Just because a person has a child does not mean that they should. If a parent is abusing a child, the state should protect that child.
The Constitution doesn’t protect kids from their parents, according to The Supreme Court. In the case DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, four-year-old Joshua DeShaney, lived in Neenah, Wisconsin under his father’s custody. Joshua was injured so badly he was taken to the hospital while in his father’s care. The hospital staff reported it, and an investigation was opened up about the fathers abuse.
When the case was dismissed he had requirements, which he failed to meet with Department of Social Services. He would not allow visits with his Joshua due to the fact he was too “ill” for the visit. DSS recorded more suspicions of abuse but failed to act upon it.
About a year after the first hospital visit, Joshua returned. This time he left with a whole new life. Joshua was beaten by his father so badly that he was diagnosed as permanently paralyzed and mentally disabled.
Joshua’s father was sent to prison for child abuse, but that was not enough for Joshua’s mother. Joshua’s mother tried suing DSS for sending Joshua back to his father after the initial incident.
The state deprived Joshua of his right to the Fourteenth Amendment and had failed to protect him. The state did not see it that way because the Supreme Court gives parents the right to discipline their children.
Parents have the right to bring up their children the way they would like and a spank or a little hit is nothing a child can’t handle, but a beating that permanently paralyzes a child is not discipline, it is cruel punishment.
DSS knew about the way Joshua was being treated by his father and did not act upon it. They could have given him to his mother or put him into foster care to prevent this incident.

Photo from Prezi