On May 12, 1986, a class of children and parents in immediate need of emergency shelter services and other child welfare services filed a lawsuit under the California Welfare and Institutions Code §16500 et seq. and the U.S. and California Constitutions against the California State Department of Social Services (DSS) in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. The plaintiff, represented by legal services attorneys, sought a writ of mandate and injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that the state was violating state law by failing to provide emergency shelter to families and only providing emergency shelter to children who had been removed from their families. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that although DSS did provide emergency shelter services, those services excluded homeless families. DSS policy was to remove children who were abused or neglected by their parents, where "neglected" was defined to include a parent's failure to provide a child with 'adequate shelter.' Rather than assisting the family, then, DSS policy was to remove the child from the family and place the child in emergency shelter and then foster care. As a result, homeless families, and particularly homeless children, were adversely affected by DSS's policies.

On May 12, 1986, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting DSS from denying the provision of emergency shelter services so as to exclude homeless children, even if they remained with their parents or caretakers. DSS sought appellate review only of whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding there to be a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the petitioners' claims. (Appellate Opinion at 4)

On July 1, 1987, the California Court of Appeals in the Second Appellate District, Division Six, issued an opinion addressing this and several other consolidated cases against DSS. The Court (Justice Abbe) held that the order enjoining DSS from defining emergency shelter care so as to exclude homeless children was consistent with the Legislature's expressed intent to meet the housing needs of low-income families. The court affirmed the preliminary injunction order. 193 Cal.App. 3d 283

Elizabeth Daligga - 05/31/2012


compress summary