Case: LaShawn A. v. Fenty

1:89-cv-01754 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: June 20, 1989

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1989, Children's Rights and the ACLU filed a federal class action on behalf of children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS), and abused and neglected children who are (or should be) known to DHS by virtue of abuse or neglect. The case asserted violations of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, due process, the District of Columbia Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatm…

In 1989, Children's Rights and the ACLU filed a federal class action on behalf of children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS), and abused and neglected children who are (or should be) known to DHS by virtue of abuse or neglect. The case asserted violations of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, due process, the District of Columbia Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and the District of Columbia Youth Residential Facilities Licensor Act of 1986.

In 1991, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a negotiated remedial order following trial and a liability judgment against the defendant. LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F. Supp. 959 (D.D.C. 1991). Under the consent decree DHS agreed to develop policies and procedures in the areas of protective services; family preservation and preventive services; child placement; case reviews; adoption; staffing (qualifications, training, and caseload standards); resource development (foster homes, adoptive homes, and community based services); contracts with private providers and agencies; and development of a uniform computerized information system.

The decision was appealed and remanded a number of times. The District of Columbia argued that the remedy sought by the plaintiffs could not be provided under federal law; the Court of Appeals instructed the district court to modify the consent order to be based entirely on local law. LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The district court kept the entire content of the order finding that local law provided adequate support for the measures in the decree.

In October 1994, the plaintiffs filed a contempt motion, and the court ordered the creation of a limited receivership to address specific problems. In 1995, the judge found defendants in contempt of court and granted plaintiffs' request for appointment of a general receiver who would run the department. LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 887 F. Supp. 297 (D.D.C. 1995).

The District made another appeal, this time regarding orders of receivership. The Court of Appeals found two orders moot, but held that the district court could not direct the receiver to disregard District law even if it interfered with the receiver's discharge of her responsibilities. LaShawn A. v. Barry, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

In June 2001, the parties proposed and the court agreed to terminate the receivership and appoint a monitor. In addition, the District agreed to create of a new agency, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), with cabinet-level control of child welfare matters and consolidated jurisdiction over neglect and abuse cases. The District also agreed to fund additional lawyers to represent the CFSA in Superior Court and a variety of child welfare reforms.

In May 2003, the monitor issued a post-Receivership Implementation Plan, a comprehensive outline for reform negotiated among plaintiffs, CFSA, the District mayor, and the court monitor. The Plan envisioned that by December 2006, defendants would fully comply with the district court's 1991 remedial order.

The monitor continued to assess defendants' progress in 2004 and 2005. At one point during this period, the District failed to maintain an adequate number of attorneys on staff, and this failure apparently led to a severe case backlog for children who had a permanency goal of adoption. CFSA addressed the backlog and was required to ensure that such a backlog not recur.

In December 2006 (the Implementation Plan deadline), despite numerous marked improvements, CFSA had failed to comply fully with several benchmarks. Accordingly, in February 2007, the court approved a jointly-submitted Amended Implementation Plan, which established a new reform deadline of December 2008 and required CFSA to produce annual strategy plans in 2007 and 2008.

Setbacks in the reform effort prompted plaintiffs to file a contempt motion against the District in July 2008. The motion cited chronic problems, including a large backlog of unresolved abuse and neglect investigations, failure to move children into permanent homes on a timely basis, and frequent moves for children in foster care.

In an attempt to resolve these problems, the parties negotiated yet another stipulated order, approved by the Court in October 2008. The stipulated order set forth a number of requirements that CFSA was to meet by January 2009. However, CFSA was unable to meet these requirements, and plaintiffs renewed their contempt motion in January 2009.

In April 2010, the court ruled on plaintiffs' motion, holding the District and its mayor in contempt. LaShawn A. v. Fenty, 701 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2010). The ruling cited the District's failure to implement an annual strategy plan approved by the court-appointed monitor and specifically mentioned the Mayor's failure to consult with the monitor or with plaintiffs' counsel as stipulated in the 2008 order. In addition, the court rejected defendants' argument that under Horne v. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (2009), the consent decree should be terminated altogether. The court also ordered that more funds be allocated to assist children aging out of the foster care system. Defendants appealed the district court's decision; the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in February 2011. LaShawn A. v. Gray, 412 F. App'x 315 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

In December 2010, the Court approved another Implementation and Exit Plan, superseding the 2007 Amended Implementation Plan. This document set forth which outcomes needed to be maintained, which outcomes still needed to be achieved, and a strategy plan for exiting the consent decree. In accordance with this new plan, CFSA developed strategy plans in each year after 2012 to develop means to achieve compliance and exit. Regular six-month monitoring reports were filed.

The parties submitted a joint motion for an order approving an Exit and Sustainability plan on August 29, 2019, which was approved by the court on October 31, 2019. The plan included 19 outcomes to be achieved, self-regulation and public reporting commitments, and placement array commitments. The court monitor would continue to provide monthly review. The exit plan also detailed that the defendants may independently seek to exit court supervision after they had maintained all outcomes to be achieved for two consecutive six-month reporting periods, by petitioning the court, or by other court order.

As of May 20, 2020, reporting continues, and the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Ariana Fink (12/4/2012)

Dan Whitman (11/29/2015)

Rachel Carpman (11/8/2018)

Alex Moody (5/20/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4499063/parties/lashawn-a-v-bowser/


Judge(s)

Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)

Hogan, Thomas Francis (District of Columbia)

Mikva, Abner Joseph (District of Columbia)

Randolph, Arthur Raymond (District of Columbia)

Silberman, Laurence Hirsch (District of Columbia)

Williams, Stephen Fain (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Almonrode, Patrick S. (New York)

Bartosz, Michael [Sara Michelle] K (New York)

Judge(s)

Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)

Hogan, Thomas Francis (District of Columbia)

Mikva, Abner Joseph (District of Columbia)

Randolph, Arthur Raymond (District of Columbia)

Silberman, Laurence Hirsch (District of Columbia)

Williams, Stephen Fain (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Almonrode, Patrick S. (New York)

Bartosz, Michael [Sara Michelle] K (New York)

Dembrow, Adam C. (New York)

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Frei-Pearson, Jeremiah (New York)

Jaffe, Sarah (New York)

Levine, Craig (New York)

Lowry, Marcia Robinson (New York)

Morrow, Kara (New York)

Pitchal, Erik S. (New York)

Robinson-Glasser, Sara (New York)

Spitzer, Arthur (District of Columbia)

Symonds, Elizabeth (District of Columbia)

Thompson, Eric E. (New York)

Wood, Kathryn Anne (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adams, Eugene A. III (District of Columbia)

Alexander, Robin C. (District of Columbia)

Allen, Natalie Frazier (District of Columbia)

Amarillas, Fernando (District of Columbia)

Amato, Maria-Claudia T. (District of Columbia)

Blackburne-Rigsby, Anna Elizabeth (District of Columbia)

Burke, Beverly Jean (District of Columbia)

Efros, Ellen A. (District of Columbia)

Jackson, Toni Michelle (District of Columbia)

Kass, Colin Ryle (District of Columbia)

Lerner, Jacques Phillip (District of Columbia)

Long, Victor E. (District of Columbia)

Lopes, Grace Michele (District of Columbia)

Love, Richard Stuart (District of Columbia)

McGraw, Esther Young (District of Columbia)

Montee, Amanda (District of Columbia)

Pittman, Lucy E. (District of Columbia)

Prager, Lutz Alexander (District of Columbia)

Racine, Karl A. (District of Columbia)

Reischel, Charles L. (District of Columbia)

Rigsby, Robert (District of Columbia)

Robinson, Arlene L. (District of Columbia)

Saindon, Andrew J. (District of Columbia)

Smith, Walter A Jr. (District of Columbia)

Utiger, Robert C. (District of Columbia)

Ziegler, Cheryl Lynn (District of Columbia)

Zielinski, Michael Edward (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Hajjar, Anton (District of Columbia)

Hartnett, F. Douglas (District of Columbia)

Jones, Michael D. (District of Columbia)

Keller, Kimberlee (District of Columbia)

Levita, Laurel L. (Maryland)

Mirel, Lawrence Hillel (District of Columbia)

Nickles, Peter J. (District of Columbia)

Pearson, Charles Quentin (District of Columbia)

Ruiz-Salomon, Pablo (District of Columbia)

Shultz, Catherine M. (Maryland)

Spindel, Marla P (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Meltzer, Judith (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

LaShawn A. v. Bowser

April 8, 2020 Docket
3

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

LaShawn A. v. Barry

June 20, 1989 Complaint
130

Memorandum Opinion

LaShawn v. Dixon

762 F.Supp. 959

April 18, 1991 Order/Opinion

Opinion

LaShawn v. Kelly

U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

990 F.2d 1319

April 16, 1993 Order/Opinion

Modified Final Order

LaShawn A. v. Dixon

Nov. 18, 1993 Order/Opinion
366

Memorandum Opinion

Lashawn v. Kelly

887 F.Supp. 297

May 22, 1995 Order/Opinion
399

Opinion - General Receivership Order

LaShawn v. Barry

1995 WL 520763

Aug. 24, 1995 Order/Opinion

Opinion

LaShawn v. Barry

U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

69 F.3d 556

Oct. 31, 1995 Order/Opinion

Opinion

LaShawn v. Barry

U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

87 F.3d 1389

July 9, 1996 Order/Opinion

Judgment

LaShawn v. Barry

U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

107 F.3d 923

Oct. 30, 1996 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

LaShawn A. v. Dixon: Responding to the Pleas of Children

Stacy Marie Colvin

April 1, 1992

LaShawn A. v. Gray

Children's Rights

Children’s Rights, along with co-counsel ACLU of the Nation’s Capital, filed this case against the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Director of the D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS), and … Dec. 17, 2010 https://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/district-of-columbia/

Rethinking Consent Decrees: How Federal-Court Decrees in Child Welfare Can Harm Those They Are Supposed to Help and Upset the Federal-State Balance

John Bursch & Maura Corrigan

This report examines the efficacy of consent decrees as a tool for reforming government, with a special focus on decrees governing child-welfare agencies, a subset of consent decrees that has been a … June 1, 2016 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/763b/40be43214fb84f250d61a159fbe7175d55c2.pdf?_ga=2.223220699.1172846216.1581272719-1028919796.1581272719

LaShawn A. v. Fenty

National Center for Youth Law

This civil rights class action was brought on behalf of children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia’s Department of Human Services (DHS), and abused and neglected… Nov. 18, 2016 https://youthlaw.org/case/lashawn-v-fenty/

LaShawn A. v. Bowser

ACLU District of Columbia

On June 1, 2021, the ACLU of the District of Columbia’s oldest case came to a close, with the court’s approval of a settlement agreement in LaShawn A. v. Muriel Bowser, a class action that, over the … June 1, 2021 https://www.acludc.org/en/cases/lashawn-v-bowser

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4499063/lashawn-a-v-bowser/

Last updated May 12, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file complaint omitting last names of the infant plaintiffs, declaration (Under Seal in Room 1800) (yep) (bj, ). (Entered: 06/23/1989)

June 20, 1989 PACER
2

ORDER by Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson : granting motion for leave to file complaint omitting last names of the infant plaintiffs [1-1] by plaintiffs. Further, that the Declaration of Counsel shall be filed under seal. (N) (yep) (bj, ). (Entered: 06/23/1989)

June 20, 1989 PACER
3

COMPLAINT filed summons issued (5) (yep) (bj, ). (Entered: 06/23/1989)

June 20, 1989 PACER
4

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint upon defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS, the District of Columbia on 6/21/89 by process server (jda) (Entered: 06/27/1989)

June 26, 1989 PACER
5

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS by Robin C. Alexander-Smith (jda) (Entered: 07/11/1989)

July 10, 1989 PACER
6

MOTION by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS to extend time to answer to 7/18/89 (jda) (Entered: 07/11/1989)

July 10, 1989 PACER
9

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to extend time to answer to 7/18/89 [6-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. (N) (jda) (Entered: 07/18/1989)

July 12, 1989 PACER
7

MOTION by plaintiffs to certify class action ; Exhibits (2) (jda) (Entered: 07/14/1989)

July 13, 1989 PACER
8

RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to extend time to answer to 7/18/89 [6-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. (jda) (Entered: 07/18/1989)

July 14, 1989 PACER
10

ANSWER for defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS, (jda) (bj, ). (Entered: 07/19/1989)

July 18, 1989 PACER

CALENDARED CD/N (jda)

July 18, 1989 PACER
11

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : parties to file a joint proposed scheduleing plan on 8/15/89 ; referring discovery matters or other matters arising during the month of August to Magistrate Robinson (N) (mf) (Entered: 07/25/1989)

July 21, 1989 PACER

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Deborah A. Robinson for discovery matters during the month of August (mbd)

July 24, 1989 PACER
12

MOTION by defendants to extend time to 8/10/89 to respond to class certification (mf) (Entered: 07/27/1989)

July 26, 1989 PACER
13

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to extend time to 8/10/89 to respond to class certification [12-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. response to motion due 8/10/89 (N) (mf) (Entered: 07/31/1989)

July 28, 1989 PACER
14

REQUEST by plaintiffs to defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS for production of documents (mf) (Entered: 08/08/1989)

Aug. 7, 1989 PACER
15

MEMORANDUM by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS in opposition to motion to certify class action [7-1] by plaintiffs; Exhibits (2) (jda) (Entered: 08/11/1989)

Aug. 10, 1989 PACER
16

REPLY by plaintiffs to memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs motion for class certification, exhibit [15-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. (mf) (Entered: 08/17/1989)

Aug. 17, 1989 PACER
17

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiff of various personnel of DC Department of Human Services (mf) (Entered: 08/29/1989)

Aug. 28, 1989 PACER
18

PROPOSED SCHEDULING PLAN by parties (fiat) HOGAN, J. (jda) (Entered: 09/08/1989)

Sept. 6, 1989 PACER
19

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : for Marcia Robinson Lowry to appear pro hac vice (N) (jda) (Entered: 09/08/1989)

Sept. 6, 1989 PACER
20

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : defendants' dispositive motions due 9/22/89 with the oppositions and replies due thereafter as provided in Local Rule 108; hearing set for 9:30 11/3/89; parties to proceed with discovery (N) (jda) (Entered: 09/08/1989)

Sept. 6, 1989 PACER
21

MOTION by defendants to dismiss (ajr) (Entered: 09/27/1989)

Sept. 22, 1989 PACER
22

JOINT MOTION by parties for protective order (jda) (Entered: 10/02/1989)

Sept. 29, 1989 PACER
23

RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss [21-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR.; exhibits (8) (mf) (Entered: 10/10/1989)

Oct. 6, 1989 PACER
24

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : stating terms of protective order (N) (mf) (Entered: 10/11/1989)

Oct. 6, 1989 PACER
25

DEPOSITION of YVONNE ZABRISKIE taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 10/11/1989)

Oct. 10, 1989 PACER
26

DEPOSITION of CAROLYN SMITH taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 10/30/1989)

Oct. 27, 1989 PACER
27

MOTION by amicus NAT.ASSN. SOC.WKRS. to file amicus brief ; appendix (3) EXHIBIT (Brief) (mf) (Entered: 11/01/1989)

Oct. 30, 1989 PACER
28

MOTION for AMER FED STATE, COUNTY & MUN EMP to file amicus brief ; EXHIBIT (Brief) (mf) (Entered: 11/01/1989)

Oct. 30, 1989 PACER
29

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Victor E. Long (jda) (Entered: 11/06/1989)

Nov. 3, 1989 PACER
30

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : status hearing set for 9:30 11/20/89 ; (N) (gew) (Entered: 11/06/1989)

Nov. 3, 1989 PACER
31

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to file amicus brief [27-1] by NAT.ASSN. SOC.WKRS., granting motion for AMER FED STATE, COUNTY & MUN EMP to file amicus brief [28-1] (N) (gew) (Entered: 11/08/1989)

Nov. 7, 1989 PACER
32

NOTICE OF FILING of brief by amicus AMER. FED. STATE CO.; attachment (mf) (Entered: 11/15/1989)

Nov. 7, 1989 PACER
33

NOTICE OF FILING of brief by amicus NAT.ASSN. SOC.WKRS. (mf) (Entered: 11/15/1989)

Nov. 7, 1989 PACER
34

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion for AMER FED STATE, COUNTY & MUN EMP to file amicus brief [28-1] (N) (mf) (Entered: 11/22/1989)

Nov. 20, 1989 PACER
35

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : status hearing set for 1:30 1/22/90 ; discovery due 5/15/89 ; plaintiff's rule 26(b) 5/15/90 ; defendant's rule 26(b) due 8/15/90 dispositive motions due 10/1/89 ; (N) (gew) (Entered: 11/27/1989)

Nov. 22, 1989 PACER
36

DEPOSITION of CECILLE C. HOLLINGSWORTH taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 12/14/1989)

Dec. 14, 1989 PACER
37

DEPOSITION of CAROLYN SMITH taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 12/14/1989)

Dec. 14, 1989 PACER
38

DEPOSITION of TONI M. HARVEY taken for plaintiffs; exhibits (mf) (Entered: 12/14/1989)

Dec. 14, 1989 PACER
39

DEPOSITION of BARBARA BATTLE taken for plaintiffs; exhibits (mf) (Entered: 12/14/1989)

Dec. 14, 1989 PACER
40

TRANSCRIPT filed o f hearing for dates of 11/3/89 reporter: A Thomson (mf) (Entered: 12/19/1989)

Dec. 18, 1989 PACER
41

TRANSCRIPT filed of hearing for dates of 11/20/89 reporter: A Thomson (mf) (Entered: 12/19/1989)

Dec. 18, 1989 PACER
42

REQUEST by plaintiffs to defendants for production of documents (mf) (Entered: 01/08/1990)

Jan. 5, 1990 PACER
109

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to extend time to 1/18/91 nunc pro tunc to file pretrail statement [108-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. defendant's pretrial statement due 1/18/91 (N) (mf) (Entered: 01/17/1991)

Jan. 15, 1990 PACER
43

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : status hearing set for 1:45 3/28/90 ; (N) (mf) (Entered: 01/26/1990)

Jan. 22, 1990 PACER

STATUS HEARING before Judge Thomas F. Hogan : status hearing set for 1:45 3/28/90 ; reporter: A Thomson (mf)

Jan. 23, 1990 PACER
44

MOTION to withdraw as attorney for defendants Robin C. Alexander-Smith (mf) (Entered: 02/07/1990)

Feb. 6, 1990 PACER
45

TRANSCRIPT filed of status call for dates of 1/22/90 reporter: A Thomson (mf) (Entered: 02/07/1990)

Feb. 6, 1990 PACER
46

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to withdraw as attorney for defendants of Robin C. Alexander-Smith [44-1] (N) (mon) (Entered: 02/08/1990)

Feb. 8, 1990 PACER
47

RESPONSE by defendants MARION S. BARRY JR.,PETER G. PARHAM, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, JEAN R. HUNTER, and EVELYN P. ANDREWS to request for production of documents (mf) (Entered: 03/15/1990)

March 15, 1990 PACER
48

MOTION by plaintiffs for appointment of experts pursuant to Rule 706 ; affidavit (1); attachments (mf) (Entered: 03/16/1990)

March 16, 1990 PACER
49

MOTION by defendants to extend time to 4/6/90 for appointment of experts (mf) (Entered: 03/22/1990)

March 22, 1990 PACER
50

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of withdrawal of counsel Victor E. Long (mf) (Entered: 03/22/1990)

March 22, 1990 PACER
53

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiffs of the Department of Human Services (jda) (Entered: 04/02/1990)

March 23, 1990 PACER
51

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to extend time to 4/6/90 for appointment of experts [49-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. response to motion for appointment of excpers due by 4/6/90 (N) (mf) (Entered: 03/28/1990)

March 26, 1990 PACER

STATUS HEARING before Judge Thomas F. Hogan : reporter: A. Thomson (gew)

March 28, 1990 PACER
52

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : status hearing set for 10:00 4/12/90 at whicb time newly designated counsel for defendants (Eugene Adams) shall be prepared to discuss his response to plaintiffs' pending motion to appoint experts; response to motion by defendants due 4/17/90 (N) (mf) (Entered: 03/30/1990)

March 29, 1990 PACER

CASE referral ended Magistrate Deborah A. Robinson (mbd)

April 5, 1990 PACER
54

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS by Eugene A. Adams (mf) (Entered: 04/12/1990)

April 11, 1990 PACER
55

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : discovery due 7/16/90 ; status hearing set for 9:30 7/17/90 ; plaintiff's rule 26(b) 7/16/90 ; defendant's rule 26(b) due 10/15/90 dispositive motions due 11/16/90 ; defendants have until l0/15/90 to depose plaintiffs' experts, and plaintiffs have until ll/12/90 to depose defendants' experts. (N) (gew) (Entered: 04/14/1990)

April 13, 1990 PACER
56

MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to motion for appointment of experts pursuant to Rule 706 [48-1] by plaintiff (mf) (Entered: 04/18/1990)

April 18, 1990 PACER
57

TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 3/28/90 reporter: A Thomson (jda) (Entered: 04/20/1990)

April 19, 1990 PACER
58

TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 4/12/90 reporter: A Thomson (jda) (Entered: 04/20/1990)

April 19, 1990 PACER
59

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION by plaintiffs of various agency departments (mf) (Entered: 04/30/1990)

April 27, 1990 PACER
60

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : discovery due 7/30/90 ; status hearing set for 9:30 7/31/90 ; (N) (gew) (Entered: 05/08/1990)

May 7, 1990 PACER
61

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : that defendants shall produce to the plaintiffs by Friday, 5/1//90 the following: (1) for each named plaintiffs child, all cae records including foster care records, family, foster=parent, consortium records and adoptin records, not already produced pursuant to plaintiffs request of 8/4/89; (2) for each named plaintiff's chiled, all documents added to the child's foster-care or family record since it was produced pursuant to the request of 8/4/89 (N) (mf) (Entered: 05/14/1990)

May 10, 1990 PACER
62

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : that in conjunction with the case review being conducted by the plaintiffs, the defendants shall produce to the plaintiffs each working day the complete records of 20 children identified in the sample provided by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The defendants shall produce records at the rate every working day until the case review is completed (N) (mf) (Entered: 05/14/1990)

May 10, 1990 PACER
63

MOTION by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS to extend time to 5/18/90 to respond to Court order of 5/9/90 (mf) (Entered: 05/15/1990)

May 14, 1990 PACER
65

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to extend time to 5/18/90 to respond to Court order of 5/9/90 [63-1] by EVELYN P. ANDREWS, JEAN R. HUNTER, BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, PETER G. PARHAM, MARION S. BARRY JR. due by 5/18/90 (N) (mf) (Entered: 05/22/1990)

May 17, 1990 PACER
64

RESPONSE by defendants to request for production of documents (mf) (Entered: 05/21/1990)

May 18, 1990 PACER
66

MOTION by plaintiffs for order to make plaintiffs children available for medical examination (mf) (Entered: 06/04/1990)

June 1, 1990 PACER
67

DEPOSITION of Mary Urquhart taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
68

DEPOSITION of Barbara Battle taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
70

DEPOSITION of Shermain Bowden taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
71

DEPOSITION of Cheryl Stancell taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
72

DEPOSITION of Urcisia Cajilog taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
73

DEPOSITION of Geneva Ware taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
74

DEPOSITION of Lastenia Pretlow taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
75

DEPOSITION of Joseph C. Rae taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 7, 1990 PACER
69

DEPOSITION of Rania Bahnan taken for plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 06/08/1990)

June 8, 1990 PACER
76

MEMORANDUM by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS in opposition to motion for order to make plaintiffs children available for medical examination [66-1] by plaintiff (mf) (Entered: 06/14/1990)

June 12, 1990 PACER
77

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for order to make plaintiffs children available for medical examination [66-1] by plaintiff; affidavit (1) (mf) (Entered: 06/19/1990)

June 18, 1990 PACER
78

MOTION by plaintiff to expedite motion for order to make children available for medical examination (mf) (Entered: 06/19/1990)

June 18, 1990 PACER
79

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to expedite motion for order to make children available for medical examination [78-1] by plaintiff; setting a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for an order to make plaintiff children available for medical examination before Judge Hogan at 9:30 a.m. on 7/5/90. (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/20/1990)

June 20, 1990 PACER
80

INTERROGATORIES and request to produce documents filed by defendants to plaintiffs; Exhibit (jda) (Entered: 06/26/1990)

June 25, 1990 PACER
81

DEPOSITION of Edwina Davis taken for plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 06/27/1990)

June 26, 1990 PACER
82

DEPOSITION of Joseph Rae taken for plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 06/27/1990)

June 26, 1990 PACER
83

DEPOSITION of Gwendolyn Menefee taken for plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 06/27/1990)

June 26, 1990 PACER
84

DEPOSITION of Alberta Oliver taken for plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 06/27/1990)

June 26, 1990 PACER
85

MOTION by plaintiffs to compel discovery responses from defendants, and for expedited consideration Exhibits (3) (ajr) (Entered: 06/28/1990)

June 28, 1990 PACER
87

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting motion to compel discovery responses from defendants [85-1] by plaintiff, granting motion for order to make plaintiffs children available for medical examination [66-1] by plaintiff plaintiff's rule 26(b) 7/30/90 as to non-psychiatric experts ; as to psychiatric experts, by 087/17/90 (N) (gew) (Entered: 07/12/1990)

July 5, 1990 PACER
86

TRANSCRIPT filed of hearing for dates of 7/5/90 reporter: Anneliese J. Thomson (cjp) (Entered: 07/11/1990)

July 9, 1990 PACER
88

MOTION by defendant MARION S. BARRY JR., defendant PETER G. PARHAM, defendant BARBARA BURKE-TATUM, defendant JEAN R. HUNTER, defendant EVELYN P. ANDREWS to extend time to 7/19/90 to comply with the Court's 7/5/90 order requiring defendants to supplement their responses to plaintiffs' December 1989 requests for production of documents (cjp) (Entered: 07/13/1990)

July 13, 1990 PACER
89

JOINT MOTION by parties to modify scheduling order (jda) (Entered: 07/19/1990)

July 18, 1990 PACER
90

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : granting joint motion to modify scheduling order [89-1] by defendant, plaintiff non-expert discovery due 8/13/90 ; plaintiff's rule 26(b) 8/13/90 ; (N) (mf) (Entered: 08/03/1990)

July 31, 1990 PACER

STATUS HEARING before Judge Thomas F. Hogan : reporter: Anneliese Thomson (gew)

July 31, 1990 PACER
91

ORDER by Judge Thomas F. Hogan : directing that experts may attend depositions of other witnesses to assist and advise counsel, provided that advance notice of the expert's attendance is provided to opposing counsel. (N) (gew) (Entered: 08/03/1990)

Aug. 3, 1990 PACER
92

RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by plaintiffs (mf) (Entered: 08/13/1990)

Aug. 13, 1990 PACER
93

TRANSCRIPT filed of status conference for dates of 7/31/90 reporter: A Thomson (mf) (Entered: 08/15/1990)

Aug. 14, 1990 PACER

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Child Welfare

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 20, 1989

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services and children who are or should be known to the Department because they have been abused or neglected.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Children's Rights, Inc.

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

District of Columbia (District of Columbia), Regional

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: >$2,294,468

Order Duration: 1995 - None

Content of Injunction:

Receivership

Hire

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Family abuse and neglect

Family reunification

Foster care (benefits, training)

Juveniles

Placement in shelters

Poverty/homelessness

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Timeliness of case assignment

Wait lists

Youth / Adult separation

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Disability:

Least restrictive environment

Benefit Source:

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act