What do you think?
Rate this book
Landmark Law Cases and American Society
The DeShaney Case: Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Dilemma of State Intervention
"Poor Joshua!" lamented Justice Harry Blackmun in his famous dissent. "Victim of repeated attacks by an irresponsible, bullying, obviously cowardly, and intemperate father, and abandoned by respondents who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on, and yet did essentially nothing. . . ." Even so, the Supreme Court, by a 6-to-3 margin, absolved Wisconsin officials of any negligence in a case that had left a young child profoundly damaged for the rest of his life.
Does the Constitution protect children from violent parents? As Lynne Curry shows, that was the central question at issue when Melody DeShaney initially sued Wisconsin for failing to protect her battered son Joshua from her estranged husband, thus violating her son's constitutional right to due process. The resulting case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), was a highly emotional one pitting the family against the state and challenging our views on domestic relations, child abuse, and the responsibilities—and limits—of state action regarding the private lives of citizens.
The Supreme Court's controversial decision ruled that the Constitution was intended to limit state action rather than oblige the state to interfere in private affairs. In other words, it viewed the Due Process Clause as a limitation on the state's power to act, not a guarantee of safety and security, not even for children who depend on the state for their very survival. In this first book-length analysis of the case, Curry helps readers understand how considerations of "what should be" in an undeniably tragic case are not always reflected in legal reasoning.
Curry brings to light details that have been ignored or neglected and covers both the criminal and civil proceedings to retell a story that still shocks. Drawing on legal briefs and social work case files, she reviews the legal machinations of the state and includes personal stories of key actors: family members, social workers, police officers, child advocates, and opposing attorneys. She then clearly analyzes the majority and dissenting opinions from the Court, as well as reactions from the court of public opinion.
Joshua DeShaney depended on the state for protection but found no satisfaction in the courts when the state failed him. The DeShaney Case offers a much-needed perspective on the dilemmas his predicament posed for our legal system and fresh insight into our ambivalent views of the role that the state should play in our daily lives.
Does the Constitution protect children from violent parents? As Lynne Curry shows, that was the central question at issue when Melody DeShaney initially sued Wisconsin for failing to protect her battered son Joshua from her estranged husband, thus violating her son's constitutional right to due process. The resulting case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), was a highly emotional one pitting the family against the state and challenging our views on domestic relations, child abuse, and the responsibilities—and limits—of state action regarding the private lives of citizens.
The Supreme Court's controversial decision ruled that the Constitution was intended to limit state action rather than oblige the state to interfere in private affairs. In other words, it viewed the Due Process Clause as a limitation on the state's power to act, not a guarantee of safety and security, not even for children who depend on the state for their very survival. In this first book-length analysis of the case, Curry helps readers understand how considerations of "what should be" in an undeniably tragic case are not always reflected in legal reasoning.
Curry brings to light details that have been ignored or neglected and covers both the criminal and civil proceedings to retell a story that still shocks. Drawing on legal briefs and social work case files, she reviews the legal machinations of the state and includes personal stories of key actors: family members, social workers, police officers, child advocates, and opposing attorneys. She then clearly analyzes the majority and dissenting opinions from the Court, as well as reactions from the court of public opinion.
Joshua DeShaney depended on the state for protection but found no satisfaction in the courts when the state failed him. The DeShaney Case offers a much-needed perspective on the dilemmas his predicament posed for our legal system and fresh insight into our ambivalent views of the role that the state should play in our daily lives.
- GenresLaw
176 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2007
9 people are currently reading
31 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 17, 2016
excellent summary and analysis of deshaney v. winnebago county.
the details are gruesome, and curry does her best to spare us the worst of it, but some of them are crucial to understanding the conclusions. very readable, but not easy reading.
the details are gruesome, and curry does her best to spare us the worst of it, but some of them are crucial to understanding the conclusions. very readable, but not easy reading.
November 22, 2019
It is irrefutable that children compose of an especially vulnerable group in our society, and likened to the prison analogy, they are locked away without anyone advocating on their behalf. “The state voluntarily and affirmatively assumed responsibility for the protection of a specific individual when the individual cannot protect himself and the state’s role has precluded others from helping him. If the DSS assumes the duty to protect Joshua and goes on to fail so, they did not return the person to a previous state unharmed, far from it. The situation is analogous to the state sends a police officer arrives on a scene of active rape and asks the perp if he is currently in the process of molesting someone, receiving a negative response, goes on to watch the act occur. The state would be dead wrong when they argue their intervention changed not the outcome of the crime because inaction in and of itself is an act of permitting the atrocity to continue. The “if not” test would quickly establish reliance. If not for the inaction, the outcome would be drastically different. Therefore, the negative duty argument and return to previous state arguments are wrong, irrelevant and immaterial.
Arguably, if the justices were true originalists, their finding of no reference to the “special relationship” and the affirmative duty of the state in the protection of private actors from private actors is legitimate. The forefathers indeed were not ever contemplating that issue because they were set out to address the grievances suffered from intrusion by the state, not by an individual. Wisconsin’s law certainly should change, if not, more “poor Joshuas” will be lying with tubes in their brain to relieve blood clots. The state was incompetent, and if they insist on hanging on hackneyed tradition and abiding by the mechanical formulae obfuscated by faulty reasoning and lack foresight, then it would be such a shame to see America’s “No.1 status” being slowly replaced by more intelligent countries, and its loft ideals disenfranchised.
Arguably, if the justices were true originalists, their finding of no reference to the “special relationship” and the affirmative duty of the state in the protection of private actors from private actors is legitimate. The forefathers indeed were not ever contemplating that issue because they were set out to address the grievances suffered from intrusion by the state, not by an individual. Wisconsin’s law certainly should change, if not, more “poor Joshuas” will be lying with tubes in their brain to relieve blood clots. The state was incompetent, and if they insist on hanging on hackneyed tradition and abiding by the mechanical formulae obfuscated by faulty reasoning and lack foresight, then it would be such a shame to see America’s “No.1 status” being slowly replaced by more intelligent countries, and its loft ideals disenfranchised.
October 19, 2019
Structurally, this book lays out the problem very neatly by devoting a separate chapter to the Supreme Court case, the lower court case(s), the facts of Joshua DeShaney's matter (or, the "beating" as the book refers to it), and the author devoted a chapter to the history of child protection in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was really a great deal at stake in this case sand she states succinctly: "the standard Joshua's attorneys were proposing would place increasing pressure on the state agencies to interfere with individual liberty by removing children from their families out of fear that otherwise the state will be held liable for the reluctant harms."
In the end most people don't think or know very much about this incredibly important Supreme court case -because Joshua's attorneys lost that argument. In the end, the Court ruled in favor of the state and against 'Poor Joshua.' While the end result may seem unfair, the result championed by the minority view would have been catastrophic to the big picture.
This book is one of the series from "The Landmark Law cases" series, published from the University Press of Kansas. I've read several of these -usually less than 200 pages, very accessible guides to both history and law. Some of them are more history than law.
In the end most people don't think or know very much about this incredibly important Supreme court case -because Joshua's attorneys lost that argument. In the end, the Court ruled in favor of the state and against 'Poor Joshua.' While the end result may seem unfair, the result championed by the minority view would have been catastrophic to the big picture.
This book is one of the series from "The Landmark Law cases" series, published from the University Press of Kansas. I've read several of these -usually less than 200 pages, very accessible guides to both history and law. Some of them are more history than law.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews