JAKLIN SUZETH GOTAY & Others v. JULIANN CREEN & Others, SJC-13666

Two minor foster sisters, Samara and Alessa, suffered harm after a tragic incident in their foster home supervised by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF).
Samara suffered permanent injury and another foster child died after Samara adjusted a thermostat, overheating the bedroom; Alessa was psychologically affected by separation from her sister.
DCF placed the children with Kimberly Malpass despite earlier child neglect reports and failed to provide sufficient oversight after concerns regarding the presence of Malpass’s boyfriend, Anthony Mallett, who had a criminal record.
Plaintiffs (Samara's adoptive mother and Alessa's guardian ad litem/parents) sued four DCF employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of substantive due process rights.
The Superior Court denied summary judgment for the DCF employees, who claimed qualified immunity; the Supreme Judicial Court took the case on its own initiative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive Due Process Violation	DCF staff failed professional and statutory duties, creating risk and causing the children’s harm; entitled to damages under §1983.	DCF staff are entitled to qualified immunity as their actions did not rise to a constitutional violation or proximately cause the harms.	Court held DCF employees' conduct was not the proximate cause of harm; omissions did not violate substantive due process rights.
Appropriate Legal Standard	Youngberg "professional judgment" standard applies; even lesser breaches suffice for liability.	Lewis "deliberate indifference" standard applies; requires clearly egregious state action.	Court found no need to choose; conduct failed causation under either standard.
Proximate Cause	Professional judgment failures foreseeably led to harm.	Harm from overheated room was not the foreseeable risk from alleged omissions regarding Mallett.	Children’s injuries not a foreseeable result of DCF staff omissions; causation lacking.
Supervisory Liability	Supervisors are liable for failing to correct subordinate failures and systemic deficiencies.	No subordinate constitutional violation, so no supervisor liability; no evidence of supervisor’s direct involvement.	No supervisory liability without constitutional violation by staff or active supervisor misconduct.

Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (sets the standard for assessing professional judgment in state custody situations)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (establishes the deliberate indifference standard for substantive due process claims)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (discusses state’s affirmative obligations when assuming custody)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (explains the conscience-shocking standard for substantive due process)
Hopper v. Callahan, 408 Mass. 621 (1990) (mere negligence insufficient for substantive due process violation)