Gotay v. Green
Samara was seriously injured while in the care of a foster parent and the foster parent’s paramour. Samara’s guardians and family members sued social workers at the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, the Department itself, and the foster parent. Relevant here, the defendant social workers moved for summary judgment arguing that qualified immunity protected them from suit. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the social workers appealed. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court solicited amicus briefs on several topics, including:
- Whether a child placed by the Commonwealth in a foster home has a clearly established substantive due process right to a safe living environment due to a special relationship between the Commonwealth and a foster child.
- Whether, for purposes of the plaintiffs' substantive due process claims, the proper legal standard is whether the social workers acted with deliberate indifference that shocks the conscience, see County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998), or whether their conduct amounted to an absence of professional judgment, see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).
Juvenile Law Center, National Center for Youth Law, and Children’s Rights, Inc. submitted an amicus brief arguing that (1) children in foster care have a substantive due process right to a safe living environment based on their clearly established special relationship with the Commonwealth, and (2) the proper legal standard for analyzing substantive due process claims by youth in foster care is whether the state actors responsible for their care substantially departed from accepted professional judgment, pursuant to Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). We also pointed out the importance of applying protective legal standards in such cases, given the grave risks of harm to youth in care and that Black and Hispanic/Latine youth are disproportionately represented in the Massachusetts system.
LEGAL TEAM
Attorneys
Kate Burdick, Jessica Feierman
Paralegals
Tiffany Faith