DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989)

Rationale

The Due Process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment says that sates cannot deprive people of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, however if those rights are violated through other means the state cannot be held responsible to impose affirmative action. “While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them.”The court looked at other cases in the past that dealt with the Due Process clause such as Estelle v. Gamble (1976) and Youngberg v. Romeo (1982) in which they decided that a state’s affirmative duty to protect a person does not come from knowledge or through previous actions to help, but only when the person’s freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.

Comments

The circumstances of this case were appalling, and the ruling of the court was quite a shock. The Court was most likely protecting its interests in uniformity of law. They read the Constitution to the letter as opposed to inventing implications of wording, and in doing so they set precedent for future cases.

Party Arguments: Defendant

Party Arguments: Plaintiff

The state did not deprive Joshua of his liberties.

It was the state's affirmative duty to protect the child.

1. The Fourteenth Amendment's concept of liberty did not include a right to protective services.

2. No state actions in a constitutional sense which caused deprivation.

3. Actions of the social worker did not evince the state of mind necessary to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment.

2 Elements

1. Child/Parent Relationship

2. "Enmeshment" of the agents of the state when the circumstance has three characteristics : extreme danger, state agents have abundant knowledge, and an actual undertaking of the child by the state.

Holding

The Department of Social Services' lack of intervention in the case was NOT a violation of Joshua DeShaney's rights.

Pro

Con

Chief Justice Rhenquist argued the opinion of the court and stated that while Joshua's situation was tragic, the failure on the part of Social Services to intervene was not a violation of rights.

Justice Brennan was the party that held the Department of Social Services responsible for their lack of action.

Issue

Were Joshua's liberties deprived under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the state failed to intervene in a private act of violence?

Facts

The case involved a young boy, Joshua DeShaney, who was severely beaten by his father to the point of brain damage and mental retardation, and Social Services made no efforts to stop the father beyond surface investigation and dismissal.

A year later, the Department of Social Services was called again when Joshua was admitted to the hospital. This time, faced with overt evidence of abuse, Social Services recommended counseling for Ray DeShaney and that Joshua be enrolled in a preschool (he was four years old at this point)

Later investigations showed that none of Social Services' recommendations had been implemented, and Joshua was being hurt to the point that he fell into a life-threatening coma. While he did not die, he was left permanently brain damaged as Social Services looked on without offering assistance. Joshua and his mother brought action to the district court.

The Department of Social Services was first contacted after Joshua DeShaney's stepmother (who had recently divorced the father) contacted the authorities stating that Joshua had been beaten. Social Services interviewed Ray DeShaney, the father, but dismissed the case after Ray denied all accusations.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989)

Based on Jim Harvey's speech structures