蒂纱尼诉温尼贝戈郡社会服务部门proper是什么意思
（DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services）
489 U.S. 189 (1989)
主要事实：
Joshua DeShaney, four years old, and his mother (Ps) sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services (D) after Joshua was so verely beaten by his father that he fell into a coma and suffered brain damage so vere that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded.约书亚·蒂纱尼，四岁，在遭其父暴打后陷入昏迷并致脑部严重受损，经诊断他余生将在严重智障收容机构里度过，约书亚与母亲（共同原告）一同起诉温尼贝戈郡社会服务部门（被告）。D was made aware that Joshua might be the victim of child abu. D gave custody to a treating hospital while it investigated the circumstances.被告被明确告知约书亚是虐童行为的受害者。在对一家诊疗医院进行了一番调查后，被告将（对约书亚）的监护权交给了这家医院。However, D
found insufficient evidence of abu.但被告随后发现虐待行为的证据并不充分。D required Joshua's father to enroll Joshua in school and have his girlfriend move out.于是被告转而要求约书亚的父亲将约书亚登记入学，并要求其同居女友搬家。The were not done. After more than three reports from his mother and treating physicians of subquent abu, D allowed Joshua to remain with his father and his father's girlfriend.事情还没结束。在收到了超过三封来自约书亚母亲和诊疗医生关于约书亚遭遇进一步虐待的投诉报告后，被告仍然让约书亚留在其父和其父女友身边。The father was tried and convicted of child abu and Ps filed suit claiming D had denied Ps adequate protection under the Due Process Clau of the Fourteenth Amendment.belong在其父被指控虐童并判刑后，原告基于宪法第十四修正案中的正当程序条款，针对被告拒绝向原告提供充分保护一事提起诉讼。The trial court granted summary judgment for D and the appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.初审法院作出了简易判决支持被告，上诉法院维持原判。本案由联邦最高法院再审。
争论焦点：
just like heavenDoes the state's failure to protect an individual against private violence constitute a violation of the Due Process Clau?美国留学签证
州政府不能保护个人免于私力侵害是否构成违反正当法律程序条款。
判决理由：
1）The Due Process Clau impos a limitation on the state's power to act; it is not a guarantee of minimum levels of safety and curity. 正当法律程序条款是对政府行动权的限制，而不是个人安全的最低限度保障；南宁美容
2）A special relationship did not ari here whereby the Due Process Clau impod an affirmative obligation on D to act. D played no part in creating Joshua's danger, nor did it do anything to render him more vulnerable to it 凭正当法律程序条款为被告强加一个须采取措施的明确义务也并未使得原、被告间形成特殊关系。被告对造成约书亚遭遇危险没有责任，也没有做任何致使其更容易遭遇危险的事情。
3）The state has an affirmative duty only when it takes a person into its custody and hold
s him against his will, e.g., prisoners and mental patients. 州政府只有在将个人纳入到监管范围中，违反其个人意愿对其进行控制，如针对囚犯和精神病人时，才具有明确的义务；
soh
4）By voluntarily undertaking to protect Joshua from a danger it concededly played no part in creating, the state may have acquired a duty under state tort law to provide him with adequate protection, but the claim here is bad on the Due Process Clau, which does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation. 州政府自愿承担保护约书亚远离危险，毫无疑问其与造成危险无关，虽依照州侵权法政府有义务为原告提供充分保障，但原告诉请根据的是正当法律程序条款，本案并不意味着能够将这样一桩州政府工作人员的侵权案件转变为违宪审查案件。（或：州政府自愿承担保护约书亚远离危险，毫无疑问其与造成危险无关，虽依照州侵权法政府有义务为原告提供充分保障，但这完完全全是一桩州政府工作人员的侵权案件，而原告的诉请是根据正当法律程序条款提出违宪审查。）
判决结果：
No. Judgment affirmed.
广州电脑培训
不构成，维持原判。
不同意见：
（布伦南、马歇尔、布莱克曼大法官）before midnightPhysical restraint is not the only relevant state action.opportunity是什么意思约束人身并不是唯一的相关政府措施。The state's knowledge of an individual's predicament and its expressions of intent to help him can amount to a limitation of his freedom to act on his own behalf or to obtain help from others.政府对个人困境的明知，并表示出向其提供帮助的意愿，会使他为自身利益采取行动的自主权及从他人处获得帮助均受到局限。Many people including neighbors, physicians, and the police brought Joshua's injuries to the attention of D. 在本案中包括邻居、医生和警察在内的许多人均将约书亚的遭遇告知给被告。By the creation of a child welfare program, the state has relieved ordinary citizens and other governmental bodies of a n of obligation to do anything more than report to the department of social rvices.kobashi而政府通过建立儿童福利计划，削弱了普通市民和其他政府部门原本并不止于仅仅向社会服务部门打报告的责任意识。Thus, children like Joshua are made wor by the existence of a program when tho charged
with carrying it out fail to do their jobs.正因这类计划的存在，当有责任将这一计划付诸实施的人没能履行他们的职责时，像约书亚这类的孩子境况反而变得更糟糕了。
（布莱克曼大法官）The facts here involve not mere passivity, but active state intervention. I would adopt a sympathetic reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, one which comports with dictates of fundamental justice. 本案事实不光涉及政府被动干预，也涉及政府主动干预。我会对宪法第十四修正案做出一个更富同情心的解读，这也符合最基本的公平原则的要求。
