'Quality of care' at stake in DCS rate-cut case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The federal judge who granted a preliminary injunction in the combined suits against the Department of Child Services for cutting reimbursement rates for adoptive and foster parents and child care agencies found the quality of care for children would suffer if the rate cuts stood.

In a 38-page order released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker detailed her reasons for granting the preliminary injunction from the bench Jan. 20 that blocked the rate cuts by DCS.

"The injuries that all categories of plaintiffs stand to suffer if an injunction is not issued are significant and the type for which there is no adequate remedy at law," she wrote. "There is much more than money at issue in the case. ... Plaintiffs are likely to suffer a variety of substantial harms due to the rate cuts."

Both the parents of adoptive and foster children and the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies sued DCS in December after learning of cuts to reimbursement rates by the DCS to those parties. The suits were combined into one case, C.H., et al. v. James Payne, No. 1:09-CV-1547. The suit represents more than 100 agencies statewide and has been certified as a class action for foster and adoptive parents throughout the state.

The issue is the rate setting done by DCS, which cut or froze rates to the service providers and parents anywhere from 14 to 20 percent for the service providers and up to 10 percent for parents. The cuts came after the state had asked DCS to cut 10 percent from its budget to send those funds back to the state.

After the state assumed responsibility for the standard per diem for rates, DCS examined the rate structure and decided to lower the reimbursements based on a United States Department of Agriculture report on actual expenditures parents made on children and a nationwide report on foster care per diem rates.

But relying on the USDA report was "questionable" because the report included all children and didn't specify information on costs of raising foster children, wrote Judge Barker. DCS also relied on the figures for the lowest income group in its calculations - numbers that are skewed by the poverty of the recipients instead of reflecting what items actually cost, she continued.

DCS also failed to use a methodology that takes into consideration the actual costs of providing items specified in federal statute such as food, school supplies, and reasonable travel expenses to visit the child's home.

"In addition, to the extent that budgetary concerns drove the decision to impose the uniform across-the-board ten percent reduction, rather than consideration of the specific factors mandated by the statute, such a procedure is in our view inappropriate under Title IV-E," wrote the judge.

DCS also failed to consult with adoptive parents in making individualized determinations of the payment amounts based on the specific needs of children being adopted.

In regards to the service providers, they too successfully proved the need for a preliminary injunction preventing the cuts. The rate setting for the providers didn't follow any specific written procedure and appeared to be "almost entirely motivated and controlled by budgetary concerns," wrote Judge Barker.

She also found persuasive the IARCCA's contention that the rate cut directive DCS instituted was in the nature of a rule and so it is subject to the statutory requirements that govern rulemaking.

"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."

The preliminary injunction restrains DCS from reducing or altering the reimbursement rate to any licensed child care placing agency or residential placement provider below the DCS rates paid on Aug. 1, 2009, and below the rates on Dec. 31, 2009, for the parents. The order also prevents DCS taking any action to circumvent the order, such as transferring a child to a less expensive placement or reclassifying a child to a less expensive rate. The injunction remains in effect until further order from the court.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.