## Facts

- Victor and Mary Jane DeWees, a white married couple in Chester County, Pennsylvania, were approved by the county child-welfare agency (CCCYS) as foster parents after a home study.
- During the approval process, Mrs. DeWees made statements reflecting discomfort with fostering Black children; the couple also sought to foster children under age three.
- CCCYS placed Dante Kirby, described as biracial, with the DeWees when he was about two months old; he lived with them for about two years and a strong attachment formed.
- When Dante’s biological parents were expected to relinquish parental rights, the DeWees sought to adopt him.
- CCCYS’s adoption supervisor referred the DeWees to an experienced therapist specializing in transracial placements, who concluded the DeWees lacked sensitivity and skills to raise a biracial child and minimized the importance of race to identity development; the evaluation noted their limited minority social contacts and largely white community.
- CCCYS decided not to approve the DeWees as adoptive parents for Dante, citing concerns about meeting his racial and cultural needs during early identity formation and the time required for the DeWees to develop the needed competencies.
- The DeWees sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking to prevent CCCYS from refusing to consider them for adoption and from removing Dante for an adoption-placement event; the parties consolidated preliminary relief with a trial on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether CCCYS’s refusal to approve the DeWees’ adoption of their biracial foster child, based on race-related parenting concerns, violated the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether the DeWees had a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in adopting Dante or in being considered for adoption free from race-related criteria.

## Decision

- The court denied injunctive and declaratory relief and entered judgment for defendants.
- The court held CCCYS did not violate equal protection because the decision rested on the child’s welfare and the parents’ capacity to address a biracial child’s identity needs, not on invidious discrimination against white applicants.
- The court held the DeWees had no substantive due process right to adopt a foster child and no protected procedural due process entitlement to be selected as adoptive parents.
- CCCYS was not enjoined from removing Dante from the foster home or pursuing other adoptive placements.

## Legal Principles

- The state has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children in its custody and may make placement decisions guided by the child’s best interests.
- In adoption and foster-care placement decisions, a child-welfare agency may consider race-related factors and parental racial attitudes when tied to the child’s developmental needs, rather than to stereotypes or hostility toward a racial group.
- Foster parents generally do not have a fundamental liberty interest in adopting a foster child; expectations arising from foster-care arrangements are contingent on state-law discretion and do not, without more, create constitutional entitlements.
- Emotional bonding between foster parents and a child does not itself create a constitutional right to adopt or to prevent the agency from changing placement when acting within lawful child-welfare standards.

## Conclusion

The court upheld CCCYS’s refusal to approve the DeWees as adoptive parents for their biracial foster child, finding the agency permissibly relied on expert assessment and the child’s best interests, and concluding the DeWees had no equal protection or due process right to compel consideration or approval for adoption.


DeWees v. Stevenson, 779 F. Supp. 25 (E.D. Pa. 1991)