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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT