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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT