Case: Roe v. Staples

1:83-cv-01704 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: Oct. 20, 1983

Closed Date: June 27, 2016

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Plaintiff, a child in foster care represented by a legal aid attorney, brought suit in 1983 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Hamilton County Department of Human Services (HCDHS) and the Ohio Department of Human Services (ODHS) alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq. The complaint claimed that children in foster care and their parents did not receive proper pre-removal a…

Plaintiff, a child in foster care represented by a legal aid attorney, brought suit in 1983 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Hamilton County Department of Human Services (HCDHS) and the Ohio Department of Human Services (ODHS) alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq. The complaint claimed that children in foster care and their parents did not receive proper pre-removal and reunification services. We have very few documents related to this case.

In August 1984, the court certified a class, and the parties began extensive discovery. Meanwhile, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief against the county defendants. The parties were proceeding towards trial, but they entered into a consent decree on August 26, 1986.

The consent decree required HCDHS to develop case plans for each child in its custody; to provide procedural protections for parents; to ensure parent-child visitation was available; to provide reunification services to children and families; and to conduct a needs assessment of the agency. In a separate consent decree with ODHS, the benefits of the settlement with Hamilton County were extended statewide. Furthermore, ODHS committed to issue regulations to improve program standards for children's service agencies.

In February 1990, the plaintiffs moved for an order of contempt against the state for noncompliance. Subsequently, the state provided a corrective action plan in December 1990. In November 1991, the court appointed an expert panel to oversee the state defendant's compliance with the settlement.

In August 1992, the county entered a modified consent judgment. In May 1998, the court found that the county met the conditions of the consent judgment, and therefore the court terminated the consent judgment.

The state implemented a Child Protection Oversight and Evaluation (CPOE) system in 2000; the court suspended some measures of the consent decree while the state implemented CPOE. In 2002, the state moved to modify the consent judgment. In response, the court directed the parties to mediation and appointed an expert panel to report on the progress of the mediation. In April 2006, the Court ended the appointment of the expert panels and required the parties to submit an amended consent decree. In July 2006, the parties provided the amendments. The court ordered the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services to provide continuing on-site monitoring of the county agency. Additionally, the court ordered compliance with 45 C.F.R. 1357.15 through the completion of statewide needs assessments. An expert (Etta Lappen Davis) monitored compliance with the consent decree. In 2007, the court awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs.

There was no subsequent docket activity until April 10, 2013, when the plaintiff asked the court to order the defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for alleged violations of the consent decree. The plaintiff pointed to two issues with the defendants' compliance identified in the monitor's reports. First, though the consent decree required the defendants to monitor the services that the county provided to families, the CPOE system had various issues with staffing and funding and did not cover all the important measures related to this case. Second, the consent decree required the defendants to perform a needs assessment of the county's services, but they had not done so.

The case was subsequently referred to mediation to resolve the enforcement dispute. The monitor submitted an interim report in October 2014 indicating that the monitoring issues were resolved, but the needs assessment issues were not. On April 9, 2015, the court terminated the defendants' monitoring obligations but ordered them to comply with the needs assessment obligations by the end of the year. This deadline was subsequently extended by a month.

In January 2015, the litigation was reassigned to Judge Timothy S. Black. On April 25, 2016, the monitor issued a report indicating that the defendants were compliant with the needs assessment requirement. The defendants subsequently provided the needs assessment to the state legislature to address any issues through legislation. On June 27, 2016, the court held that the defendants had complied with the consent decree and dismissed the case. It is now closed.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Homan (12/2/2012)

Isobel Blakeway-Phillips (1/31/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19505734/parties/roe-v-staples/


Judge(s)

Black, Timothy Seymour (Ohio)

Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

Appel, Henry G. (Ohio)

Espinoza, David Joseph (Ohio)

Harper, James Warren (Ohio)

Mekhjian, Ara (Ohio)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1:83-cv-01704

Docket

Jan. 11, 2007

Jan. 11, 2007

Docket
119

1:83-cv-01704

Order

April 20, 2006

April 20, 2006

Order/Opinion
125

1:83-cv-01704

Agreed Order

Roe v. Riley

July 26, 2006

July 26, 2006

Order/Opinion
127

1:83-cv-01704

Agreed Order for the Payment of (1) Expert Fees and Costs and (2) Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees and Costs

Roe v. Riley

Jan. 11, 2007

Jan. 11, 2007

Order/Opinion
128-1

1:83-cv-01704

Exhibit Interim Report 2008

April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
128-2

1:83-cv-01704

Exhibit Interim Report 2009

April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
128-3

1:83-cv-01704

Exhibit Interim Report 2010

April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
128-4

1:83-cv-01704

Exhibit Interim Report 2011

April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
128-5

1:83-cv-01704

Exhibit Interim Report 2012

April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
144

1:83-cv-01704

Agreed Order

April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19505734/roe-v-staples/

Last updated Aug. 26, 2026, 5 a.m.

Docket for: Roe v. Staples
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Oct. 20, 1983

MOTION by plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis () (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
2 Oct. 20, 1983

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1-1] (cc: all counsel) () (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
3 Oct. 20, 1983

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Summonses issued) () (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
4 Nov. 2, 1983

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant John Cuddy, defendant Pamela Hyde, defendant Cty of Hamilton, defendant Kathleen Byrne, defendant Seth Staples on 10/26/83 (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
5 Nov. 9, 1983

MOTION by defendant John Cuddy to extend time to answer ( (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
6 Nov. 10, 1983

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to extend time to answer [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
7 Nov. 14, 1983

ANSWER by County defendants (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
8 Dec. 5, 1983

ANSWER by defendant John Cuddy (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
9 Feb. 10, 1984

MOTION by plaintiff to certify class action (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
10 March 5, 1984

RESPONSE by defendant John Cuddy to motion to certify class action [9-1] (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
11 March 5, 1984

STIPULATION of ext of time to respond to (9) to County Defts until 3/15/84. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
12 March 7, 1984

RESPONSE by defendant to motion to certify class action [9-1] (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
13 March 9, 1984

STIPULATION re ext of time for pltfs to reply to (9) until 3/14/84. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
14 March 14, 1984

REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to certify class action [9-1] (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
15 May 7, 1984

NOTICE of hearing setting motion to certify class action [9-1] at 9:00 7/20/84 (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
16 May 21, 1984

MOTION by defendant to stay discovery pending class certification (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
17 May 30, 1984

MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of documents (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
18 June 11, 1984

RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to stay discovery pending class certification [16-1] (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
19 June 20, 1984

RESPONSE by defendant John Cuddy to motion to compel production of documents ( no pgs: ) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
20 June 29, 1984

REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to compel production of documents ( no pgs: ) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
21 July 20, 1984

CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel on pltfs' mot to certify class - arguments of cousel - Submitted. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
22 Aug. 31, 1984

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to certify class action [9-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
23 Aug. 31, 1984

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel finding the motion to stay discovery pending class certification [16-1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
24 Sept. 7, 1984

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to compel production of documents [17-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
25 Feb. 6, 1985

MOTION by defendant Pamela Hyde, defendant Hamilton Cty Of, defendant Kathleen Byrne, defendant Seth Staples to compel production of documents (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
Feb. 6, 1985

NOTATION ORDER by Judge Aug granting motion to compel production of documents [25-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy)

26 March 20, 1985

NOTICE setting this action for Preliminary PTC 8:30 4/23/85 (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
27 April 12, 1985

ORDER OF REFERENCE to Magistrate Aug for Discovery purposes only; by Judge S. A. Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
28 April 24, 1985

PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel ; Preliminary pretrial conf was held on 8:30 4/23/85 ; discovery cutoff ddl set for 1/1/86 ;mtn filing ddl set for 2/1/86 ; final pretrial conf set for 2:00 4/30/86 ; non-jury trial set for 8/4/86 ( no pgs: 3) (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
29 Aug. 1, 1985

NOTICE : Case is set for FPTC ON 4/30/86 AT 2:00 P.M. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
30 Aug. 29, 1985

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating Karen Leizman and substituting attorney Patricia Barry (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
31 Dec. 13, 1985

Witness list submitted by deft Patricia K. Barry. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
32 Feb. 13, 1986

ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: substituting Trial Atty on behalf of deft Patricia Barry, Dept of Human Services attorney (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
33 March 12, 1986

STIPULATION for ext of time until 3/24/86 for filing of mots. for summ. J. by the parties. ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
34 April 16, 1986

MOTION by plaintiff for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief against County defts (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
April 17, 1986

Deposition of Brenda Merrick (wy)

April 17, 1986

Deposition of Kathleen Byrne (wy)

April 17, 1986

Deposition of Jerry Judge by pltf. (wy)

April 17, 1986

Deposition of Brenda Merrick by pltf. (wy)

35 April 21, 1986

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting extension of time for completion of discovery; and, denying motion for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief against County defts [34-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
36 April 28, 1986

RESPONSE by defendant Pamela Hyde, defendant Hamilton Cty, defendant Kathleen Byrne, defendant Seth Staples to doc. 34. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
37 April 29, 1986

Final Witness list submitted by plaintiff (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
38 May 9, 1986

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel (cc: all counsel) this matter set for trial on 8/4/86. FPTC IS SET FOR 6/20/86 AT 2:00 P.M. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
39 May 9, 1986

NOTICE of FPTC on 6/20/86 at 2:00 p.m. & for Jury Trial on 8/4/86 at 9:30 a.m. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
40 May 12, 1986

STIPULATION for ext of time until 5/12/86 for pltfs to reply in support of their mot. for summ. J. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
41 May 12, 1986

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief against County defts [34-1] (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
42 Aug. 20, 1986

MOTION by plaintiff to certify class action and to approve class settlements ( no pgs: ) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
43 Aug. 29, 1986

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to certify class action and approving class settlements [42-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
44 Oct. 2, 1986

CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel on motion to approve settlement - Statements of counsel - Proposed Settlements are approved - Consent decrees will be entered - Parties to attempt to work out question of atty fees. Ct Rptr: Mary Ann Ranz (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
45 Oct. 9, 1986

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that proposed settlements/consent decrees are fair, adequate and reasonable; and are approved, terminating case (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
46 Nov. 10, 1986

AGREED ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that pltfs have until 11/28/86 to file application for attys' fees. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
47 Nov. 28, 1986

AGREED ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that pltfs shall have until 1/5/87 to file application for costs and attys' fees. (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
48 Jan. 30, 1987

NOTICE by defendants State of Ohio of substitution of counsel. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
49 Jan. 30, 1987

MOTION by defendant, State of Ohio for admission of attorney pro hac vice ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
Feb. 6, 1987

NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for admission of attorney pro hac vice [49-1] (cc: all (wy)

50 Feb. 2, 1990

MOTION by plaintiff for order to show cause and other relief ( no pgs: 8) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
51 Feb. 23, 1990

STIPULATION for ext of time until 3/18/90 re motion for order to show cause and other relief [50-1] ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
March 5, 1990

NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for order to show cause and other relief [50-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy)

52 March 19, 1990

MEMORANDUM in opposition to [50-1] ; filed by deft HAIRSTON. ( no pgs: 20 +) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
53 March 28, 1990

REPLY by plaintiff in support of mot. for order to show cause. ( no pgs: 9) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
54 March 28, 1990

NOTICE of taking deposition of deft Hairston on 5/29/90 ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
March 28, 1990

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for order to show cause and other relief [50-1] ( no pgs: 9) (wy)

55 April 11, 1990

NOTICE by defendant of taking deposition of Frank J. Wasserman on 5/29/90 ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
56 April 12, 1990

MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to pltfs' mot. for judgment on the pleadings. ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
57 April 17, 1990

REPLY by plaintiff in support of mot. for judgment on the pleadings. ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
58 April 20, 1990

MOTION by plaintiff for order compelling discovery ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
April 20, 1990

Deposition of SUSAN SCHIFF. (wy)

59 April 24, 1990

RETURN OF SERVICE of supa served on Frank Wasserman. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
60 April 27, 1990

MOTION by plaintiff for protective order to quash supa deposition of pltf ( no pgs: 10) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
61 May 7, 1990

NOTICE : Case set for Hearing at 11:00 am on June 1, 1990. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
62 May 11, 1990

MOTION by plaintiff for protective order ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
63 May 18, 1990

NOTICE that case has been set by Magistrate Sherman for hearing on discovery motions on 5/29/90 at 10:00 a.m. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
64 May 18, 1990

RESPONSE by defendant to motion for protective order [62-1] ( no pgs: 7) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
65 May 18, 1990

Submission of a corrective action plan by deft Hairston. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
66 May 22, 1990

REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion for protective order to quash supa deposition of pltf [60-1] ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
May 22, 1990

Deposition of Annette Justice. (wy)

May 29, 1990

Deposition of Jean Schafer (wy)

67 June 1, 1990

CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Mag. Judge Jack Sherman for hearing on pltf's mots. to compel & for protective order; and, on defts mot. for protective order. Pltf's mots. were granted; defts mot. was denied. Entry to come. Ct.Rptr: Julie Patrick. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
68 June 4, 1990

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that status conference is cont'd until 9/4/90 at 4:00 p.m.. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
69 June 7, 1990

TRANSCRIPT filed of proceedings held before J. Sherman on 6/1/90. (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
70 June 25, 1990

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings before J. Sherman on 5/29/90; filed (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
71 June 25, 1990

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion for protective order [62-1], denying motion for protective order to quash supa deposition of pltf [60-1], granting motion for order compelling discovery [58-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/05/1992)

RECAP
72 Aug. 2, 1990

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman that pltf's mot. to compel is GRANTED. Defts' mot. for protective order is DENIED. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
73 Aug. 13, 1990

Objections to Magistrate's Order [72-1] by defendant HAIRSTON. (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
74 Aug. 15, 1990

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE PLAN UPDATE submitted by defendant, HAIRSTON ( no pgs: 6 + exhibits.) (wy) Modified on 08/07/1992 (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
75 Aug. 16, 1990

MOTION by defendant HAIRSTON to amend submission of compliance up date ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
Aug. 18, 1990

NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to amend [75-1] (cc: all counsel) (wy)

76 Aug. 24, 1990

RESPONSE by plaintiff to objections to Report and Recommendation ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
77 Oct. 18, 1990

SUBMISSION of Amended Compliance Plan Update by defendant HAIRSTON re motion to amend submission of compliance up date [75-1] ( no pgs: 4) (wy) Modified on 05/24/1994 (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
78 Oct. 19, 1990

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE's order [72-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 10) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
79 Oct. 24, 1990

MOTION by defendant HAIRSTON for protective order ( no pgs: 7) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
80 Oct. 26, 1990

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel - defts to submit FINAL COMPREHENSIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN by 12/31/90. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
81 Oct. 30, 1990

MOTION by plaintiff to compel discovery ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
82 Nov. 14, 1990

RESPONSE by defendant to motion to compel discovery [81-1] ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
83 Dec. 20, 1990

MOTION by defendant Pamela Hyde to continue ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
84 Dec. 28, 1990

STATUS REPORT OF UPDATE TO CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN by defendant Pamela Hyde ( no pgs: 9) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
86 Jan. 14, 1991

STIPULATION tht deft agrees to reimburse pltfs' expenses incurred per Exhibit attached. ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
85 Jan. 18, 1991

NOTICE that cae set for hearing on discovery matters on 2/14/91 at 10:00 a.m. ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
87 Feb. 14, 1991

Stipulation and ORDER: withdrawing motion to continue [83-1], withdrawing motion compel discovery [81-1], withdrawing motion for protective order [79-1], withdrawing appeal motion Objections to Magistrate's Order [72-1] [73-1] (cc: all counsel) ( no 5) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP
88 April 9, 1991

NOTICE of status conference at 3:00 pm on 4/25/91. cmtc ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/07/1992)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

Ohio

Case Type(s):

Child Welfare

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 20, 1983

Closing Date: June 27, 2016

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Children in foster care who allegedly did not receive proper pre-removal and reunification services.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

County

Hamilton County

State

Ohio

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Adoption Assistance Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Other Dockets:

Southern District of Ohio 1:83-cv-01704

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Attorneys fees

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Confession of Judgment

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Hire

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitoring

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Order Duration: 1986 - 2016

Issues

General/Misc.:

Adoption

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Family reunification

Foster care (benefits, training)

Juveniles

Parents (visitation, involvement)

Relative caretakers

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Timeliness of case assignment

Benefits (Source):

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Visiting

Youth / Adult separation

Recommended Citation