How States Get Rid Of Foster Care Lawsuits

State AGs hard at work

Just when you thought the schemes could not get any more unbelievable, here, we have yet another card up the sleeve of the state.


Whenever there is a class action on behalf of children in foster care, all a state must do to get it dismissed is to adopt out the kids who were listed to certify the class based animus.  Freakin' brilliant.  I got chills.


Bet this pisses off Children's Rights.

Foster care lawsuit to be dismissed

Updated: Thursday, 04 Nov 2010, 2:03 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 04 Nov 2010, 2:01 PM EDT

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The state of Rhode Island has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the foster care system is broken.

The lawsuit from the state child advocate was reinstated by a federal appeals court earlier this year after being thrown out in 2009. The suit alleged that children in state custody are routinely abused, neglected and shuffled from home to home.

The state says in court papers this week that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
It also says the suit is moot since five of the 10 children named in the case have since been adopted.

State lawyers say the child advocate's office raised concerns about the treatment of the 10 children in the lawsuit, but never brought those to the attention of Family Court.


Here is another fun little story about another state scheme to magically make these foster care lawsuits disappear.  It's called "The State Which Screamed Qualified Immunity".


In this story, the state cries to the court that they could never, ever release any information through discovery because they would not want to violate the privacy of the children.  It would not be in the best interests of the children to release the records so the state asked for an order of protection, yet were denied. (see below).


Judge tosses out lawsuit involving abused and neglected children 

By BRIAN HAYNES
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

A federal judge on Wednesday threw out a class action civil rights lawsuit aimed at revamping Clark County's system for protecting abused and neglected children.

Actually, the case originated here.

In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones said the lawsuit filed by a national child advocacy group on behalf of 13 foster children failed to show why county and state officials should be held liable in federal court for problems in Southern Nevada's child welfare system.

Uh...because it is a federally funded program????  Well, it's no surprise that the feds do relatively little in the way of how a state operates its child welfare system.  See, out of the 74 U.S. Inspector Generals, there is only one who has subpoena powers and the is with the Department of Defense.  Therefore, the proper jurisdiction to address the failures of a state operation would be with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.  Considering the lack of resources, moritoria on Medicaid rules and the newly elected wave of leadership supportive of even less regulation, the timing of the case made it optimal to dismiss at this juncture.  

In his decision, Jones ruled that the defendants had "qualified immunity" from most of the claims in the lawsuit. Under federal law, government officials have such immunity if their actions did not violate "clearly established" constitutional rights.

What are the terms I am looking for here... Due Process?  No.  Perhaps it was Equal Protection.  Nope.  Let's see, oh wait, I forgot.  Foster children have no constitutional rights because the state revoked the grants of custody.  The state is in possession of its rights and therefore qualify for immunity.  Breathtakingly brilliant.

The lawsuit alleged the officials did not provide adequate medical, dental and mental health care for foster children. Jones wrote that the state is required only to provide "basic human needs" to children under its care and that anything else beyond that was not a "clearly established" right.

Being non-compliant to federal funding agreements is not a constitutional right, it is a false claim and not within the scope of the claims brought forth.

So what exactly are "basic human needs"?  They are:

1. Breathing: Air;
2. Nutrition: Food;
3. Homeostasis: Shelter.

This just about sums up foster care except for the fact that taxpayers drop on average $120,000.00 a year to keep a foster kid.

The lawsuit also alleged the county and state acted with "deliberate indifference" to obvious dangers when they placed children in dangerous foster homes.

That is just a crock of bologna.  What this is, is just another tactic to emotionally manipulate the court.  The deliberate indifference argument should have been raised in the lack of federal compliance of federal mandates.  This is not legalese: "I would argue "deliberate ignorance" because most of the States have no clue on how to be compliant to a system that was intentionally designed to administratively fail to reach its annual benchmarks from day one.

But under federal law, Jones ruled, officials cannot be held liable unless their actions created or increased the danger for the children, not merely exposed them to dangers that already existed.

Damn, I really can't argue with that.  Good call.  The child welfare system, particularly the foster care system was intentionally designed to be dysfunctional or perhaps more along the lines of disjointed.  Federal government is modeled the same fashion.  It is so complex that it is extremely difficult to navigate, therefore, one must muddle through which is time consuming and expensive.  Under this reasoning, very few embark on investigative journeys to increase efficiency and maximize benefits of foster care.  

There are only two sources "exposing...dangers that already existed" and they are Legally Kidnapped and the National Archive On Child Welfare Fraud.

Another issue raised was the county's failure to provide independent representatives for foster children, known as guardians ad litem, in every case.

But Jones ruled that the state law requiring a guardian ad litem in every case is in line with the federal law, though in practice they are not appointed in every case.

Jones wrote that he did not want to step in and enforce that provision, because it would interfere too much with the workings of a state court.

Where the F@*K is Catherine Cortez Masto?????  I know!  Sleeping in her Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.  (emphasis added).

Despite Jones' ruling, Coleman said she was not unhappy with the dismissal.

She said an appeal is likely and welcomed the chance to put the case before a new judge.

"In the end we will prevail because we have to," she said. "These kids need us."

Actually, "You need the kids."  The attorney fees are phenomenal! 

HENRY A., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
DIRECTOR MICHAEL WILLDEN, et al., Defendants Order for Protection
Childrens Rights Attorney Fees