|
(also known as Angela R. v. Clinton)
FILE NO., COURT, AND DATE FILED
LR-C-91-415 (E.D. Ark., July 3, 1991)
CITATIONS
999 F.2d 320 (8th Cir. 1993)
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
48,193
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Bill Grimm
National Center for Youth Law
405 14th Street, 15th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 835-8098
Fax: (510) 835-8099
billgrimm(at)youthlaw.org
Clayton R. Blackstock
Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner & Ives
1010 West Third Street
Little Rock, AR 72203
(501) 378-7870
Fax: (501) 375-1940
cblackstock(at)mbbwi.com
ISSUES
The complaint addressed nearly all aspects of Arkansas’s child welfare services and foster care system, including: abuse and neglect investigations and child protective services; placement prevention and family reunification services; out-of-home placement; health care for foster children; caseloads and staff training; and case planning, case review, and quality assurance.
HISTORY AND STATUS
The court certified a class by stipulation in October 1991. From October 1991 through January 1992, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, resulting in a lengthy and comprehensive consent decree. The consent decree addressed: investigation of abuse and neglect reports (including reports of abuse and neglect in out of home placements); protective services; out of home placement (resource development, foster parent training, board rates, standards of care, supervision of placement, and preparation for independent living); health care for foster children (screening, treatment, and record keeping); staffing (qualifications, caseloads, and training); family preservation and reunification services (basic services, parental and sibling visitation, intensive family preservation, and cash assistance); and case planning, case review, and quality assurance.
In February 1992, the parties submitted the consent decree to the district court. A special session of the Arkansas Legislature approved the settlement and passed funding legislation.
The district court entered final approval of the consent decree in April 1992, simultaneously denying the defendants’ motion to narrow the plaintiff class in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Suter v. Artist M. Implementation of the consent decree began in the summer of 1992, monitored by a compliance oversight committee.
In July 1992, however, defendants appealed to the Eighth Circuit, challenging the district court’s denial of their motion to narrow the plaintiff class. On July 13, 1993, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion rejecting the appellants’ jurisdictional challenge, but vacating the consent decree and remanding the case to the district court due to a perceived ambiguity in the enforcement provisions of the decree. Plaintiffs sought to negotiate a reinstatement of the settlement, but defendants refused to enter into any enforceable agreement. Plaintiffs then sought relief from the district court, through a motion requesting that the court construe the consent decree to resolve the ambiguity found by the Eighth Circuit.
On March 30, 1994, the district court denied this motion and set the case for trial on October 17, 1994. Less than three weeks before trial, defendants agreed to engage in settlement negotiations. The parties developed a revised settlement that included provisions similar to the original. However, the agreement contained a new implementation mechanism. Instead of explicit implementation steps and deadlines, the agreement included only the ultimate standards the state was required to achieve by the end of the five-year term.
The state agency itself was given the duty of developing a yearly implementation plan, with the advice of a five-member committee chosen jointly by the parties. The committee had the authority to establish outcome measures and to determine whether each year’s plan had been accomplished. The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP), an independent out-of-state organization used the outcome measures to conduct a yearly evaluation of the agency. On October 14, 1994, the district court approved the settlement.
In January 1997, CSSP found that the agency had failed to meet the goals set by the Committee in most areas. In spring and summer 1999, the Standards Committee met with directors of the state agency to discuss the plans for bringing the agency into compliance. On August 30, 1999, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the settlement agreement, extending court jurisdiction and the terms of the agreement until October 13, 2001. With plaintiffs’ agreement, the settlement expired in December 2001.
|
 | |
|
