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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT