Case: Bryan C v. Lambrew
1:21-cv-00005 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
Filed Date: Jan. 6, 2021
Closed Date: Nov. 27, 2024
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a class action lawsuit about the administration of psychotropic drugs in Maine foster care.
On January 6, 2021, the plaintiffs, four foster children in the custody of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), filed suit through their next friend in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine against the Commissioner of the Maine DHHS and the Director of the Maine Office of Child and Family Services. The complaint set forth that Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Child and Family Services permit the administration of psychotropic drugs to foster children, without sufficient oversight mechanisms. There are over 2,000 children in foster care in Maine, and according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, up to 80% of children in foster care have significant mental health needs, making this population particularly vulnerable to overmedication. Plaintiffs alleged that there are strict recommended metabolic monitoring schedules for psychotropic medication and requirements set forth in federal law, but that such schedules are rarely followed. Plaintiffs alleged that Maine’s oversight failures included the failure to maintain readily accessible, up-to-date medical records for children in foster care; failure to maintain a minimally adequate, informed consent process; and failure to maintain an appropriate monitoring system to flag and review “outlier” prescriptions of psychotropic medications. Plaintiffs, foster care children who had been prescribed and administered inappropriate dosages of psychotropic medication while in state custody, reported that as a result of their medication, they experienced harmful side-effects, including but not limited to suicidal idealization, hallucinations, personality changes, and brain fog. Plaintiffs filed the class action on behalf of a putative class of Maine foster children who similarly were or would be administered psychotropic medication.
In their complaint, plaintiffs set forth the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) Defendants violated plaintiffs’ substantive due rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires states to protect children in its foster care custody from unreasonable risk of harm, by acting in a way that departed from acceptable professional judgment, (2) Defendants violated plaintiffs’ procedural due rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, interfering with defendants’ liberty interests without due process of law by subjecting plaintiffs to unnecessary medication without sufficient procedures or a process for informed consent, and (3) Defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §§621, 670, which create statutory rights to individualized written case plans to assure safe and proper care and to have health records reviewed and timely supplied to foster care providers. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive and declaratory relief to enjoin defendants from continuing the use of current policies, and instead implement and maintain comprehensive electronic healthcare records for all children in foster care and timely provide medical histories to foster caretakers; develop new consent, monitoring, and training policies; and to develop and implement a system of secondary review to flag outlier prescriptions.
On March 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, wherein they provided up-to-date information on the medical history of the named plaintiffs but otherwise re-alleged their claims.
On March 19, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. While conceding that the plaintiffs’ allegations warrant prompt attention from the Maine DHHS, the defendants argued that DHSS has been making substantial progress to rectify these issues and that a federal court is not the proper lens to address those concerns. Defendants argued, in substance, that (1) under the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction where potential relief would interfere with ongoing state judicial proceedings, which implicate state interests and provide opportunity to hear federal and constitutional claims, (2) Defendants also claimed that as a minor may only sue in federal courts via a “next friend” or “guardian ad litem” and the plaintiffs sued through designated “next friends” instead of appointed guardians at litem, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, (3) lastly, defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ claims do not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment as they failed to allege “conscience-shocking conduct” or other deprivations of violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and that there is no private cause of action under the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act which the plaintiffs based some of their claims upon.
On October 4, 2021, Judge Nancy Torrensen issued an order granting and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reviewed the legal posture of each plaintiff and reviewed defendants’ motion to dismiss. First, while the court found no issue with most of the named plaintiffs, the court held that with respect to one plaintiff, the complaint never set forth how the named plaintiff was harmed by actions or omissions taken by the defendants. The court allowed leave to amend the complaint sua sponte, but noted that if the plaintiffs failed to allege how the defendants played any role in that named plaintiff being incorrectly administered psychotropic medication, that named plaintiffs’ claims must drop out.
Second, the court then addressed each aspect of the defendants’ arguments in their motion to dismiss. For the defendants’ argument for abstention under Younger v Harris, the court held that there are three categories in which Younger abstention applies – state criminal prosecutions, state proceedings akin to a criminal prosecution, and civil proceedings with orders uniquely furthering state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions – none of which, the court held, defendants successfully explained would apply here. For the defendants’ standing argument, the court held that the next friends in this action were appropriate: The next friends here are genuinely motivated to help plaintiffs seek relief, are familiar with the situation, understand their role, are able and willing to litigate on plaintiffs’ behalf, and are familiar with the realities that foster children face – all the criteria needed to be next friends in litigation. Lastly, with respect to defendants’ due process arguments, the court held as follows: For the procedural due process claim, the plaintiffs adequately alleged violation of procedural due process rights, which is a mixed question of law and fact. However, with respect to defendants’ motion on the plaintiffs’ Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act claim, the court noted that while the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act could allow for private actions to be brought, one part of the Act which the plaintiffs sued under (§671) did not: This section of the Act required that the case review system operate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the U.S. DHSS, and is not focused directly on the benefit to foster children, which is a necessary predicate for private action. As such, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim grounded on §671 of the Act.
On October 18, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In line with the court’s action on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs provided greater specificity on the medical treatment of the named plaintiff, and specifically laid out how defendants failed to provide adequate oversight and medical information while the plaintiff was in foster care.
The parties then proceeded into discovery. In 2022, while engaging in discovery discussions, the parties also began settlement negotiations. The parties filed joint status reports, providing updates on the status of those settlement talks. On March 1, 2024, after the conclusion of these negotiations, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of their settlement agreement, requesting court approval.
The settlement agreement, which would resolve the pending claims with the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms, required the following:
1. Establishment of procedures for the timely preparation of a Portable Health Record for each child in DHHS custody, which would be timely updated and would move with the child from placement to placement;
2. Creation of a process for informed consent by designated adults and children over fourteen years old, for all classes of psychotropic medication;
3. Creation of a psychiatric Clinical Review Team to conduct prospective and retrospective reviews of psychotropic medication recommendations and prescriptions.
The settlement agreement set forth Performance Criteria and a third-party Implementation Reviewer to ensure timely and effective implementation, and also provided for notice to all class members in the following form to make them aware of the proposed settlement. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants agreed to compensate plaintiffs $675,000 for attorney’s fees and costs in this litigation.
On July 3, 2024, the court provided preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Finding that the proposed settlement agreement was reasonable and likely fell within the range of possible final approval, the court extended preliminary approval, pending a Fairness Hearing. The court also appointed class counsel to represent the class members in this settlement.
A final Fairness Hearing was held on November 4, 2024. The parties then filed a joint motion for final approval with the court.
On November 27, 2024, the court issued its order, providing final approval. Finding no issues raised in the Fairness Hearing, the court approved the class action settlement, class certification per the settlement terms, and attorneys’ fees. The court also, in line with the terms of the settlement agreement, dismissed all claims in this action without prejudice.
Summary Authors
Keren Yi (3/31/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29087756/parties/bryan-c-v-lambrew/
ALBERT, EBEN M. (Maine)
AROCHO, JOSHUA HECTOR (Maine)
BARTOSZ, SAMANTHA M. (Maine)
ABRAHAM, STANLEY WILLIAM (Maine)
ANTON, JASON (Maine)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29087756/bryan-c-v-lambrew/
Last updated Aug. 24, 2026, 4:23 a.m.
Docket for: BRYAN C v. LAMBREW
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 6, 2021
Closing Date: Nov. 27, 2024
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are minors, represented by next friends, in the custody of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services who were prescribed psychotropic medications while in foster care
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
Commissioner of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services
Director of the Maine Office of Child and Family Services
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Maine 1:21-cv-00005
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $675,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Foster care (benefits, training)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Mental health care, unspecified
Case Summary of Bryan C v. Lambrew, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46303/ (last updated 3/31/2025).