Case: Juan F. v. Rell
2:89-cv-00859 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Filed Date: Dec. 19, 1989
Closed Date: April 15, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This class action brought by children placed in Connecticut's Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS) was filed on December 19, 1989, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs were represented by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state to redress deficiencies in the child welfare system, claiming that the state violated the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was assigned to Judge Alan H. Nevas.
The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to:
- provide adequate protective services to abused, neglected, or at risk children;
- provide adequate medical care, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and sexual abuse treatment to children in DCYS care;
- ensure that all children in DCYS care receive appropriate and least restrictive placements;
- ensure that all reports regarding these children are investigated and responded to promptly by caseworkers;
- provide sufficient and trained staff;
- provide adequate records and information systems;
- make reasonable efforts to keep families together by providing threatened families with reasonable and appropriate services to prevent placement into out-of-home care;
- provide minimally adequate and appropriate care to all of the children, placed by DCYS, into foster homes or similar settings;
- move children into adoptive or other permanent homes when reunification is impossible; and
- develop and implement appropriate case plans that will assure permanent placements for all children in their custody.
On January 7, 1991, the parties reached a settlement agreement mandating broad scale reform. The Court entered a consent decree reflecting their agreement and requiring the defendants to:
- establish a training academy and statewide computerized data system;
- appoint an advisory board;
- design and implement a management structure that delineates reporting relationships;
- establish a health management unit for children under the supervision, care or custody of the department;
- increase staff by hiring qualified and experienced individuals;
- establish comprehensive guidelines and regulations to facilitate the uniform intake and investigation of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect;
- institute standards for treatment, case management, and family training,
- implement objectives and goals for adoptions,
- establish regional resource groups for consultations and evaluations;
- develop procedures to complete Probate Court Ordered Studies within the timeframes specified by state law; and
- establish a DCYS Monitoring Panel to determine, promulgate, or approve standards and procedures to fulfill the mandates of the Consent Decree, to implement reasonable timetables, and to establish mandatory funding amounts to ensure compliance.
The Consent Decree could be modified, amended, or changed by the trial judge, but only upon the filing of an appropriate motion by a party or the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
On December 19, 1996, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt. The defendants admitted to noncompliance and, after extended negotiations, the defendants agreed in October 2003 to:
- require the monitor to develop a definitive exit plan with specific outcomes;
- establish a Transition Task Force to assume all decision-making authority having substantial impact on the plaintiffs' safety and welfare;
- establish funds of $1 million for meeting emergency needs of class members; and
- ensure that the governor would not replace the Commissioner during the term of this order without consulting the monitor first.
Shortly thereafter, the monitor developed an exit plan detailing the necessary reforms and benchmarks that the defendants would have to meet. This plan was entered as a court order on December 23, 2003. The defendants later moved for reconsideration of the court's order, but the court denied the motion on February 10, 2004. 2004 WL 288804. The exit plan was revised in July 2004 and July 2006.
Despite some improvements made by the defendants, the plaintiffs formally reported noncompliance again on May 5, 2008. Two months later, the plaintiffs withdrew their assertions of noncompliance pursuant to another stipulated agreement in which the defendants agreed to comply with the foster-care recruitment and retention plans, administrative case reviews and treatment planning conferences plans, and health-care requirements.
On January 26, 2009, the case was reassigned to Judge Christopher F. Droney.
In December of that year, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from suspending new intakes to one of their programs, the Voluntary Services Program. The defendants responded by arguing that the children receiving treatment or assistance in that program were not members of the plaintiff class. A year later, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that children in the Voluntary Services Program were indeed members of the class. On August 17, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction and motion for permanent injunction. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2010, but the court denied the motion four months later. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135238; 2010 WL 5376224.
In the meantime, while that motion for injunctive relief was pending, on April 13, 2010, the defendants sought to vacate the Consent Decree and Exit Plan, claiming that the objectives of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan had been achieved and that factual and legal changes would make continued enforcement unfair. The court denied the motion to vacate on September 22, 2010. The court also directed the parties to meet immediately with the court monitor to discuss new methods of evaluating the state's performance. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99455; 2010 WL 5590094.
For the next seven years, the monitor periodically provided the court with revised exit plan quarterly reports. On January 24, 2012, the case was reassigned to Judge Stefan R. Underhill.
On December 13, 2017, after a hearing, the Court entered a 2017 Revised Exit Plan; it is unclear if this was done on the court's own initiative or based on the parties' agreement. The 2017 Exit Plan identified 14 relevant outcome measures. The plan also required the Court Monitor to conduct what it referred to as "Certification" reviews to ensure that defendants were in compliance with all of the outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters prior to asserting compliance. The Court Monitor would then conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of cases to determine whether the defendants were in compliance.
The parties and Court Monitor later created a "Pre-Certification" review process. This intended to obviate the need to implement the full certification review for certain outcome measures after sustained compliance had been achieved for all outcome measures. Under this process, if DCF achieved sustained compliance for at least two consecutive quarters, the Court Monitor could, in his discretion, conduct a pre-certification review. The purpose of this review was to identify and provide a prompt and timely opportunity to remedy any problem areas.
In February of 2019, the Court Monitor released the Revised Exit Plan Status Report, covering the period from April 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018. It found that of the ten remaining outcome measures, there were five that had not been pre-certified.
A year later, in February of 2020, the Court Monitor released another Exit Plan Status Report, covering the period from April 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019. The monitor found one more of the outstanding outcome measures, relating to the caseloads of DCF social workers, had been pre-certified, leaving four outcome measures awaiting pre-certification.
The Court Monitor continued to submit Exit Plan Status Reports. In November 2021, the parties agreed that the Monitor would do a final review of compliance and cover several additional areas, including in-home case planning, visitation, and racial justice initiatives. The Monitor submitted a final report on March 8, 2022, which indicated that all outcome measures had been pre-certified and the defendants were compliant with the 2017 Exit Plan.
Later that month, on March 14, the parties jointly moved to terminate the court’s jurisdiction and close the case. The court dismissed the case a couple weeks later, on March 25. The court found that DCF had made organizational and operational changes that dramatically improved the way the agency provided its services and fully complied with the court-ordered obligations.
On March 2, 2023, some modifications to the court order were made at the request of both parties, with the case’s date of termination officially changed to April 15, 2023. This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Alice Liu (2/22/2013)
Frances Hollander (2/21/2016)
Susie Choi (3/15/2017)
Chris Pollack (4/21/2019)
Jonah Hudson-Erdman (10/9/2020)
Venesa Haska (3/9/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4584367/parties/juan-f-v-rell-governor/
Blank, Adam J. (Connecticut)
Annexstein, Leslie T. (New York)
Appeals, US Court (Connecticut)
Collins, Barbara J. (Connecticut)
Massicotte, Kimberly P. (Connecticut)
Pearlman, Susan T. (Connecticut)
Peterson, Anne D. (Connecticut)
Ragaglia, Kristine D. (Connecticut)
Robertson, James K. Jr. (Connecticut)
Rowthorn, Perry A. (Connecticut)
Skold, Michael K. (Connecticut)
Tucker, John Essex (Connecticut)
Vitelli, Stephen G (Connecticut)
Webster, Arthur E. (Connecticut)
Williams, Kristine D. (Connecticut)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4584367/juan-f-v-rell-governor/
Last updated July 21, 2026, 6 a.m.
Docket for: Juan F. v. Rell, Governor
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 19, 1989
Closing Date: April 15, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A class of all children who are now, or will be, in the care, custody, or supervision of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment; and all children about who the Department knows, or should know by virtue of a report to the Department, who are now, or will be, abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are now, or will be, at serious risk of such maltreatment.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (Yale)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
Connecticut Department of Children and Families
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Connecticut 2:89-cv-00859
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 93-07714
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 96-07998
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 01-07088
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $278,283.97
Order Duration: 1991 - 2023
Issues
General/Misc.:
Foster care (benefits, training)
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Benefits (Source):
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Disability and Disability Rights:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in mental health facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Juan F. v. Rell, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/11047/ (last updated 3/9/2024).