ILNews

Judge blocks DCS rate changes for now

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis has temporarily blocked the Indiana Department of Child Services from reducing the amounts it pays to foster and adoptive parents and juvenile-service providers.

After an hours-long hearing Wednesday in two combined cases against the state agency, U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the District Court's Indianapolis Division granted a preliminary injunction against the DCS. This means that service providers and those adoptive and foster parents will continue getting the same money received during 2009, at least until the case progresses or the court orders differently.

Filed in December, one suit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is on behalf of the parents while the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies (IARCCA) represents the service providers. The cases - C.H., et al. v. James Payne, and IARCCA v. Indiana DCS and Payne - have been combined into one case, No. 1:09-cv-1574. Both claims involve the agency's planned reductions in payment rates for the respective parties. The suit represents more than 100 agencies statewide and has been certified as a class action as far as foster and adoptive parents throughout the state.

At issue is the rate setting by the DCS, which has scaled down any increases and frozen the rates to the service providers as the budget woes worsened for Indiana. The expected service-provider cuts range from 14 to 20 percent, while the foster and adoptive parents faced a 10 percent cut in monthly payments no matter when the placement or adoption took place.

As a result, both sides feared that the reductions would result in layoffs or fewer placement or service options for children and families who need them most. Both plaintiffs had asked the court to consider a preliminary injunction stopping the state agency from putting those into effect Jan. 1, and the judge granted those requests from the bench; a written ruling will follow.

Some people have already seen reductions in their payment, and those issues may be worked out at a later time, the parties said.

"We consider this a victory for children, and we're very glad that our concerns were heard," said Cathleen Graham, IARCCA executive director. "The children we're working with are very vulnerable and need these services, and I believe the judge saw the potential for harm with any delay in doing this. We're very satisfied with what she said about the importance of that promise of quality care that's stated in federal law. That speaks to what we as providers are very concerned about when we offer these services to children and their families."

Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, said his class of clients was also pleased about the judge's ruling as it ensures they won't be faced immediately with lower reimbursements for the services they provide. The state now has a chance to appeal the decision, but if that doesn't happen then the case can move to trial, Falk said.

In response to the ruling, DCS spokeswoman Ann Houseworth said the agency was disappointed but will abide by it while officials continue pursuing all options to provide for the best possible care. As no official written ruling has yet been issued, Houseworth said no decision had yet been made about appealing the decision.

Despite the ongoing litigation, Graham emphasized that the cases won't impact the relationship between her organization and the service providers.

"Since the filing of this suit, we've worked with DCS on so many issues and will continue doing that collaboratively," she said. "That's best way to get these children the services they need."

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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT