Richards v. CITY OF NEW YORK 405

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “skeletal” tort of “social work malpractice” appears to lie if a social worker practices her profession “fraudulently, incompetently, or negligently” (quoting Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, 537 N.Y.S.2d 742, 743 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989)
• applying standard to claim for inadequate mental health treatment for children in foster care
• “deliberate indifference does not require ill-will or the affirmative acquiescence in mistreatment.”
• “There can be no dispute that [foster children] are the third-party beneficiaries of the contract between ACS and [the foster care agency]; they are the people for whom the delegated services are to be provided.”
• “Although it is disgraceful that ACS and LFCS did not ensure children in their custody were properly and promptly enrolled in school, ‘[t]he Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a public education as a substantive fundamental right.’”
• “[C]hildren in foster care [have] a substantive due process right [under the Fourteenth Amendment] to protection from harm.” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Tylena M. v. Heartshare Children’s Servs., 390 F. Supp. 2d 296, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2005))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).