|
David C. (formerly David C. v. Leavitt) is a child welfare reform class action brought on behalf of all foster children and children reported as abused or neglected in the state of Utah.
David C. (formerly David C. v. Leavitt) is a child welfare reform class action brought on behalf of all foster children and children reported as abused or neglected in the state of Utah. The complaint addressed nearly all aspects of the state’s child welfare services and foster care system, including: abuse and neglect investigations & child protective services; quality and safety of out-of-home placement; health care and mental health care for foster children; caseloads and staff training; and case planning, case review, and permanency planning.
After class certification in May 1993, the parties negotiated a settlement providing for reform in every aspect of Utah’s child welfare system. In 1996, the Monitoring Panel concluded that the state had complied with only four of the settlement agreement’s 95 areas. Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce and asked the court to appoint a receiver. Although the court did not appoint a receiver, it did find the defendants in noncompliance with the settlement agreement and granted plaintiffs’ motion for preparation of a Comprehensive Plan to implement the settlement.
In 1998, plaintiffs sought to extend the settlement’s four-year term and to implement the Comprehensive Plan (now called the Milestone Plan), developed by defendants, the Monitoring Panel, and expert consultant Paul Vincent of the Child Welfare Policy & Practice Group (CWPPG). In October of 1999, Judge Campbell issued an order retaining jurisdiction, ordering implementation of the Plan, and appointing the CWPPG as court monitor.
On November 9, 2001, Utah filed a motion to dismiss based on the Tenth Circuit’s initial holding in Joseph A. v. Ingram, 262 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2001), opinion withdrawn and superseded on rehearing in part by Joseph A. v. Ingram, 275 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. Based on the Tenth Circuit’s reversal of its prior decision in Joseph A., the defendants voluntarily withdrew their motion.
In response to continued noncompliance, on August 22, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Suggesting that she believed defendants were in noncompliance, Judge Campbell ordered the parties to negotiate a solution to defendants noncompliance, as well as to identify areas in which the Milestone Plan’s provisions could be made more efficient. In March 2003, the parties submitted, and the Court approved, a stipulation requiring defendants to implement a set of Rules and Practice Guidelines for department workers, hire eight full-time trainers to meet training needs, develop a computerized tracking system to ensure all staff are trained, and hire forty-five new caseworkers. Furthermore, defendants must implement a simple and transparent procedure for caseworkers to obtain access to the flexible funding source.
The parties negotiated additional amendments to the Milestone Plan, which the court approved on June 9, 2004. In March 2005, the parties continued negotiations regarding further amendments to the Milestone Plan, specifically focusing on the Case Process Review requirements. The parties finalized this stipulation in May, and the Court signed an order approving the stipulation on July 12, 2005. The parties mutually agreed that the stipulation satisfies the Court’s November 21, 2002 order regarding trimming the Milestone Plan.
Over the past five years, plaintiffs have been closely monitoring defendants’ compliance with the Milestone Plan and meeting regularly to address areas of performance that needed improvement. In recent years, defendants have made significant improvements in case practice and delivery of services to children and families. Accordingly, in December 2006, the parties began negotiating a new agreement that would result in ending the lawsuit.
The parties finalized their Agreement to Terminate the Lawsuit on May 11, 2007, and simultaneously filed a motion seeking Court approval of the agreement and of the parties’ proposed notice to class members. The agreement was approved at a hearing, June 28, 2007.
Counsel: Leecia Welch, John O'Toole, NCYL, Oakland, CA; Gregory P. Dresser, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA; Stephen Clark, Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough, Salt Lake City, UT.
Updated July 9, 2007
|
 | |
|
