Case: A.M. v. Mattingly

On May 12, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that New York's Administration for Children's Services (ACS) routinely forces children in foster care to be unnecessarily institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals rather than placed in home-like settings. The plaintiffs alleged that ACS was using placement in psychiatric institutions as punishment for misbehavior and that many children placed in these hospitals did not have a diagnosis of mental illness. The plaintiffs also alleged that children were forced to stay in institutions long after it was determined that they could be placed in a less restrictive environment, but that ACS's policies made discharge difficult.

The named plaintiffs, three currently institutionalized children, requested their release from institutions. They also sought to represent a class of children and demanded that the court order ACS to discontinue its "illegal pattern and practice of 'dumping' children in foster care in psychiatric hospitals and refusing to let them out." The plaintiffs alleged that these policies violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, state laws and regulations, the New York Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case moved quickly toward settlement, with the parties stipulating to certify the class and postpone a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The class was certified as:

Children under the age of 18 who are in the custody of the New York City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") and who are currently admitted or will be brought to and admitted to acute psychiatric hospitals and who, once admitted and deemed ready for discharge, are not moved by ACS and/or one of its contract agencies to the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs.

In the settlement, ACS agreed to promulgate new policies and procedures with respect to the placement of children in foster care in institutions. ACS will improve tracking, monitoring, and individualized planning so that children are not ignored and left to languish in institutions. They also agreed to develop new training programs for ACS staff and contractors. The agreement also provides for ongoing monitoring. A separate agreement, entered on June 29, 2011, provided specific relief (including damages and attorneys' fees) to the three named plaintiffs. On July 7, 2011, Judge Cogan entered a settlement order, in which the parties agreed to dismiss all claims and release defendants from liability in exchange for payment. The case was then dismissed with prejudice.

On January 22, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to alter the judgment. Judge Cogan signed the Stipulation and Order of Settlement the same day. The amended agreement extended the jurisdiction of the Court over the matter for an additional four months, until June 30, 2016, with the potential for extension of such jurisdiction for six months from the time the Court's jurisdiction was scheduled to terminate. The docket does not reflect any extension of the Court's jurisdiction, so it presumably expired on June 30, 2016.