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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT