Question

(This is a law/legal related question, the answer must be based on IRAC model)

QUESTION THREE

“Judges don’t make law, they only apply it”.

REQUIRED:

Discuss this statement using case examples.

Answer 1

The view that “judges don’t make law, they just apply the law to the facts,” appears simply preposterous to one who has studied the Anglo-American common law system. Certainly judges “make law,” chiefly judges who sit on courts of last resort.

A clear line does not exist, but the main disagreement appears to be more on the extremes, not at the blurry middle. Not, for example, when a judge interprets the meaning of the words in a statute, attempts to determine legislative intent, or when he applies the broad requirements of the constitution to policy questions frequently presented to courts; but rather when judges rely on the “invisible constitution” and inherent or implied rights to push the law where it perhaps needs to go, but hasn’t quite reached.

Case Law Example in Civil Lawsuit Against Child Services

In 1996, the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services (“DCFS”) removed a 12-year old boy from his home to protect him from the horrible physical and sexual abuse he had suffered in his home, and to prevent him from abusing other children in the home. The boy was placed in an emergency foster home, and was later shifted around within the foster care system. The DCFS social worker in charge of the boy’s case had the boy made a ward of DCFS, and in her 6-month report to the court, the worker elaborated on the boy’s sexual abuse history, and stated that she planned to move him from a facility into a “more homelike setting.” The court approved her plan.

In 1997, the boy was placed into the home of John and Jane Roe as a foster child. Although the couple had two young children of their own at home, the social worker did not tell them about the boy’s history of both being abused, and abusing other children. When she made her report to the court the following day, the worker reported the boy’s placement in the Roe’s home, but didn’t mention that the couple had young children. She did note that the boy still needed extensive therapy in order to cope with his abusive past, and “to reach the point of being safe with other children.” The boy was receiving counseling with a DCFS therapist. Again, the court approved of the actions.

The Roes accompanied the boy to his therapy sessions. When they were told of the boy’s past, they asked if their children were safe with him in their home. The therapist assured them that they had nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, that was not true. Just two months after being placed with the Roe family, the Roe’s son told his parents that the boy had molested him. The boy was arrested two days later, and admitted to having sexually molested the couple’s son several times.

On June 16, 1999, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the boy by a guardian ad litem, against DCFS, the social worker, and the therapist. A similar lawsuit was also filed on behalf of the Roe’s victimized son by a different guardian ad litem. The defendants petitioned the trial court for a dismissal based on absolute immunity, as they were all acting in their jobs with DCFS. If granted absolute immunity, the parties would not only be protected from liability in the matter, but could not be answerable in any way for their actions. When the court delayed making such a ruling, the defendants took their request to the appellate court.

In determining whether employees of DCFS are entitled to absolute immunity, which is generally held by certain government officials acting within the scope of their employment, the appellate court referred to case law previously rendered on similar cases. The appellate court determined that the trial court had not erred in its decision to allow more time for information to be gathered by the parties – specifically regarding the issue of absolute immunity.

Please give the good feedback(Thumbup)