Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2008
Case Ongoing
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 again moved to dismiss the case and to decertify the class. In November and December 2011, the court denied the motion to decertify and granted the motions to dismiss only as to claims pertaining to rights of familial association and procedural due process. 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.
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.
The Co-Neutrals' monitoring of DHS's compliance with the CSA is still ongoing, but as of May 22, 2020, the case has been dormant since mid-2018.
Summary Authors
Elizabeth Homan (12/21/2012)
Katherine Reineck (1/30/2016)
Eva Richardson (12/25/2018)
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)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4364181/dg-v-henry/
Last updated March 26, 2024, 3 a.m.
State / Territory: Oklahoma
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2008
Case Ongoing: Yes
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):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Amount Defendant Pays: 6,011,888.80
Order Duration: 2012 - 2019
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: