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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT