ILNews

DCS to appeal injunction on rate cuts

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Child Services wants the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review a judge's decision to temporarily stop DCS rate cuts.

The state filed its notice of appeal Thursday in C.H., et al. v. James W. Payne, 1:09-CV-1574, in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The state is appealing District Judge Sarah Evans Barker's Jan. 20 decision to grant a preliminary injunction preventing DCS from cutting reimbursement rates for adoptive and foster parents and child care agencies.

Both the parents and the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies sued DCS in December after learning of cuts to reimbursement rates paid by DCS to those parties. The suits were consolidated into one, C.H. v. Payne. The combined suit represents more than 100 agencies statewide and has been certified as a class action for foster and adoptive parents throughout Indiana.

Judge Barker said in her 38-page order that much more than money is at issue in the case.

"It is the quality of care promised to the children under the applicable statutes that is at stake in the case at bar," she wrote. "Any deficiency in such care cannot later be undone with monetary compensation."

DCS spokesperson Ann Houseworth told Indiana Lawyer in an e-mail that the decision to appeal was made after reviewing their options and concluding that the injunction places an undue restraint on the agency's ability to further improve Indiana's system of child services.

"We believe that appealing this decision will serve the best interests of all the children we serve," she said.

The state hasn't filed its brief yet, but has 40 days from Thursday to do so.

ADVERTISEMENT

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