Warning: is_file() [function.is-file]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/local/bin/catdoc) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/ncyl:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/ncyl/public_html/typo3conf/ext/indexed_search/class.indexer.php on line 294

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/ncyl/public_html/typo3conf/ext/indexed_search/class.indexer.php:294) in /home/ncyl/public_html/typo3_src-4.0.4/typo3/sysext/cms/tslib/class.tslib_fe.php on line 2853
E.F. v. Scafidi : National Center for Youth Law - youthlaw.org
Print this page

E.F. v. Scafidi

FILE NO., COURT, AND DATE FILED

J91-0591 (S.D. Miss., Oct. 11, 1991)

 

CITATIONS

851 F. Supp. 249 (S.D. Miss. 1994), aff'd, 110 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 816 (1997)

 

CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.

None

 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Shirley Payne
Horn & Payne
137 Executive Drive
Madison, MS 39130
(601) 853-6090

 

ISSUES

This case challenged state practices regarding children with mental or physical disabilities who are in state custody. The complaint included claims pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Title IV-E, the Americans with Disabilities Act,

504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

 

HISTORY AND STATUS

In November 1991, the parties stipulated to an order addressing the placement and education needs of the named plaintiff, E.F. In December 1992, the court denied a motion for class certification, stating that E.F.'s claims were moot and he was no longer an adequate class representative. The court also denied a motion by two other children to intervene as class representatives.

However, in August 1993, the court granted renewed motions to intervene and to certify the class. The court certified a class consisting of all children with disabilities who are (or are at risk of being) in foster care or institutional placements, or living at home subject to protective orders.

In fall 1994, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment. However, due to the federal "Suter fix" legislation and proposed state law reforms, plaintiffs and defendants agreed to a stay of the proceedings until mid-1995.

The District Court dismissed the case on March 13, 1996. On April 7, 1997, the Fifth Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and the United States Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari.

  Print this page