude that each actor's rights [in cases following DeShaney] are being protected except for thoseof the children, who need the protection most of all."
Related Cases
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977).
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).
The Custody Battle
One Friday afternoon during the O. J. Simpson trial, Marcia Clark had to leave the courthouse early in order to pick up her two boys. On the following Monday she faced accusations from the defense that she had used her children asan excuse to stall in her case preparation. Also on that day, Clark's formerhusband Gordon filed a suit for custody of the boys, charging that she was "never home and never has any time to spend with them."
According to Department of Labor statistics, there are 23 million working mothers in America, and 80 percent of all divorced mothers are among their ranks. Legal practice has tended to favor custody for the woman, with men only gaining custody in 11 percent of cases. In the 1800s, though, husbands usually got custody, and in the 1970s, a number of courts tried the approach of joint,or shared, custody. But as LynNell Hancock and Judith Regan observed in a Newsweek article on the Clark case, "It turns out that couples who couldn't live together often can't manage children together, either."
Sources
Hancock, LynNell and Judith Regan. "Putting Working Moms in Custody." Newsweek, 13 March 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…
5 months ago
this have been very informative to me, thank god that i found this website.