## Facts

- A certified class of Washington foster children alleged systemic failures in the state foster-care system, including frequent placement moves, unsafe or abusive placements, and denial of needed services.
- The defendants were the State of Washington, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), and the DSHS Secretary.
- The trial court dismissed procedural due process and several statutory and state constitutional claims, leaving primarily a federal substantive due process claim.
- After a lengthy jury trial, the jury found the class’s constitutional rights were violated and that the violations harmed the class.
- The trial court entered a broad structural injunction directing changes to foster-care administration, including requirements related to placement changes, foster-parent recruitment and training, educational arrangements, mental-health care, and sibling relationships.
- The State appealed, challenging both liability and the scope of the injunction; the case was taken for direct review by the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether foster children in state custody possess enforceable federal substantive due process rights to reasonable safety and adequate care.
2. What culpability standard governs alleged violations of those rights, including whether liability requires a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.
3. Whether the jury instructions misstated the constitutional standard, requiring reversal and remand.
4. Whether, and to what extent, broad structural injunctive relief is permissible absent liability established under the correct constitutional standard.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It held that foster children in state custody have substantive due process rights to reasonable safety and adequate care.
- It adopted the “professional judgment” framework: a due process violation requires conduct that substantially departs from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards.
- It ruled the jury instructions incorrectly treated “professional judgment” as the right itself and diluted the constitutional threshold for liability.
- It remanded for further proceedings under the correct standard, requiring reconsideration of liability and any injunctive provisions tied to the erroneous verdict.

## Legal Principles

- When the State assumes custody of children, it assumes affirmative duties under substantive due process to provide reasonably safe conditions and adequate care.
- The substantive right is to reasonable safety and adequate care; “professional judgment” is the constitutional standard used to assess whether the State’s conduct violates that right.
- A constitutional violation occurs only when the State’s actions or omissions constitute a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, indicating the decision was not actually based on professional judgment.
- Ordinary negligence or mere failure to meet best practices does not, by itself, establish a substantive due process violation.
- Structural injunctive relief may be available for proven constitutional violations, but must be grounded in liability established under the proper standard and must respect institutional limits.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court recognized that foster children have enforceable substantive due process rights to reasonable safety and adequate care while in state custody, but required application of a demanding “substantial departure from accepted professional judgment” standard; because the jury was instructed under an incorrect, lower threshold, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of liability and related injunctive relief.


Braam ex rel. Braam v. State, 150 Wash. 2d 689, 81 P.3d 851 (Wash. 2003)