Case: R.C. v. Hornsby

2:88-cv-01170 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filed Date: Nov. 15, 1988

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

As we have been unable to locate the complaint and a few of the earlier opinions for this case, some information in this summary is based on material made available by the Alabama Department of Human Resources and from the National Center for Youth Law.On November 15, 1988, the children of Alabama with behavioral or emotional disorders filed an action against the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR). The plaintiffs were represented by the Bazelon Center, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Pro…

As we have been unable to locate the complaint and a few of the earlier opinions for this case, some information in this summary is based on material made available by the Alabama Department of Human Resources and from the National Center for Youth Law.

On November 15, 1988, the children of Alabama with behavioral or emotional disorders filed an action against the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR). The plaintiffs were represented by the Bazelon Center, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, and Southern Poverty Law Center. for (1) failure to provide plaintiffs and their families with in-home supports and other services needed to preserve family unity; and (2) to provide plaintiffs with appropriate care, treatment, and services after removal from home. Plaintiffs asserted that DHR violated their constitutional rights to family integrity, proper care while in state custody, adequate mental health care, reasonable efforts toward reunification, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of their disabilities in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

According to the National Center for Youth Law, on April 19, 1989, the district court held that plaintiffs had a private right of action to enforce the federal statutory claims. The court also rejected DHR's assertions of qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity.

In June 1991, the court approved a consent decree that required the creation of a "system of care" run according to principles emphasizing placement prevention, family reunification, permanency, and home-based and community-based services. The system was designed to assist children (1) with emotional or behavioral disorders who are in foster care; (2) with emotional or behavioral disorders who are at imminent risk of foster care placement; and/or (3) at imminent risk of foster care placement who are at high risk of developing emotional or behavioral disorders.

The system of care is required to provide services to these children and their families to protect the children from abuse and neglect, and to enable the children to live with their families, achieve permanency and stability, and become stable, gainfully employed adults pursuant to an individualized service plan. The decree is structured to ensure that family preservation services are provided to most children at imminent risk of foster placement.

An implementation agreement, incorporated into the decree, describes how the state will achieve compliance with the decree through initiatives in staff training, service development, quality assurance, and advocacy for class members and their families. Implementation began in October 1992. Each year, a group of counties representing 15% of the child welfare caseload were targeted for reform. These counties were required to implement fully the consent decree's requirements by the end of their "conversion" year. The goal was full statewide compliance by October 1, 1999. An independent monitor has been overseeing compliance.

By fall 1993, though the first group of counties had achieved progress, obstacles in compliance remained, and the parties negotiated a new consent order to resolve implementation barriers. The new order required hiring senior-level staff, setting caseload standards, creating a resource development plan, reinvesting cost-savings, and improving the system of contracting with private providers.

Plaintiffs' March 1997 contempt motion was resolved with a consent order extending the time for compliance and granting other relief in February 1999. One year later, the court approved an order to ensure that all child welfare workers were appropriately certified and licensed.

In November 2004, defendant filed a motion for an order terminating the consent decree. In May 2005, the court found that DHR had not submitted evidence sufficient to sustain its burden of demonstrating that DHR is and will remain in substantial compliance with the terms of the consent decree and the implementation plan required for termination of the decree. The court ordered DHR to file a performance report in August 2005.

In August 2005, DHR submitted a performance report and a second motion for an order terminating the consent decree. The court requested that the court monitor file a report responding to the assertions in DHR's second motion and plaintiffs' response to that motion by November 18, 2005. Following submission of the monitor's report, the court ordered the monitor to complete an extensive qualitative and quantitative review process to determine the counties' current compliance with the consent decree.

On January 16, 2007, the court terminated the consent decree in a 148-page order. Subsequently, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court's decision.

Summary Authors

Ariana Fink (3/9/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5326150/parties/rc-v-walley/


Judge(s)

DeMent, Ira (Alabama)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Anderson, Nancy Ellen (Alabama)

Burnim, Ira Abraham (District of Columbia)

Cohen, J. Richard (Alabama)

Attorney for Defendant

Childs, Larry Brittain (Alabama)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:88-cv-01170

Docket

R.C. v. Walley

June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008

Docket

2:88-cv-01170

Memorandum Opinion

R.C. v. Walley

Oct. 18, 1991

Oct. 18, 1991

Order/Opinion
725

2:88-cv-01170

Order

R.C. v. Walley

Dec. 13, 2004

Dec. 13, 2004

Order/Opinion
752

2:88-cv-01170

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

R.C. v. Walley

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

May 13, 2005

May 13, 2005

Order/Opinion

390 F.Supp.2d 1030

849

2:88-cv-01170

Memorandum Opinion and Order

R.C. v. Walley

Jan. 16, 2007

Jan. 16, 2007

Order/Opinion
850

2:88-cv-01170

Final Judgment

R.C. v. Walley

Jan. 16, 2007

Jan. 16, 2007

Order/Opinion
873

2:88-cv-01170

07-10667

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

R.C. v. Walley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

April 9, 2008

April 9, 2008

Order/Opinion

270 Fed.Appx. 989

875

2:88-cv-01170

Memorandum Opinion and Order

R.C. v. Walley

June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5326150/rc-v-walley/

Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 7:31 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
752

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; Ordered that defendant's 714 MOTION for dismissal and termination of the Consent Decree is DENIED as this time. It is further ordered that on 8/4/05, defendant file a performance report, consistent with directives set out herein. Signed by Judge Ira De Ment on 5/13/05. (Attachments: # 1 Court Exhibit 1# 2 Civil Appeals Checklist)(sl, )

1 Court Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

May 13, 2005

May 13, 2005

RECAP
849

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that defendant's 761 second motion for order terminating consent decree is GRANTED, that the Consent Decree and Implementation Plan be and the same are hereby TERMINATED, and that the injunction entered in this cas e be and the same is hereby DISSOLVED. Further Ordered that, in accordance with paragraphs 88-90 of the 235 Consent Decree, all costs herein occurred are TAXED against defendant for which let execution issue.Ordered that any and all remaining pending motions be and the same are hereby DENIED as moot. A judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be entered separately. Signed by Judge Ira De Ment on 1/16/07. (sl, )

Jan. 16, 2007

Jan. 16, 2007

RECAP
850

FINAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant and against plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Ira De Ment on 1/16/07. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(sl, )

1 Civil Appeals Checklist

View on PACER

Jan. 16, 2007

Jan. 16, 2007

RECAP
868

ORDERED that defendant show cause, if any, on or before 2/20/07 why the 851 Motion for attorneys' fees and costs should not be granted. Ordered that plaintiffs' 866 Motion to Correct and 867 Motion to Substitute are granted. Signed by Judge Ira De Ment on 2/6/07. (sl, )

Feb. 6, 2007

Feb. 6, 2007

RECAP
875

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiffs' 851 Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted in part and denied in part and that defendant is directed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees for October 2004 - January 2007 in an amount consistent with the court's ruling herein. Ordered that plaintiffs' Motion for Costs is granted in the amount of $26,966.52 for which let execution issue. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 6/23/08. (sl, )

June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Child Welfare

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 15, 1988

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Alabama children with emotional or behavior disorders

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Southern Poverty Law Center

Bazelon Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Alabama Department of Human Resources, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Monitoring

Order Duration: 1992 - 2007

Issues

General/Misc.:

Failure to train

Family abuse and neglect

Family reunification

Parents (visitation, involvement)

Siblings (visitation, placement)

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Disability and Disability Rights:

Disability, unspecified

Least restrictive environment

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Family discrimination

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding (General)

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Placement in mental health facilities

Youth / Adult separation

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified