DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Family Law

489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawstate duty to protect childrenDue Process Clauseaffirmative dutyprivate violencestate duty to protectspecial relationshipcustody

Facts

Joshua DeShaney lived with his father, who repeatedly abused him. County social services officials received complaints, hospital reports, and observed suspicious injuries suggesting ongoing abuse; they once obtained temporary custody of Joshua but returned him to his father and took no further protective action. Over the following months, officials recorded continued suspicions but did not remove Joshua. In March 1984, Joshua's father beat him so severely that Joshua suffered permanent brain damage.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require state or local officials to protect a child from violence by his private custodial parent when the officials knew of the danger and had previously intervened but did not keep the child in state custody?

Rule

The Due Process Clause is a limitation on the State's power to act, not a guarantee of minimum levels of safety and security. As a general rule, a State's failure to protect an individual from private violence does not violate due process. An affirmative constitutional duty to protect arises only when the State, by the affirmative exercise of its power, takes a person into custody or otherwise restrains his liberty so that he cannot care for himself.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, neighbors repeatedly told county child-services workers that eight-year-old Liam Ortiz was being beaten by his mother's boyfriend. The workers investigated twice, concluded the evidence was inconclusive, and left Liam in the home. Months later, the boyfriend seriously injured Liam.

Liam's guardian brings a § 1983 action alleging the county violated Liam's substantive due process rights by failing to protect him from the boyfriend. What is the strongest argument for the county?

Explanation. The majority held that the Due Process Clause is a limitation on state power, not a guarantee of minimum safety from private actors. Absent state custody or a similar restraint of liberty, the State's failure to protect a person from private violence does not violate substantive due process, even if officials knew of the danger.