Case: Brian A. v. Haslam

3:00-cv-00445 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

Filed Date: May 10, 2000

Closed Date: Feb. 25, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 10, 2000, children in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (including a subclass of African American foster care children) filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, against the state of Tennessee. The plaintiffs, represented by Children’s Rights and private counsel, sought to enjoin the state from subjecting class members to practices that violated their rights.The plaintiffs alleged that the state violated …

The plaintiffs alleged that the state violated their substantive and procedural due process rights arising from the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and relevant regulations; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The African American class members also alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations, 42 C.F.R. §80.3 et seq.

Specific alleged violations included the state’s placement of children in restrictive institutional settings, placement in emergency shelters for long periods of time, large caseloads and inadequately trained caseworkers, inappropriate foster placements, and too-frequent foster placements. In sum, the actions (or inaction) of the state endangered the health and well-being of the children in the class.

The district court (Judge Todd J. Campbell) denied the state’s motion to dismiss on October 26, 2000. 149 F. Supp. 2d 941. The court urged negotiation of a settlement agreement, which was later approved in July 2001. The settlement agreement called for DCS to hire more caseworkers and to provide better training for them; to develop new placements; and to improve the computerized management system. It also required better review systems measuring outcomes in different areas impacting foster care, and an assessment of disparities related to African American children in care. Finally, an independent monitor was appointed to report on compliance.

Following a monitor report that documented DCS’s substantial failure to comply with the agreement, the plaintiffs filed a contempt motion on November 4, 2003. At that point, DCS was in full compliance with only 24 of 136 provisions. The plaintiffs requested an independent administrator to create a plan for implementing the remaining terms.

In December 2003, the parties settled the contempt motion. They agreed that DCS would collaborate with a technical assistance committee of five child welfare experts to develop a new implementation plan, which was later approved by the court in August 2004.

Although the progress of the implementation plan was slow at first, DCS improved in areas such as staffing and data reporting. The settlement agreement was modified in May 2007, October 2008, and December 2009. The plaintiffs reported that the new DCS leadership team had made significant strides in many areas, including placing more foster children with families and reducing institutional placements. However, Children’s Rights also reported that they would remain in place as a watchdog to hold the agency accountable until all court-ordered reforms were implemented. Periodically, the parties filed modified settlement agreements and exit plans, which recognized the state’s progress and set out specific requirements needed in order for the state to successfully complete the court-ordered improvements and end court involvement.

On April 11, 2016, the district court ruled that DCS had reached all of the mandated goals to overhaul its foster care system. The state then entered a yearlong holding period, during which it had to sustain its performance on every measure before requesting an end to the court oversight.

On April 27, 2016, the court approved the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, ordering the defendants to pay $186,000. On April 5, 2017, the court approved an additional $135,000 in post-judgment attorneys’ fees. Finally, on November 27, 2017 and January 18, 2019, the court approved additional attorneys’ fee awards of $226,000 and $35,000.

On January 10, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr.

On July 17, 2017, having found that DCS had largely maintained its compliance, the court issued a modified settlement agreement and exit plan. The court terminated its jurisdiction over all matters except for the section of the exit plan pertaining to the external accountability reporting structure. Specifically, DCS was tasked with creating an external accountability reporting center and the court retained jurisdiction to monitor this portion of the agreement for 18 months. Upon termination of the court’s jurisdiction, the Center would begin public reporting.

On January 17, 2019, DCS filed an unopposed notice of compliance with the relevant section of the exit plan. On February 25, 2019, the court dismissed the case, terminating its jurisdiction.


3:00-cv-00445	Docket [PACER] Brian A. v. Bredesen	Feb. 25, 2019	Feb. 25, 2019 Docket
1 3:00-cv-00445	Complaint - Class Action - for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Brian A. v. Sundquist	May 10, 2000	May 10, 2000 Complaint
45 3:00-cv-00445	Opinion Brian A. v. Sundquist	Oct. 26, 2000	Oct. 26, 2000 Order/Opinion 149 F.Supp.2d 941
109 3:00-cv-00445	Settlement Agreement Brian A. v. Sundquist	July 27, 2001	July 27, 2001 Settlement Agreement
169 3:00-cv-00445	Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt of Consent Decree and Further Remedial Relief Brian A. v. Sundquist	Nov. 20, 2003	Nov. 20, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
3:00-cv-00445	Monitoring Report Brian A. v. Bredesen	Jan. 19, 2007	Jan. 19, 2007 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
265 3:00-cv-00445	Modified Settlement Agreement Brian v. Bredesen	May 11, 2007	May 11, 2007 Settlement Agreement
281 3:00-cv-00445	Stipulated Modifications to the Settlement Agreement and Request for Court approval of the 2008 modified Settlement Agreement Brian v. Bredesen	Sept. 1, 2008	Sept. 1, 2008 Settlement Agreement
289 3:00-cv-00445	STIPULATED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR COURT APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 2009 MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Brian v. Bredesen	Jan. 11, 2009	Jan. 11, 2009 Settlement Agreement
344 3:00-cv-00445	SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Brian v. Bredesen	Nov. 9, 2009	Nov. 9, 2009 Complaint

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
The Tennessee Accountability Center The Center for State Child Welfare Data	The independent Tennessee Accountability Center, housed at the Center for State Child Welfare Data at Chapin Hall, was established under the terms of the Settlement Agreement in the Brian A. vs. Hasl…	May 22, 2020	May 22, 2020 https://fcda.chapinhall.org/...
Class Actions: TN Brian A. v. Haslam Children's Rights	On April 11, 2016 a federal judge ruled that Tennessee’s Department of Children’s Services (DCS) had reached all of the mandated milestones to overhaul its foster care system. The state then entered …	Feb. 25, 2019	Feb. 25, 2019 https://www.childrensrights.org/...

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	May 10, 2000	CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued); Filing fee paid in the amount of : $150 Receipt # 74028 (af) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	RECAP
2	May 10, 2000	CERTIFICATE of Good Standing of Marcia Lowry from the SD of NY filed by pltfs (af) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	RECAP
3	May 10, 2000	CERTIFICATE of Good Standing of Ira P. Lustbader from the SD of NY filed by pltfs (af) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	RECAP
4	May 10, 2000	MOTION by pltfs for class certification (af) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	RECAP
5	May 10, 2000	MEMORANDUM OF LAW by pltfs in support of motion for class certification [4-1] (af) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	RECAP
6	May 10, 2000	NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference Case referred to Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin, ; Case Management Conference set for 4:00 p.m. on 6/19/00 (af) (Entered: 05/11/2000)	RECAP
7	May 12, 2000	ORDER by Judge Todd J. Campbell: case is being referred to the Magistrate Judge for customized case management. The stay of discovery imposed is vacated. The time for a party to respond to any pending discovery request shall run from the date the party is served w/ this order. Pltf shall promptly serve a copy of this order on defts. Upon completion of the initial case management conference, the CMO entered by the Magistrate Judge shall include a target trial date. Magistrate Judge shall promptly forward the CMO to the District Judge. Absent good cause the case shall be set for trial by order of the District Judge. EOD 5/12/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) Modified on 05/17/2000 (Entered: 05/12/2000)	RECAP
8	May 15, 2000	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin Order of recusal and reassigned to Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown. In consultation w/ Judge Brown, the ICMC, scheduled for 6/19/00 at 4:00 p.m., central time, remains scheduled, unless otherwise ordered by Judge Brown. Pltfs' counsel shall serve a copy of this order upon the defts or their counsel. EOD 5/15/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 05/15/2000)	RECAP
9	May 16, 2000	RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft George W. Hattaway by serving Michelle L. Richardson on 5/10/00. (dlt) (Entered: 05/16/2000)	RECAP
10	May 16, 2000	RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft Donald Sundquist by serving Paul Summers in officail capacity only on 5/10/00. (dlt) (Entered: 05/16/2000)	RECAP
	June 5, 2000	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defts by Douglas E. Dimond per signature on an Agreed Order to reschedule ICMC and to extend the time for defts to answer. (dlt)
	June 5, 2000	Notice of Appearance
	June 5, 2000	PROPOSED Agreed Order to reschedule the ICMC for 7/6/00 at 1:30 and to extend the time for the defts to answer until 7/31/00. (dlt)
	June 5, 2000	Proposed Agreed Order
11	June 7, 2000	ORDER by Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown Case Management Conference reset for 1:30 on 7/6/00. Defts' time to answer or respond to pltfs' complaint shall be extended until 7/31/00. EOD 6/7/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 06/07/2000)	RECAP
	June 28, 2000	DEFTS' PROPOSED Case Management Plan (dlt)
	June 28, 2000	Proposed Agreed Order
	June 30, 2000	JOINT PROPOSED Case Management Plan (dlt)
	June 30, 2000	PROPOSED Initial Case Management Order (dlt)
	June 30, 2000	Proposed Agreed Order
12	July 6, 2000	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown: Plan will be field. Case management order w/ target trial date will be filed by 7/14/00. EOD 7/7/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 07/07/2000)	RECAP
13	July 12, 2000	NOTICE by pltfs of taking deposition of Tennessee Department of Children's Services on 7/24/00 and 8/21/00. (dlt) (Entered: 07/13/2000)	RECAP
14	July 13, 2000	MOTION by defts to stay discovery. (dlt) (Entered: 07/14/2000)	RECAP
15	July 13, 2000	MEMORANDUM of Law by defts in support of motion to stay discovery. [14-1] (dlt) (Entered: 07/14/2000)	RECAP
	July 14, 2000	PROPOSED Initial Case Management Order (dlt)
	July 14, 2000	Proposed Agreed Order
16	July 17, 2000	RESPONSE by pltfs to motion to stay discovery. [14-1] (dlt) (Entered: 07/18/2000)	RECAP
17	July 19, 2000	REPLY by defts to response to motion to stay discovery. [14-1] (dlt) (Entered: 07/19/2000)	RECAP
18	July 31, 2000	RESPONSE by defts to motion for class certification [4-1]. (dlt) (Entered: 08/01/2000)	RECAP
19	July 31, 2000	MOTION by defts to dismiss. (dlt) (Entered: 08/01/2000)	RECAP
20	July 31, 2000	MEMORANDUM by defts in support of motion to dismiss. [19-1] (dlt) (Entered: 08/01/2000)	RECAP
21	Aug. 1, 2000	CERTIFICATE of Good Standing filed by pltfs for Jeffrey Powell from the USDC SD/NY. (dlt) (Entered: 08/02/2000)	RECAP
22	Aug. 1, 2000	MOTION by pltfs for a protective order re: governing the confidentiality of the case files of the eight named pltfs to be produced by defts on 8/10/00. (dlt) (Entered: 08/02/2000)	RECAP
23	Aug. 1, 2000	MEMORANDUM of Law by pltfs in support of motion for a protective order [22-1]. (w/ attached exhibits 1-2) (dlt) (Entered: 08/02/2000)	RECAP
24	Aug. 1, 2000	AFFIRMATION by pltfs of Ira P. Lustbader in support of pltfs' mtn for a protective order [22-1]. (dlt) (Entered: 08/02/2000)	RECAP
	Aug. 2, 2000	PROPOSED Agreed Protective Order (dlt)
	Aug. 2, 2000	Proposed Agreed Order
25	Aug. 8, 2000	AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown: Confidentiality of any individually-identifying information in the case files pertaining to the eight named pltfs. Terming pltf's protective order [22-1]. EOD 8/8/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 08/08/2000)	RECAP
26	Aug. 17, 2000	ORDER and Memorandum by Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown denying motion to stay discovery [14-1] for reasons set out in order. EOD 8/17/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 08/17/2000)	RECAP
27	Aug. 18, 2000	INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown: Case Management Conference held on 7/6/00. Pltf shall have until 8/21/00 to reply to deft's mtn for class certification[4-1]. Pltf's shall have until 8/21/00 to file a response to motion to dismiss. Discovery shall be stayed pending disposition of a mtn to dismiss. [19-1] EOD 8/18/00 (cc: all counsel) (dlt) (Entered: 08/18/2000)	RECAP

Case: Brian A. v. Haslam

3:00-cv-00445 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details