ILNews

Firm says DCS misled parents on foster adoption subsidies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Child Services misled parents adopting foster children by falsely claiming the agency lacked resources to provide subsidies while it returned hundreds of millions of dollars to the state, according to the Indianapolis law firm pursuing a class-action suit against DCS.

The agency “admitted they had returned nearly $240 million to the state” while representing to parents no funding was available for subsidies to adopt special-needs foster children, said Cohen & Malad LLP attorney Lynn Toops. She said DCS also admitted adoptions in the state have declined dramatically since 2009, when the state ceased providing the subsidies.

Rich Allen, assistant communications director for DCS, said in an email, “because this is pending litigation, I’m not able to comment.”

Typical subsidies are $19 a day or less per child, negotiated between DCS and parents based on income and other factors.

Toops said the firm estimates DCS owes parents denied subsidies more than $50 million. The suit was filed in June on behalf of 1,400 Hoosier families, and lead plaintiff Debra Moss of LaPorte likened DCS to deadbeat parents.

The situation is creating a hardship for parents, Toops said, and making Indiana a notable outlier in state support for children most in need.

“Indiana has in recent years been very concerned about having a good fiscal picture, having a good surplus,” she said. “By trying to save a buck and not paying these adoption subsidies, it’s actually costing money in the long run.”

The firm cites research by Notre Dame University economist Kasey Buckles showing a sharp reduction in adoptions – from roughly 30 per 100,000 children in 2008 when subsidies were being paid to about 5 per 100,000 children in 2011. Toops said the adoption rate has since declined even further.

Buckles’ research concludes that each adoption of a child from foster care saves the state $200,000 in public benefits.

Josh Kroll, adoption subsidy resource center coordinator for the North American Council on Adoptable Children, said Indiana has a dubious distinction. “It’s the only state that is saying they have insufficient funds for kids that they find eligible and is putting them on a waiting list.”

Gov. Mike Pence last month announced Indiana ended fiscal year 2014 with an operating surplus of $106 million and reserves of $2 billion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Still waiting
    We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT