|
(also known as LaShawn A. v. Barry and LaShawn v. Dixon)
FILE NO., COURT, AND DATE FILED
89-CV-1754 (D.D.C., June 20, 1989)
CITATIONS
762 F. Supp. 959 (D.D.C. 1991), aff'd., 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1044 (1994), appeal after remand, 69 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 1995), vacated, 74 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc), reh'g granted, 87 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc), aff'd., 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1264 (1997)
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
None
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Marcia Robinson Lowry
Children's Rights, Inc.
404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016
(212) 683-2210
Fax: (212) 683-4015
mlowry(at)childrensrights.org
Arthur Spitzer
ACLU Washington National Office
1400 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 457-080
Fax: (202) 452-1868
ISSUES
This civil rights class action was brought on behalf of children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS), and abused and neglected children who are (or should be) known to DHS by virtue of abuse or neglect. The complaint charged violations of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, due process, the District of Columbia Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and the District of Columbia Youth Residential Facilities Licensor Act of 1986.
HISTORY AND STATUS
After a trial and a judgment of liability in August 1991, the court approved a negotiated remedial order. The consent decree directed DHS to develop policies and procedures in the areas of protective services; family preservation and preventive services; child placement; case reviews; adoption; staffing (qualifications, training, and caseload standards); resource development (foster homes, adoptive homes, and community based services); contracts with private providers and agencies; and development of a uniform computerized information system.
In October 1994, in response to plaintiffs' contempt motion, the court ordered the creation of a limited receivership to address specific problems. In 1995, the judge found defendants in contempt of court and granted plaintiffs' request for appointment of a general receiver.
In June 2001, plaintiffs and the court agreed to terminate the receivership for a probationary period (January 2003) in return for additional reforms including DHS's creation of a new agency, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), with cabinet-level control of child welfare matters and consolidated jurisdiction over neglect and abuse cases. DHS also agreed to fund additional lawyers to represent the CFSA in Superior Court and a variety of child welfare reforms.
In May 2003, the monitor issued a post-Receivership Implementation Plan, a comprehensive outline for reform negotiated among plaintiffs, CFSA, the District mayor, and the court monitor. The Plan envisions that by December 2006 defendants will fully comply with the district court's 1991 remedial order.
The monitor continued to assess defendants' progress in 2004 and 2005. At one point during this period, the District failed to maintain an adequate number of attorneys on staff, and this failure apparently led to a severe case backlog for children who had a permanency goal of adoption. CFSA addressed the backlog, and is now required to ensure that such a backlog is not allowed to occur again.
Plaintiffs and the monitor are actively tracking the District's compliance with the Implementation Plan.
|
