The case study below has to do with a child welfare worker in New Mexico. After reading the case, please summarize the answers to the questions that follow in a text document and submit for grading. The questions have been separated by each chapter for your reference.

The Case of the Child Welfare Worker

The state of New Mexico maintains a Department of Social Welfare (NMDSW). Maria Santiego is employed by NMDSW as a social worker. Her duties include direct control over the educational, medical, and economic needs of children and input into decisions about whether they should be removed from their homes. The Daily Santa Fe, circulation 32,000, ran a major story recently on the state's child welfare services. Generally a well- balanced report, the story focused on the controversial practice of removing children from their homes based on anonymous citizen reports to the NMDSW. The practice was discussed and defended by the NMDSW at a public meeting. At the meeting, a prominent psychologist from New Mexico State University testified that he found the practices of the NMDSW woefully out of date and unprofessional, to the point of malpractice. Others, however, reported that practices, such as removing children from their parents, were in line with current research. The meeting was part of the story. The paper reported the testimony of both supporters and critics. The article also chronicled Santiego's attempts to remove a three-year-old from her mother's home. Santiego, although not identified by name, is described in various paragraphs as a "social worker," "the director of the agency's Child Welfare Division, which has a staff of five," "a relative newcomer to Santa Fe who has only lived here fourteen months and who may therefore be unfamiliar with local custom and tradition," and as "a tall, proper appearing redhead who dresses more like a New Yorker than a New Mexican." The Daily Santa Fe called Santiego before running its story. At first she offered only a "no comment," but on the third phone call she told the paper's reporter, "Look, everything we did was legal and ethical. That's my only comment. I can't ethically say any more." The article concluded that "legal or not, the practice of removing children based on an anonymous complaint is out of step with Santa Fe. Protests against what many refer to as "Nazi-like callousness" have been planned for the Plaza to coincide with Governor Montoya's return from her ten day fact-finding trip to Japan." The story said that in this case, Santiego had acted only on anonymous sources. The article implied that with no concrete evidence to back her up, Santiego removed a healthy child from a stable home. In fact, the article was inaccurate. Santiego had talked personally with the family and with two of the complaining sources before taking action. The newspaper responded in court, however, that as a matter of fact, it was true that sources had told them that "a healthy child was removed from a stable home." Their report of the source's statement had been accurate according to the reporter's notes, which were entered into evidence. The paper also said Santiego had acted on her own in making the decision. In fact, she followed official policy and cleared with her supervisor her decision to remove the child. The paper itself relied on interviews with Santiego's colleagues and with people who knew the little girl's family. Santiego sued the newspaper for libel.

Chapter 4 questions: 1. Is there publication? 2. Is there identification? Might a second social worker, Alice Jones, also have grounds for a suit based on "group identification"? 3. Is there defamation? 4. Is there falsity? In this case, is the burden on the plaintiff to prove falsity or on the defendant to prove truth?

Chapter 5 questions: 1. Is Santiego a public figure, public official, or private person for purposes of this lawsuit? On what do you base your conclusion? 2. Based on this, what level of fault must be shown, actual malice or simple negligence? 3. Can Santiego show there is the required level of fault?

Chapter 6 questions: 1. Could the newspaper claim a qualified privilege for its report that Santiego had removed the children based only on the reports of anonymous sources? 2. How should the paper defend itself in explaining its report that a psychologist described the work of NMDSW as "malpractice?" 3. Is there a need for an opinion or fair comment defense? 4. Since Santiego did eventually talk with the newspaper and the paper printed her comments in a fair and accurate manner, could the paper argue a defense of consent?