ILNews

DCS seeks stay on rate-cut injunction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Department of Child Services wants a federal judge to stay the preliminary injunction preventing it from cut ting reimbursement rates, arguing the results of the injunction will be detrimental to children receiving services.

The attorney general on March 5 filed a brief on behalf of DCS, asking U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker to hold off on enforcing the injunction granted in January pending the outcome of the DCS appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. That injunction in the combined case of C.H., et al., v. James W. Payne, et al., No. 1:09-CV-1574, blocked the state agency's 2010 rate cuts to residential child-care agencies and parents of foster and adoptive children.

DCS argues that it's likely to succeed in the 7th Circuit on the merits, and the agency would be irreparably harmed if it's required to make payments that are later determined not to be required by Title IV-E. The agency also claims the stay won't substantially injure the other parties, and that it's in the public's interest. DCS claims that the court has effectively replaced the agency and director James Payne as the administrator of child services programs in the state by directing the allocation of resources available for services. The agency is in the best position and is best qualified to administer the state's child welfare system to the maximum benefit of Indiana's children, according to the brief.

This rate issue came up in legislation and would have required the DCS to adopt rules about their yearly reimbursement rates, but a conference committee stripped that language from SB 149 in part because of this ongoing litigation. In the end, the legislature failed to act on the measure at all before adjourning March 13.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT