Doe by Nelson v. Milwaukee County

2 Citing cases

  1. Doe by Nelson v. Milwaukee County

    903 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that plaintiffs possessed no property interest in having the state's Department of Social Services undertake an investigation of a child abuse report because the statutes in question merely established "a set of procedures that guides Wisconsin counties in their efforts to prevent child abuse," and stating that while "[u]narguably, these procedures assist the county in conferring the benefit of government protection upon Wisconsin's minor residents . . . the procedures themselves are not `benefits' within the meaning of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence"

    5. The children "begged to stay w/the grandparents," and the reporting adults "fear that boyfriend will harm children."Doe v. Milwaukee County, 712 F. Supp. 1370, 1371-72 (E.D.Wis. 1989) (quoting report of Patricia Ryan, reprinted in Appellants' App. at 26-27). Both King Taylor, head of the protective services unit of the DSS, and Margaret ("Peg") McCarthy, head of the Department's child sexual abuse team, reviewed the Does' report.

  2. Ryans v. Gresham

    6 F. Supp. 2d 595 (E.D. Tex. 1998)   Cited 13 times
    Finding a parent had no constitutional right to access his or her child's academic environment

    That nobody acceded to her position fails to implicate freedom of speech. See Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 464-65, 99 S.Ct. 1826, 1828, 60 L.Ed.2d 360, 362-63 (1979); Doe ex rel. Nelson v. Milwaukee County, 712 F.Supp. 1370, 1378 (E.D.Wis. 1989), aff'd on other grounds, 903 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1990); Gordon v. Heimann, 514 F.Supp. 659, 661 (N.D.Ga. 1980). The Ryans' First Amendment claim, consequently, lacks merit.