|
FILE NO., COURT, AND DATE FILED
CV94-04159 (Az. Supr. Crt., Maricopa County, Oct. 1993)
CITATIONS
None
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
42,317
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Laurence M. Berlin
P.O. Box 685
Reserve, NM 85830
(505) 533-6688
Elliot Glicksman
Stompoly, Stroud, Glicksman & Erickson, PC.
One South Church Avenue, Suite 1640
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 628-8878
Fax: (520) 628-9948
elliotglicksman(at)stompoly.com
ISSUES
Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of (1) a class of all present and future foster children (Class A) and (2) a subclass of children who entered state custody after January 1, 1986, and who suffered sexual abuse in foster care (Class B). The case sought injunctive relief on behalf of the class, and damages for the subclass.
Plaintiffs sought to remedy the high instance of neglect, abuse, and sexual molestation of children in foster care, and the state’s failure to provide a wide variety of preventative, reunification, and other permanency services. The complaint includes constitutional substantive and procedural due process, state statutory, and state tort claims. The case has raised concerns regarding the state’s inherent conflict in opposing the claims of the foster children it must protect, while representing the state employees who harmed the children in their care.
HISTORY AND STATUS
Plaintiffs filed this action as a consolidated action on behalf of 36 families. In June 1994, the court ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs abandoned all claims on behalf of parents and added class action allegations.
In 1996, the court appointed University of Arizona Law School Professor Winton Woods as Special Master and charged him with determining whether the state could use its own record-keeping system to identify Class B children so that they could be compensated monetarily. The Special Master determined that the state’s Central Registry System would identify only eighty percent of the abused children (about 210 children). The court ordered discovery, which identified another 92 children who may have been abused. Due to some overlap between the two figures, the number of abused children remained 210.
The court denied class certification for Class A in 1997, but indicated that it might reconsider the issue. Certification for Class B on the issues of duty and standard of care was subsequently denied. In 2000, plaintiffs filed a special petition seeking the state supreme court’s grant of certiorari of a class action. Plaintiffs’ petition was denied on June 1, 2004. Subsequently, individual cases were tried by various lawyers with varying results.
|
 | |
|
