Supreme Court of the United States denies Richard Fine and the fact that there is
fraud in child welfare.
Honestly, I believe the decision to deny Mr. Fine's application was more on the fear of distorting the perception of public trust.
There was a case that gave the child protective services industry the "full-steam ahead" call on assuming the authority to design predatory policies on forming poverty into the crime of child abuse. According to the syllabus, the mother was poor and the father had money. The father beat the child until there was severe brain injury. The mother cried for custody and for her child to be protected, but the state had labeled the mother as "unfit" due to her poverty.
In the
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, SCOTUS rendered its decision to the question:
Does a state's failure to protect an individual against private violence constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
"No. The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the State to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the State did not create those harms. "The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means."
The Rehnquist Court demonstrated a severe lack of awareness in the
parens patriae doctrine in
DeShaney v. Winnebago County , because, that defendant did in fact violate the Due Process clause to protect the child, as child protection had been placed under Trade and Commerce Law back in 1976, federally funded by CAPTA in 1974, solidifying the basis of the initial argument that it was the inherent right of the state to protect its heir in perpetuity. Therefore, the state violated federal anti-commerce law and the due process contained within of 15 U.S.C. 15 (c), obfuscated within child welfare policies.
I do not lay blame on SCOTUS for its findings as I have only had a few visits to my work. The majority of the time, the justices rely upon the law clerks to do the research. The research in child welfare is
supremely poor or
extremely biased.
Allowing Fine's case to proceed would be opening the doors to throw out
stares decisis policy, meaning, child protective services would be held accountable for its actions and inactions.
Always remember the theory that government functions for the
public good, even in hard economic times.
No. 09-1250
Title:
Richard I. Fine, Petitioner
v.
Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al.
Docketed: April 16, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-56073)
Decision Date: December 16, 2009
Rehearing Denied: February 10, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 1 2010 Application (09A827) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Mar 12 2010 Application (09A827) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Mar 23 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 17, 2010)
Mar 30 2010 Application (09A827) refiled and submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Apr 7 2010 Application (09A827) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.
Apr 7 2010 Application (09A827) referred to the Court.
Apr 23 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al. to respond filed.
Apr 26 2010 Application (09A827) denied by the Court.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Richard I. Fine 1824367
Men's Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Party name: Richard I. Fine
Attorneys for Respondents:
Paul B. Beach Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC (818)-545-1925
Counsel of Record 100 West Broadway Suite 1200
Glendale, CA 91210
pbeach@lbaclaw.com
Party name: Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al.
