|
(also known as Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey and Charlie and Nadine H. v. Whitman)
FILE NO., COURT, AND DATE FILED
99-3678 (D.N.J., Aug. 4, 1999)
CITATIONS
83 F. Supp. 2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000); 213 F.R.D. 240 (D.N.J. 2003)
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
None
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Susan Lambiase
Marcia Robinson Lowry
Children's Rights, Inc.
404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016
(212) 683-2210
Fax: (212) 683-4015
Slambiase(at)childrensrights.org
David Harris
Lowenstein Sandler, P.C.
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
(973) 597-2378
Fax: (973) 597-2400
dharris(at)lowenstein.com
White & Case LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas'New York, New York 10036
(212) 819-8200
Fax: (212) 354-8113
ISSUES
Plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of children in the custody of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The complaint alleged violations of the children's constitutional rights and their rights under Title IV-E, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment, 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA).
HISTORY AND STATUS
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2000, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court ruled that children in DYFS custody have a right to be protected from harm and may bring an action in federal court to vindicate that right. The court also found that African-American and Latino children have a right not to have their foster or adoptive placement delayed or denied based on their race, and can bring federal actions to enforce these rights. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Title IV-E, CAPTA, EPSDT, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA.
In March 2002, the court granted class certification. In July 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' experts access to 500 children's case files, allowing plaintiffs to collect information concerning harm to children in foster care through a case record review.
The court also granted the media access to thousands of pages of DYFS's Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAU) files produced during discovery. These files revealed numerous cases in which foster children were abused, and DYFS failed to take proper action.
Subsequently, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, which the court approved on September 2, 2003. The agreement established an expert panel, which approved a detailed action plan in June 2004. The settlement included several long-term and emergency measures: an immediate infusion of $22.35 million for hiring DYFS workers, an immediate assessment of the safety of every child in out-of-home care, an additional $1.5 million for the recruitment of foster parents, and other important changes.
On June 9, 2004, the child welfare panel appointed by the parties approved the State's Reform Plan. The court accepted the plan on June 17, 2004. On July 19, 2004, the Panel declared which elements of the Reform Plan were to be enforceable, as required by the settlement agreement.
On March 7, 2005, the Panel submitted its first monitoring report, which analyzed the state's accomplishments and shortcomings. In its second report, submitted on October 11, 2005, the Panel concluded that the state's progress in meeting the requirements of the Reform Plan is "seriously inadequate" in several areas. In light of the Panel's report, plaintiffs announced that they planned to seek emergency federal court intervention, pursuant to a provision in the settlement agreement allowing such action after notice to the state and a brief negotiation period. On December 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a contempt motion against DYFS for failing to comply with the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs asked the court to appoint Governor-elect Jon Corzine as receiver of the child welfare agency.
|
 | |
|
