Deshaney V. Winnebago Case Analysis

In 2008, Spears was placed into a conservatorship because her family was worried about her mental health. This happened after she had locked herself in a bathroom with her son Jayden because it was time for her to hand him off as she only had a limited time to be with her children. This violates the custody order, which resulted in a 5150, “an emergency psychiatric hold, in which a person having a mental-health episode can be involuntarily hospitalized (Farrow and Tolentino, Britney Spear’s Conservatorship Nightmare, pg. 11).” There were multiple other instances leading up to the conservatorship including public

This case highlights how important the Supreme Court is to setting legal precedent and preserving the states' and the federal

The cases of The Town of Castle Rock v. Jessica Gonzales and Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States of America were the result of a tragedy that could have easily been prevented. These cases bring into question: when is discretion appropriate, what is property, what rights are we guaranteed, and what can we do about it? Simon and Jessica Gonzales were married in 1990. Ms. Gonzales alleges that her husband became abusive toward her and her three daughters, Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca, around 1996.

Winnebago County Social Services (1989) and Ingraham v. Wright (1977). I disagree with the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) case because I think the judge should have did something to protect the child. They just let the father beat, bruise, and hospitalized the poor child. I disagree with the Ingraham v. Wright (1977) case because Supreme Court the the principle hit on the child under his will and bruise him to where he was out almost a whole week of school. I think this cruel and the Supreme Court should reopen the case

Pursuant to Md. Code (1984, 2014 Repl. Vol., 2015 Suppl.), § 10-222(h)(3) of the State Government Article (“SG”), we may only reverse or modify the decision of an administrative agency if that decision is: (i) unconstitutional; (ii) exceeds the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the final decision maker; (iii) results from an unlawful procedure; (iv) is affected by any other error of law; (v) is unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in light of the entire record as submitted; or (vi) is arbitrary or capricious. SG § 10-222(h)(3). “‘On appellate review of the decision of an administrative agency, this Court reviews the agency’s decision, not the circuit court’s decision.’” Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Prigel Family Creamery, 206 Md. App. 264, 273 (2012) (quoting Halici v. City of Gaithersburg, 180 Md.

In Wyman v. James, the Supreme Court held that the beneficiary of the Aid to the Families with the Dependent Children must allow a house visit by a case manager, when the law requires it, or relinquish her entitlement to open help. The Supreme Court did not view it as a pursuit in fourth amendment terms. Regardless of the possibility that the visit were a pursuit, the Court said it was sensible: it was made for the advantage of the kid; it was "a gentle means" of guaranteeing that duty stores are appropriately spent; the case manager was not a "uniformed authority"; and the beneficiary had the decision of summoning her entitlement to decline or relinquishing the advantages. Three contradicting Justices (William Douglas, William Brennan, Thurgood

Melody believed applying a broad interpretation of state action to this case proved failure of the Wisconsin Department of Social Services to do their job- protecting Joshua. The broad interpretation refers to the extent of state intervention; determining what’s considered a state obligation, and when it’s an intrusion on individual liberties. The broad interpretation of state action in the DeShaney case defined the Department of Social Services’ directly liable for Joshua’s current state (at that time), because the Wisconsin law placed the wellbeing of abused children in the hands of a social worker; who evaluates the situation and determines the best course of action- removing the child, or working through the problem with the family. To

After years of this behavior and her being put into jail for stealing. She was sentence to prison and her boys would become wards of the State of California. Her aunt Darlene decided to apply for custody of her children, this would allow them to stay in the family and give them a safe and loving home to grow up in. Right after Darlene gained

For example, in Ritchie v. People (1895), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the eight-hour provision from the Law of 1893, because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving women of freedom of contract, which is derived from the due process clause (A14.1). The decision rooted from the larger political battle occuring at the time- most wealthy businesses and political leaders did not support protective laws - which led to a display of false paternity/equality by the justices. In dismay, Florence Kelley rejected that the Fourteenth Amendment could be used in such a manner, and said, “The measure to guarantee the Negro freedom from oppression has become an insuperable obstacle to the protection of women and children” (W15). In the campaign for protective rights for laborers, the ruling from Ritchie v. People marked a defeat, but not an end. In 1908, Kelley, and the NCL, sought redemption through the case of Muller v. Oregon (case description), and picked an attorney, Louis Brandeis, who “seemed like a champion to fight her battle in court” (W26).

In the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O., “TLO” (Tracy Lois Odem) had her pursed check by the school’s vice principal because a teacher had caught her smoking inside the girl’s bathroom. TLO then was convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs discovered during the search. She later fought the search and presented this case to the New Jersey Juvenile Court. The court found her guilty of delinquency, but TLO repealed and the court reversed this decision and asked the Supreme Court to review the case. This case shows how controversial the Fourth Amendment can be but it also reveals that in certain cases that searches against students can be unreasonable and therefore violating their constitutional rights.

Mikaela Sinnett’s mother experienced the “the gaze of the state” because she going to raise her child while being blind and therefore considered unable to parent by the state. The state put Mikaela into foster care because of the state's lack of knowledge on ability and the clear discrimination of disabled alternative parenting. The child welfare system intruded on her family by taking away their agency as parents. The system perpetuates ableism and the miseducation that disability is correlated with the mistreatment of children. Angela Frederick managed to parent her two-year-old child by attaching bells to her child's clothing, wearing her baby attached to clothing, and using syringes to measure medicines.

Rosario”). However, the district court decided that the plaintiff violated the “Confidentiality Act,” which “permits disclosure of confidential communications of a minor between the ages of twelve and eighteen if…the therapist finds disclosure to be in the best interest of the minor” (“Dr. Rosario”). The courts also determined that he violated “The Reporting Act,” which requires school personnel to immediately report suspected child abuse to authorities (“Pesce v. J”). Dr. Pesce also violated the J. Sterling Morton High School District Employment Contract by not promptly reporting the incident, and therefore, putting J.D. in danger. In addition, the courts decided that Pesce’s rights were not violated (“Dr. Rosario”).

The caregivers lacked commitment, compassion, conscientiousness, fairness and honesty, and if they had taken their jobs seriously probably Tomcik wouldn’t have suffered as much. Trial began on July 22, 1991 and the decision was made on October 7, 1991. Tomcik’s total damage came out to be $85,000 according to the text. The defendants were proven wrong and they were charged. The court did the right thing, but I think a stricter action should have been taken against the defendants.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.

The case of Cassandra vs Connecticut state is about Cassandra, a teenager from Connecticut, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer. Cassandra refused to get chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma deeming the treatment itself as poisonous. Casandra’s mother, Jackie Fortin gave up on convincing her daughter to get chemotherapy and respected her decision. So, Cassandra and her mother often missed their medical appointments. Cassandra’s doctor reported Casandra’s mother, Jackie Fortin, to Department of Children and Families for neglecting her child for avoiding cancer treatment which would be highly fatal to Cassandra.