First in 1989 DeShaney v Winnebago County and reaffirmed by scumlord Alito in 2005 Castlerock v Gonzales. From the later ruling:

CW: Child violence

As the Court of Appeals recognized, we left a similar question unanswered in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989), another case with “undeniably tragic” facts: Local child-protection officials had failed to protect a young boy from beatings by his father that left him severely brain damaged. Id., at 191–193. We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” Id., at 195. We noted, however, that the petitioner had not properly preserved the argument that—and we thus “decline[d] to consider” whether—state “child protection statutes gave [him] an ‘entitlement’ to receive protective services in accordance with the terms of the statute, an entitlement which would enjoy due process protection."

This was in response to Gonzales's 3 children getting murdered by their father whom she had a restraining order on. He was in violation of the order when he took them and she called the cops 3 times. ACAB

Actually use this for anti-Supreme court statements as well. The court will bend over backwards to protect the cops with qualified immunity, but you're on your own if the cop doesn't feel like helping.

"Protect and Serve" actually means nothing since I think cops also aren't legally required to know laws they enforce.