A Constitutional Failure

Two parents in Taunton, Mass., are currently under investigation after the Department of Children and Families received reports of child abuse in their home. The reports were of “neglect and abuse consisting of a variety of specifics, which included sexual assault and the keeping of the children in cages.” This is a recent example of the terrible reality of child abuse; it’s proximity to home is a scary reminder that child abuse happens everywhere.

The famous DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Supreme Court case is one that involved a father who abused his 4-year-old son, Joshua. Social services took custody of Joshua, only to return him three days later. Joshua was hospitalized some time later with severe bruises and brain damage as a result of his father’s abuse. However, the court ruled against Joshua and his mother who claimed that the Department of Social Services was responsible for his injuries. The court’s ruling removed all blame from the government.

Despite the court’s ruling, the government is at least somewhat at fault for Joshua’s abuse. It was partially the Winnebago County Social Services’ responsibility to protect Joshua when they learned of the abuse.

The responsibility of a social worker to a child is to protect said child from abuse, neglect, or any other situation involving mistreatment from their parents or guardians. In Joshua’s case, this responsibility was not met. Joshua was mentally impaired due to the brain damage induced by his father. The Winnebago County Social Services had taken custody of Joshua on multiple occasions but had returned him to his father each time. Clearly social services had, on multiple occasions, suspected his father of abusing Joshua, but the decision to return him home provided the opportunity for further abuse.

Joshua’s’ mother argued that under the Fourteenth Amendment, Joshua should have been protected. The amendment forbids the state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But the Court ruled that the Constitution does not protect children from their parents.

This ruling is inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that a person can not be deprived of life. Joshua was in no position to defend himself, and therefore it was the government’s responsibility to ensure his safety. The decision to return Joshua to his father equates to the abandonment of the child – a child who had no self defense or freedom while in his father’s custody.

Was the court ruling against the Joshua and his Mother fair?

• Yes
• No

View Results

 Loading ...