Case: Timmy S. v. Stumbo

6:80-cv-00024 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

Filed Date: Feb. 19, 1980

Closed Date: May 2, 1994

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

on February 19, 1980, the mother of a mentally disabled boy and his fosters parents filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The child was autistic and suffered from epileptic seizures. The plaintiffs filed this case to protest the Kentucky Department for Human Resources violation of the Constitution and various state and federal statutes in the course of their administration of federally funded programs which provided benefits and servic…

on February 19, 1980, the mother of a mentally disabled boy and his fosters parents filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The child was autistic and suffered from epileptic seizures. The plaintiffs filed this case to protest the Kentucky Department for Human Resources violation of the Constitution and various state and federal statutes in the course of their administration of federally funded programs which provided benefits and services to children and families. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to provide the plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to be heard on grievances which arose from the defendants' operation of child welfare programs. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, along with individual compensatory damages and attorneys fees.

Because the mother and her son were disabled, it had become increasingly difficult for the mother to properly care for her son. When she sought social services, the Department failed to arrange medical treatment for Timmy's seizures or out-of-home placement. The Department explained that no such placement could be found. The mother consulted a private treatment center for handicapped children and with its help found an out-of-home placement with the foster parents, who were also plaintiffs in this suit. The mother had a strong desire to have her child placed with these foster parents as they had a strong record of having looked after disabled children in the past. After he was placed with the foster parents, the Department did not provide the foster parents with the funds or services to which they were entitled as foster parents.

On March 14, 1980, the Department moved to dismiss the complaint arguing, in pertinent part, that foster parents do not have a right to a due process hearing. On September 15, 1981, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court also declined to rule on the plaintiff's motion for class certification citing an insufficient factual foundation to make the determination. 537 F.Supp. 39 (E.D. Ky. 1981).

On June 3, 1985, plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint by adding several named children and foster parents as plaintiffs. At the same time, plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification. The district court denied these motions on August 30, 1988. The court reasoned that class certification was unnecessary because injunctive relief would remedy the issues faced by everyone in the proposed class.

On April 11, 1986, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing, in part, that foster parents have a right to due process hearings under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Act. In opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, the Department submitted its administrative hearing procedures and argued that foster parents do not have a due process right to a hearing, therefore, administrative hearings are not permitted on the basis of the foster parents' complaints

On September 7, 1989, the district court the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment insofar as it sought to declare that foster parents have a due process right to an administrative hearing. The court enjoined the defendants from excluding foster parents, such as the plaintiffs in this case, from its administrative hearing procedures. The defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

On July 25, 1990, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. 916 F.2d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 1990).

Subsequently, the plaintiffs petitioned for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court find that the plaintiffs were “prevailing parties” and entitled attorney's fees. However, the district court denied an award of attorney's fees to the child and his biological mother but awarded attorney's fees to the foster parents. The the plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the district court's order and the Department filed a motion to alter or amend the district court's order; both were denied. Both parties appeals to the Sixth Circuit.

On November 29, 1993, The Sixth Circuit (Judge Wilfort) affirmed the order of the district court decision awarding the foster parents’ attorney's fees and denying CHR's Rule 60(b)(5) motion requesting relief from judgment. 12 F.3d 214 (6th Cir. 1993).

On May 2, 1994, the district court (Judge Jennifer B. Coffman) granted the plaintiffs' motion for $6,700 more in attorney's fees. The court also dismissed the case and there are no further entries on the docket.

Summary Authors

Soojin Cha (2/25/2016)

People


Judge(s)

Coffman, Jennifer B. (Kentucky)

Keith, Damon Jerome (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Friedman, David A. (Kentucky)

Haller, Laura (Kentucky)

Attorney for Defendant

Fauri, Paul F. (Kentucky)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

6:80-cv-00024

Docket [PACER]

May 2, 1994

May 2, 1994

Docket

6:80-cv-00024

Memorandum

Sept. 15, 1981

Sept. 15, 1981

Order/Opinion

537 F.Supp. 537

89-06275

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

July 25, 1990

July 25, 1990

Order/Opinion

916 F.2d 916

92-06485

92-06486

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Nov. 29, 1993

Nov. 29, 1993

Order/Opinion

12 F.3d 12

Resources

Docket

Last updated Feb. 28, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
137

CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from 6CCA stating that mot for atty fees by plffs is AFFIRMED &awarding Howards atty fees &denying CHR's Rule 60(b)(5) mot (cc: all counsel) (EHM) Modified on 05/03/1994 (Entered: 05/03/1994)

Jan. 24, 1994

Jan. 24, 1994

136

MOTION by plaintiff Sharon Howard, plaintiff Hubert Howard for attorney fees (EHM) (Entered: 01/27/1994)

Jan. 27, 1994

Jan. 27, 1994

138

AGREED ORDER by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman: 1) granting plffs' motion for attorney fees [136−1], in addition to those previously granted, in amt of $6,707.33 against defts in their official capacities; 2) case is again dismissed from Court's docket; this is a final, appealable Order (cc: all counsel) (EHM) Modified on 05/03/1994 (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994

May 2, 1994

Case Details

State / Territory: Kentucky

Case Type(s):

Child Welfare

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 19, 1980

Closing Date: May 2, 1994

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs were a seven-year old child, his biological mother, and foster parents who asserted their services to the child were unduly interrupted by the defendant government agency, KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HUMAN RESOURCES.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Unknown

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Available Documents:

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1990 - None

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Foster care (benefits, training)

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mental impairment

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Benefit Source:

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act