Filed Date: April 16, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On April 16, 2019, ten children in the custody of the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs sued the Governor of Oregon, the Director of the Oregon Department of Child Welfare, and ODHS, along with its director, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12131(2)), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794), the Adoption Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.), and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (CWA) of 1980 (42 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.).
The plaintiffs, represented by A Better Childhood, Disability Rights Oregon, and private counsel, sought a declaration that the defendants had violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. They also sought an injunction against the defendants' unlawful practices, as well as attorneys' fees. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the ODHS exhibited a pattern of:
Two months later, on June 24, the parties convened settlement negotiations, setting additional conferences for the months ahead. But the negotiations went nowhere and, during the second conference on July 11th, future settlement conferences were cancelled.
The defendants moved to dismiss or make more definite the complaint the following month, on July 25. They argued that the court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction because it would be inappropriate for a federal court to tell Oregon how to run its juvenile court system as the plaintiffs demanded. They also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ADA, Child Welfare Act, and § 1983. Specifically, the defendants explained ODHS's efforts to improve its foster services, placement, and permanency, and argued that these efforts met the Constitution's requirement that the State care for children’s basic needs; they also asserted that the ADA and CWA required reviews to be conducted only in state court.
On August 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss. They argued that abstention should only be exercised in the most extraordinary of cases and that the cases cited by the defendants did not apply to the factual background of this case. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’ practices and case plans were inconsistent with provisions under the CWA and ADA and alleged that the defendants’ motion to dismiss lacked legal merit and was inconsistent with the congressional intent to have the ADA and CWA apply as equally to disabled children as to non-disabled children.
The plaintiffs moved to certify the class on December 9, 2019, seeking to establish a general class as well as three subclasses for (1) plaintiffs subject to ADA violations, (2) sexual and gender minorities, and (3) plaintiffs aging out of the foster care system. In their response in opposition to the class certification, the defendants disputed the commonality of the prospective class and the existence of policies and practices that harmed the plaintiffs. The defendants also moved to dismiss allegedly mooted claims—on the theory that the individual plaintiffs in question had left ODHS custody—on August 3, 2020.
The following year, on September 24, the next friend of one of the putative class members moved to intervene in the case for the limited purpose of obtaining discovery for use in a separate, ongoing civil case. Judge Aiken denied the motion on September 28th, 2022 because the information was available to the intervenor through ordinary discovery requests in the separate civil case.
A year later, on September 27, 2021, Judge Aiken granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ § 1983 substantive due process claim, to the extent that it sought to “vindicate a right to be housed in the least restrictive setting, or a right to an array of community-based placements.” The court reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment protects children under state care from deprivation of their rights but does not require the state to provide an optimal level of care or treatment. Judge Aiken denied the remainder of the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the remainder of the plaintiffs’ due process claims survived, as did their § 1983 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act claim and their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Finally, the court ruled that O'Shea abstention was not merited in this case because the plaintiffs were challenging specific DHS policies or practices rather than asking the court to provide ongoing case-by-case oversight of judicial proceedings. 2021 WL 4434011.
Following the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, the defendants moved for leave to file an interlocutory appeal on October 27, 2021, arguing that the court’s ruling on the abstention issue warranted appeal because it involved a controlling question of law and grounds for difference of opinion existed among the circuit courts.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss additional claims as moot on November 8, 2021 and February 16, 2022.
Between April 14 and July 28, 2022, the defendants filed a number of notices of supplemental information and authority in support of their motions to dismiss mooted claims, their opposition to class certification, and their motion to certify an interlocutory appeal.
In an 80-page, omnibus order filed on August 17, 2022, Judge Aiken denied the defendants’ motion to exclude experts, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude expert testimony, denied all of the defendants’ motions to dismiss for mootness, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to certify the class action. 2022 WL 4536263.
The court ruled on the admissibility of testimony from eight different experts. According to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert witness may provide opinion testimony if: (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The motions to exclude were comprised of factual challenges to the sufficiency of these prongs for each expert.
The court has broad discretion in evaluating experts and was satisfied that the experts met each prong of the evidentiary rule. The sole exception regarded one of the defendants' expert witnesses, an economist. The court found that the economist's conclusions relied on opinions about the needs of Oregon’s foster care children and specialized data, neither of which he was qualified to evaluate. The court also found that the economist's testimony contained impermissible legal conclusions regarding the commonality and typicality of the issues of the named plaintiffs with respect to the rest of the class.
Regarding mootness, the court invoked an exception to the normal rule of mootness for claims that are inherently transitory—such as in a foster care system where children move from home to home and age out—and would therefore make it impossible for a plaintiff to have a stake in the case long enough for litigation to run its course.
Regarding class certification, the court found that the prospective class met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements necessary to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The main questions were of commonality and typicality. Where commonality is concerned, the court noted that class certification is typically proper when class members seek to enjoin state defendants from violating their rights through statewide policies and practices of uniform application. The court found that commonality was satisfied because the plaintiffs identified a number of statewide policies and practices that they alleged were common to the general class and subclasses, and which could be resolved in a single stroke. As to typicality, the court held that the prong was satisfied because the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were the same for each class member—the exposure to a substantial risk of harm by ODHS policies and practices.
On September 29, 2022, Judge Aiken denied the defendants’ motion to certify the court's August 17 order for interlocutory appeal, agreeing with the defendants that the abstention issue pertained to a controlling question of law, but disagreeing that the Ninth Circuit had inconsistently analyzed and resolved cases relating to the issue. Since there was no “ground for difference of opinion,” the court found that an interlocutory appeal was inappropriate. 2022 WL 4547903.
The court stayed the case on October 5, 2022 to facilitate settlement. However, the parties failed to settle and a few months later, on December 21, the court lifted the stay. The parties spent the first few months of 2023 exchanging discovery. A discovery dispute in September 2023 led the court ordering a site visit. Multiple settlement conferences were held in December 2023 and January 2024, but ultimately were not successful. The plaintiffs rejected defendants’ settlement offers, seeking policy changes instead of monetary damages.
On May 10, 2024, the parties held a status conference presided over by Judge Aiken. In it, they first confirmed that they had settlement authority, and that they would attempt to have a final settlement worked out by May 17, naming possible arbitrators in case they could not fully work out their issues by then. The original trial date was moved to May 20 pending settlement negotiations.
On May 23, 2024, the parties issued a final settlement agreement. The parties could not resolve the issue of the scope of the definition of 'child in care', but agreed to submit briefs about it to the court and not let it affect settlement on other issues. The second provision said that plaintiffs and ODHS would work together to improve child welfare in the state, and set timelines to resolve current case plans. The third provision created the position of a Neutral, a subject matter expert who would periodically assess OR's child welfare system, and resolved to work together to find an appropriate expert by May 31, 2024. The parties agreed to meet every 6 months to discuss the progress of the settlement, as well as an annual review every 1st of September along with a report issued by the neutral. The parties agreed that the agreement would continue until the Neutral determined that ODHS was in substantial compliance with the ultimate outcomes of the agreement, or within ten years of the signing.
Judge Aiken issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on May 31, 2024. On June 24, 2024, the court selected a Neutral as provided in the settlement agreement.
On June 27, 2024, Judge Aiken issued an opinion finding that the definition of Child in Care excludes: "1) children who have not been removed and their family is receiving services through Oregon DHS in-home (i.e., through ODHS Family Preservation) because while those children may be in ODHS's legal custody, they are not in ODHS's physical custody and so are not "in care"; and (2) children who have been removed, are in ODHS's legal custody, but are not in ODHS's physical custody because they are place in-home with a parent or legal guardian".
On September 12, 2024, Judge Aiken issued a final judgment on the case dismissing the action, entering the settlement as an order of the court, and retaining jurisdiction over the settlement for the period the settlement lasts.
Though the case has been dismissed, monitoring on the case continues.
Summary Authors
Alec Richards (9/29/2019)
Terry Howard (11/1/2022)
Venesa Haska (3/17/2024)
Carlos Hurtado-Esteve (11/20/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14943955/parties/wyatt-b-v-kotek/
Aiken, Ann L. (Oregon)
Benedetto, Anastasia (New York)
Borle, Jonathan (Oregon)
Chaimov, Gregory A. (Oregon)
Blaesing, Lauren (Oregon)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14943955/wyatt-b-v-kotek/
Last updated Aug. 4, 2025, 10:29 p.m.
State / Territory: Oregon
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 16, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All children for whom the Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”) has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal or physical custody of DHS.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Oregon Department of Human Services, State
Director of Child Welfare, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
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.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2024 - 2034
Issues
General/Misc.:
Foster care (benefits, training)
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Siblings (visitation, placement)
Benefits (Source):
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Suicide prevention (facilities)
Medical/Mental Health Care: