DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

[chrisrs]

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,
489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Procedural: Petitioner, a minor child, brought an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 against respondents, a county's department of social services and its various employees, for failing to intervene to protect the child against the risk of violence at his father's hands. The child challenged a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that affirmed a trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents.

Facts: DeSheney (P) was born in 1979 and his father was awarded custody when he was one year old. In January 1982, P's stepmother complained to the police that P was being abused by his father. No action was taken by DSS upon an interview. In January 1983, P was admitted to a local hospital with multiple bruises and abrasions. DSS was notified and after a team was assembled, they determined that there was insufficient evidence of abuse to retain P in the custody of the court. Counseling and enrollment in preschool were voluntarily agreed to. A month later, P was again being treated for suspicious injuries. Again, it was concluded that there was no basis for action. During the next six months, the caseworker visited and noticed suspicious injuries to P's head and that he had not been enrolled in school. By November 1983, another trip to the emergency room was recorded and when a home visit was conducted, the worker was told that P was too ill to see her. In March 1984, P was in a coma from a series of hemorrhages from traumatic injuries inflicted over a long period. P suffered severe brain damage. P sued D under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that D denied P due process. Summary judgment was granted to D.

Issue: Does a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence deprive him of his liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: No. Judgment affirmed.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Reynolds, J. entered summary judgment in favor of defendant, and mother appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirmed, and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that State had no constitutional duty to protect child from his father after receiving reports of possible abuse.


Analysis: Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause requires a state to protect one's life, liberty, and property against private action. The purpose of the clause is to protect the people from the state, and not to ensure that the state protects them from one another. When a state takes a person into custody and deprives him of his liberty so that he is unable to care for himself, the state has an affirmative duty to provide for his basic human needs. Its failure to do so violates the person's liberty interests under the Due Process Clause.