Joshua Deshaney Case Summary

Joshua Deshaney, a four-year old victim of abuse, and many other victims do not have the right to protection according to the Supreme Court. The Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services was reviewed by the Supreme Court and decided that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause does not protect a minor from private affairs in a household. In order to understand the decisions made by the Court one must establish the history, evaluate the case, and analyze the impacts.

The history of the Deshaney case involved Joshua Deshaney, his father, Randy Deshaney, his mother, Melody Deshaney, and the Wisconsin Department of Social Services. According to Ph.D. professor Emeritus of Social work, Alexander Rudolph Jr.’s article “The Legal

To sum up, a state official could not be held accountable for the abusive situation based on the premise of denying a constitutional right. The state however, does hold the social worker responsible for not correctly intervening in the situation but the “constitution does not transform the state torts” (“Deshaney v. Winnebago Department County of Social Services”). State tort laws help those that are harmed by “unreasonable actions of others”(Rudolph 67). The Court ruled two dissents. Associate Justice William Brennan gave the fist dissent saying, “ that whether or not Joshua was granted [a] right to protection against the abuse of his father was non-sequitur” (Rudolph

The Deshaney case required that the Supreme court look at the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and establish that they do not protect individuals from private affairs such as abuse in a home (“Deshaney v. Winnebago Department County of social Services”). Joshua Deshaney suffered with mental retardation once he came out of his coma and he died at the age of 36 in 2013(“Boy at Center of Famous ‘Poor Joshua!’ Court Dissent Dies”). Joshua was adopted at the age of 12. His adoptive parents cared for him and loved him. This case brought light to many similar situations. Petitioners supporting Joshua and his mother think that the ruling was unfair and have rallied many times to petition the court. The attempts made to change the Court ruling have