ILNews

Advocates: Suit over unpaid subsidies emblematic of DCS' shortcomings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Adoptive families who’ve sued the state and likened the Department of Child Services to deadbeat parents for failing to pay promised subsidies to people who adopt foster children aren’t alone in feeling slighted, child and adoption advocates say.

“It is bringing a lot of hardship on a lot of families,” said Dawn Cooper, director of the Indiana Post Adoption Network. “It’s definitely an issue that needs to be fixed.”

Focus_foster_2014-0630_141113-15col.jpg Debra Moss of LaPorte displays photos of three brothers she adopted from foster care. Moss is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit involving DCS’ failure to pay adoption subsidies. (IL Photo/Dave Stafford)

Cohen & Malad P.C. of Indianapolis last month sued DCS on behalf of about 1,400 Hoosier families that adopted special needs children from the foster care system and claim that they were denied subsidies that had been promised “if funding becomes available.” The suit contends those parents are owed more than $100 million.

Debra Moss of LaPorte is the lead plaintiff in the class action and an adoptive mother of three brothers in foster care. At a news conference recently, Moss said it was “heartbreaking” that DCS had returned hundreds of millions of dollars to the state treasury since the subsidy payments stopped being made in 2009.

“How is DCS any different from the birth families they had to be taken away from” for failing to support the children, Moss asked, comparing the agency to a deadbeat parent. She said she cares for her adopted children on her Social Security income and that the subsidy – about $18 per day per child – would allow her to better meet the boys’ needs.

The extra money might allow her to sometimes buy their clothes from places other than thrift stores, for instance. “I thank God I can sew,” she said.

DCS spokesman James B. Wide said in a response to inquiries, “We are aware of the lawsuit, however, it is our policy to not provide comment on cases that are pending or in litigation.”

In 2009, DCS assumed responsibility for making the payments from counties that had done so previously. The department later placed families on an adoption subsidy waiting list that said subsidies would be provided if funding became available. Meanwhile, from 2009 to 2013, DCS returned more than $236 million to the state, according to the lawsuit.

Attorneys said Indiana appears to be the only state that isn’t making payments to families as an incentive to adopt children from the foster care system. Cohen & Malad managing partner Irwin Levin said while Indiana claims a budget surplus, “they’re creating this surplus on the backs of these kids.”

At the same time, keeping children in the foster care system is costing the state more – $25 per child per day or more – compared with the subsidy that’s capped at 75 percent of the state’s care costs.

Attorneys also suggested the state’s failure to pay the subsidy is a factor in the adoption rate in Indiana plunging by 35 percent since 2009.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 38 of 50 states decreased foster care populations from 2000 to 2012, but Indiana bucked the trend. During that time, the total number of Hoosier children in foster care increased more than in any other state except for Arizona and Texas.

Focus_foster_bars.gifChris Morrison, executive director of the Indiana Foster Care and Adoption Association, said the allegations in the suit seem to reflect a culture within DCS. She believes DCS Director and former Lake Superior Juvenile Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura thinks adoptive parents should receive financial help, but agency attorneys who negotiate adoption subsidy agreements play hardball, often starting with the presumption that even parents who qualify are entitled to nothing.

Morrison said in some cases, attorneys have made adoptive parents “feel intimidated and ashamed for even thinking about attempting to get money.” She recalled a parent being told in one DCS negotiation that if she couldn’t afford to care for her adopted children that she should get a second job.

“Fiscal responsibility is one thing; slapping people in the face with this rhetoric is quite offensive, actually,” she said.

Most foster parents who would seek adoption have the experience to know how much a child’s care costs, and available subsidies often don’t cover the costs of care, Morrison said. Statistically, foster children are likely to be adopted by lower- to middle-income parents who are related to their adopted children a little less than half the time.

“We know these children have high levels of need, and it doesn’t go away just because they’re adopted,” she said.

Shelbyville attorney Mark McNeely is a former welfare attorney and a past chair of the family law section of the Indiana State Bar Association.

McNeely is currently representing a couple in their late 50s who applied for a subsidy to help raise a grandchild who is blind, deaf and developmentally delayed. They were denied.

“Hopefully, the state will reconsider,” he said. “At this point, it may take a strong arm of the court.

“There are a multitude of reasons we have these helpless children, and something really needs to be done,” McNeely said. “If we don’t help them at this point in life, we’re going to be paying their hospital bills, therapy bills, whatever bills they’re going to have in the future.”

Morrison said DCS’ posture has been counterproductive to efforts of her organization and others initiated more than a decade ago to encourage adoption of foster children, and as a consequence the population of foster parents available to adopt children has declined considerably.

“Adoption creates a better life for our foster children and for our community,” she said. “It prevents homelessness, it prevents institutionalization and it prevents crime. It’s a win-win.

“We practically begged people to adopt children out of the foster care system,” Morrison said. “Why wouldn’t we help them?”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • dcs is pathetic
    I have been trying to get my child the money she deserved for 6yrs .the dcs workers my children had were very lazy and not trained very good.just a paycheck for them.i was my childrens best advoacate. I never had trusted the system.the only other good person that really helped my child was the cassa.the 1st agency didn't incourage adoption was because they made 3 times the amount of money you received if you stayed fostering.even though I complained to the state about them,there still in business.i still believe in carma.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT