Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2008
Closed Date: March 13, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
The plaintiffs, represented by Children's Rights, filed this class action suit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) in February 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq., and Oklahoma state law. The complaint alleged that DHS placed children in dangerous and inappropriate placements, including extended stays in emergency shelters; failed to monitor the safety of children in DHS custody due to excessive case worker caseloads; failed to provide mental health and other behavioral services; and failed to provide legal representation. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from subjecting plaintiffs to practices that violate their constitutional rights.
In April 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the case and several Oklahoma-based children's agencies filed amici curiae briefs in response. In January 2009, Judge Gregory K. Frizzell granted the motion to dismiss claims under federal common law and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, but denied the motion with regard to the other claims. D.G. v. Henry, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Okl. 2009).
On May 5, 2009, the court certified the class of the plaintiffs as all children who are or will be in the legal custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (1) due to a report or suspicion of abuse or neglect; or (2) who are or will be adjudicated deprived due to abuse or neglect. The defendants appealed the ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in February 2010, the appellate court upheld the class certification.
The parties then engaged in extensive and contested discovery. The plaintiffs provided five expert reports and filed numerous motions to compel the defendants to produce various items. The defendants moved for summary judgment and to decertify the class. In November and December 2011, the court denied the motion to decertify and granted the motion for summary judgment only as to claims pertaining to rights of familial association and procedural due process. 2011 WL 6009628. The case proceeded towards a trial scheduled for February 2012.
Meanwhile, the parties engaged in court-supervised settlement conferences. By January 2012, they negotiated an agreement providing for structural reorganization of DHS and appointed experts to oversee the development and implementation of the Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA). After a series of fairness hearings, the court approved the CSA on February 29, 2012.
The CSA implementation plans provided that the defendant DHS would restructure its agency; improve screening, investigating, and reporting of abuse; reduce the use of emergency shelters; and reduce workloads and improve training for caseworkers. The parties agreed to designate three individuals as Co-Neutrals to act as arbiters of any dispute arising out of the CSA and to evaluate and render judgments about DHS's ongoing compliance efforts. The implementation of the CSA would take at least five years. Additionally, on March 31, 2013, the Court ordered the defendants to pay attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of about $6 million. 2013 WL 1343151.
Although DHS originally planned to exit from the CSA in December 2016, it was unable to do so for failure to adequately comply with its terms. In their August 2018 report, the Co-Neutrals noted that although DHS had made important advancements over the course of its reform, those advances were not yet fully instituted, particularly with respect to manageable caseloads and an adequate array of placements for children. The report noted that in some areas, most critically safety for children in the care and custody of DHS, the department’s efforts had been inadequate.
In May 2018, the Co-Neutrals requested that the Court suspend the operations of a particular children's center for failure to comply with the CSA. The Court granted this request and DHS complied by relocating the children from that center.
On June 5, 2018, the court entered a judgment and terminated the case. However, the case was reopened three years later when the parties moved to modify the settlement on December 13, 2021. This motion noted that unforeseen circumstances, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, seriously impacted the defendant’s good faith efforts to comply with the settlement agreement. As a result, the parties agreed to suspend the previously scheduled biannual good faith determinations by the Co-Neutrals during the pandemic recovery period as to some of the defendant's obligations. The court granted the motion the following day.
On March 22, 2023, the Co-Neutrals determined that the Department had met the two-year continuous period of good faith requirements mandated by the CSA as to the obligations that had not been delayed by COVID-19. On April 24, 2023, the court issued an order terminating these obligations.
Two years later, on February 11, 2025, the Co-Neutrals filed a final report indicating the defendants had complied for two years with the remaining CSA obligations. A month later, on March 13, the court terminated the defendant's obligations under the CSA. 2025 WL 818166. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Elizabeth Homan (12/21/2012)
Katherine Reineck (1/30/2016)
Eva Richardson (12/25/2018)
Isabel Bysiewicz (3/29/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4364181/parties/dg-v-henry/
Almonrode, Patrick S. (New York)
Barber, Philip (New York)
Bauer, Andrew B. (New York)
Askew, Thomas Martin (Oklahoma)
Barnett, Elizabeth (Oklahoma)
Askew, Thomas Martin (Oklahoma)
Bingham, Donald Mitchell (Oklahoma)
Boughton, Scott David (Oklahoma)
Everest, Tricia Louise (Oklahoma)
Freeman, Richard Weldon Jr. (Oklahoma)
Gentry, Dorothy Sharon (Oklahoma)
Hall, Melvin Curtis (Oklahoma)
Hillerman, Holly M. (Oklahoma)
Koepsel, Kristopher Edward (Oklahoma)
LaBauve, Elizabeth Barnett (Oklahoma)
Mensching, John Patrick Jr. (Oklahoma)
O'Leary, Catherine A. (Oklahoma)
Page, David Phillip (Oklahoma)
Resetaritz, Richard Alan (Oklahoma)
Simone, Donna Marie (Oklahoma)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4364181/dg-v-henry/
Last updated Oct. 30, 2025, 9:22 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2008
Closing Date: March 13, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The class of plaintiffs includes all children who are or will be in the legal custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (1) due to a report or suspicion of abuse or neglect; or (2) who are or will be adjudicated deprived due to abuse or neglect.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq.
Adoption Assistance Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Oklahoma 4:08-cv-00074
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 0:09-05093
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Amount Defendant Pays: $6,011,888.80
Order Duration: 2012 - 2025
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Foster care (benefits, training)
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Siblings (visitation, placement)
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Benefits (Source):
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Disability and Disability Rights:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: