|
(also known as David C. v. Leavitt)
FILE NO., COURT AND DATE FILED
93-C-206W (D. Utah, Feb. 25, 1993)
99-4223 (10th Cir. 2000)
CITATIONS
900 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Utah 1995); 13 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Utah 1998);
242 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 822 (2001).
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
48,842
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Leecia Welch
John O’Toole
National Center for Youth Law
405 14th Street, 15th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 835-8098
lwelch(at)youthlaw.org
Stephen Clark
Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough
1500 First Interstate Plaza
170 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0444
(801) 521-3200
Fax: (801) 328-0537
sclark(at)joneswaldo.com
Greg Dresser
Morrison Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 268-7000
Fax: (415) 268-7522
gdresser(at)mofo.com
ISSUES
This comprehensive child welfare reform class action was filed 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 and 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.
HISTORY AND STATUS
After class certification in May 1993, the parties negotiated a comprehensive settlement providing for reform in every aspect of Utah’s child welfare system. In 1996, the Monitoring Panel concluded that defendants 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 found defendants in noncompliance with the settlement agreement, it did not appoint a receiver. However, the court 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, 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 that retained jurisdiction, ordered implementation of the Plan, and appointed the CWPPG as court monitor. This order was affirmed on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
On November 9, 2001, defendants 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., 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 were required to 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, and July 12, 2005.
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. A hearing regarding the agreement has been scheduled for June 28, 2007.
Agreement to Terminate the Lawsuit
|
 | |
|
