Lexplug logoLexplug

DeWees v. Stevenson

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
779 F. Supp. 25 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state agency does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by considering prospective adoptive parents' racial attitudes and sensitivity to racial issues when determining the best interests of a child in a trans-racial adoption, as long as the decision is based on those specific attitudes and not on the parents' race per se.


Facts:

  • Mr. and Mrs. DeWees, a white couple, were approved by the Chester County Children and Youth Services Agency (CCCYS) to serve as foster parents in 1988.
  • Initially, Mrs. DeWees expressed reluctance to foster black children, but her attitude changed positively after the couple successfully cared for several black and bi-racial foster children.
  • In November 1989, CCCYS placed Dante Kirby, a two-month-old bi-racial infant, in the DeWeeses' care, where he was well cared for and developed a strong bond with the family.
  • After Dante's biological parents' rights were terminated, the DeWeeses wrote to CCCYS in June 1991 to formally express their interest in adopting him.
  • CCCYS supervisor Kay Thalheimer and an expert consultant, Dr. Joseph Crumbley, evaluated the DeWeeses for the trans-racial adoption.
  • Dr. Crumbley concluded that the DeWeeses were not appropriate adoptive parents because they lacked sensitivity to the needs of a bi-racial child, citing their lack of contact with the minority community and their belief that racial issues should be addressed only if and when they occurred.
  • Based on her interview and Dr. Crumbley's report, Thalheimer denied the DeWeeses' adoption request in September 1991.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. DeWees, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Chester County Children and Youth Services Agency and its officials.
  • Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent defendants from refusing to consider them as adoptive parents for their foster child.
  • The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' actions violated the plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • At a hearing, the parties agreed to combine the proceedings for the preliminary injunction with the final adjudication on the merits of the request for a permanent injunction.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state agency violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by denying a white couple's request to adopt their bi-racial foster child based on an assessment that the couple lacks the necessary sensitivity and skills to address the child's race-related needs?


Opinions:

Majority - Waldman, J.

No. A state agency does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying an adoption request based on an assessment of the prospective parents' attitudes toward racial issues. The court found that the agency's decision was not based on the plaintiffs' race but on their perceived lack of sensitivity and preparedness to raise a bi-racial child. While racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, protecting the 'best interests of the child' is a compelling state interest. Considering a prospective parent's awareness of and ability to cope with racial issues is a constitutionally permissible, non-discriminatory factor in determining those best interests. Additionally, the court concluded that foster parents do not possess a cognizable liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in their relationship with a foster child.



Analysis:

This decision distinguishes between impermissible racial discrimination and the permissible consideration of race-related factors in child welfare cases. It establishes that while an agency cannot implement a policy based on race alone, it may evaluate a prospective parent's capacity to navigate the unique challenges a minority child may face due to their race. The ruling grants deference to the professional judgment of child welfare agencies in making nuanced, individualized assessments about a child's best interests, even when those assessments involve sensitive issues of race, culture, and identity.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: DeWees v. Stevenson (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"