Kramer v. Patrick

• Decision Date: 22 November 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 10–30073–WGY.
• Citation: 985 F.Supp.2d 129
• Parties: CONNOR B., by his next friend, Rochelle VIGURS, Adam S., by his next friend, Denise Sullivan, Camila R., by her next friend, Bryan Clauson, Andre S., by his next friend, Julia Pearson, Seth T., by his next friend, Susan Kramer, and Rakeem D., by his next friend, Bryan Clauson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deval L. PATRICK, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John Polanowicz, Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and Olga I. Roche, Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, in their official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

985 F.Supp.2d 129

CONNOR B., by his next friend, Rochelle VIGURS, Adam S., by his next friend, Denise Sullivan, Camila R., by her next friend, Bryan Clauson, Andre S., by his next friend, Julia Pearson, Seth T., by his next friend, Susan Kramer, and Rakeem D., by his next friend, Bryan Clauson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Deval L. PATRICK, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John Polanowicz, Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and Olga I. Roche, Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, in their official capacities, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10–30073–WGY.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Nov. 22, 2013.

Daniel J. Gleason, Emily J. Grannon, Jonathan D. Persky, Mary K. Ryan, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP, Boston, MA, Elizabeth Pitman Gretter, Sarah Russo, Laurence D. Borten, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Rachel Brodin Nili, Sara Michelle Bartosz, Children's Rights, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Jeremy D. Bayless, Steven H. Joseph, Office of the Attorney General Martha Coakley, Bryan G. Killian, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Robert L. Quinan, Jr., Amy Spector, Jason B. Barshak, Jeffrey T. Collins, Liza J. Tran, Office of the Attorney General, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RULINGS

YOUNG, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Anonymized minors acting on behalf of a class of approximately 8500 children (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) who, after being removed from their family homes due to abuse or neglect, have suffered harm or are exposed to harm ¹ in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or the “Department”), bring this suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against high-level officials in the Commonwealth's administrative bureaucracy (collectively, the “Defendants”) for allegedly circumscribing the myriad constitutional and statutory rights of the class members. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated (1) class members' right to substantive due process; (2) class members' constitutionally guaranteed liberty, privacy, and associational interests, particularly the right to familial association; (3) certain provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (“AACWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 670– 676, specifically those pertaining to foster care maintenance payments and individualized case plans; and (4) class members' right to procedural due process. The sheer number and breadth of allegations raised by the Plaintiffs in this case effectively amount to an all-out assault on the Massachusetts foster care system, in which the Plaintiffs request all manner of declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants, for their part, have moved for judgment on the record.

A. Procedural Posture²

On April 15, 2010, lead plaintiffs Connor B.,³ Adam S., Camila R., Andre S., Seth T., and Rakeem D. (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”), by their next friends and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint in this district against Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the heads of the Massachusetts Executive Officeof Health & Human Services and DCF. Compl., ECF No. 1. That same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class and appoint class counsel. Pls.' Mot. Class Certification & Appointment Class Counsel, ECF No. 2. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on August 20, 2010, Mot. Hon. Deval L. Patrick Dismiss Compl. Against Him Pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6), ECF No. 17; Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Compl. Pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6), ECF No. 18, and subsequently filed an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Defs.' Opp'n Pls.' Mot. Class Certification, ECF No. 32.

Following additional filings by both parties, Judge Michael Ponsor issued a memorandum and order on January 4, 2011, denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss and leaving for later resolution the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick, 771 F.Supp.2d 142 (D.Mass.2011) (Ponsor, J.). Nearly two months later, Judge Ponsor revisited the remaining motion, granting the Plaintiffs class certification and referring the case to Magistrate Judge Kenneth Neiman for further adjudication.⁴ Mem. & Order Regarding Pls.' Mot. Certify Class & Appoint Class Counsel, ECF No. 49; Elec. Order, Feb. 28, 2011. The case was eventually reassigned to this Court on November 19, 2012. Elec. Notice, Nov. 19, 2012, ECF No. 203.

On December 3, 2012, the Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' substantive due process count and for full summary judgment on all of the remaining counts in the Plaintiffs' complaint. Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 209. At a motion hearing held on January 10, 2013, the Court denied the Defendants' motion as matter of judicial economy. Elec. Clerk's Notes, Jan. 10, 2013, ECF No. 272. The case proceeded to trial on January 22, 2013. Elec. Clerk's Notes, Jan. 22, 2013, ECF No. 291.

On April 30, 2013, following the close of the Plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the record and appended to their motion a memorandum of law in support. Defs.' Mot. J. R., ECF No. 316; Mem. Law Supp. Defs.' Mot. J.R. (“Defs.' Mem.”), ECF No. 317. The Plaintiffs submitted a brief in opposition to the Defendants' motion on May 16, 2013. Pls.' Mem. Law Opp'n Defs.' Mot. J.R. (“Pls.' Opp'n”), ECF No. 356. The motion was heard on May 21, 2013, but the Court declined to rule on it at the hearing, deciding instead to take the matter under advisement and adjourn the case without day. Mot. Hr'g Tr. 37:17–18, May 21, 2013, ECF No. 364.

B. Child Welfare Regulatory Framework

Under Title IV–E of the Social Security Act,⁵42 U.S.C. §§ 670– 676, the Children's Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”), which sits within the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”), allots federal funds to states to assist in their provision of foster care services. See Title IV–E Foster Care, Children's Bureau (May 16, 2012), http:// www. acf. hhs. gov/ programs/ cb/ resource/ titleive- foster- care. In order to qualify for Title VI–E funds, state foster care agencies must meet a long list of federal requirements. See42 U.S.C. § 671(a).

The receipt of said funds is additionally conditioned upon participation in and the successful completion of Child and Family Services Reviews (“CFSRs”). Trial Ex. 808, Children's Bureau Child & Family Servs. Reviews Fact Sheet (“CFSR Overview”) 1. HHS has established seven outcome measures spread across three categories to grade a state agency's performance:

(1) A title IV–E agency's substantial conformity will be determined by its ability to substantially achieve the following child and family service outcomes:

(i) In the area of child safety:

(A) Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect; and,

(B) Children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate;

(ii) In the area of permanency for children:

(A) Children have permanency and stability in their living situations; and

(B) The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children; and

(iii) In the area of child and family well-being:

(A) Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs;

(B) Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs; and

(C) Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

45 C.F.R. § 1355.34(b)(1). In addition to these seven outcome measures, HHS has adopted six statewide data indicators to assist in determinations of whether a state is in substantial conformity with Title IV–E: (1) the recurrence of maltreatment; (2) the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care; ⁶ (3) the number of re-entries into the foster care system; (4) the length of time to achieve reunification; (5) the length of time to achieve adoption; and (6) the stability of foster care placement. ⁷SeeTitle IV–E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews, 65 Fed.Reg. 4020, 4024 (Jan. 25, 2000) (codified at 45 C.F.R. pts. 1355–1357); see also Admin. Children & Families, U.S. Dep't Health & Human Servs., Background Paper: Child and Family Services Reviews National Standards 1 (2012), available at http:// www. acf. hhs. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ cb/ cfsr background paper. pdf.

States that fail to meet the requirements of a CFSR must draft and implement a Program Improvement Plan (“PIP”) that establishes performance improvement goals in the areas in which the states are not in substantial conformity with federal standards. See CFSR Overview 2. There is great incentive to keep pace with the goals set forth in the PIPs, as states that fail to do so are assessed penalties as punishment for their noncompliance. See id.

C. Child Welfare Standards

National child welfare standards established by the Council on Accreditation (“COA”) and the Child Welfare League of America (“CWLA”) provide the normative backdrop against which DCF's challenged practices and policies must be cast. ⁸

COA is an accrediting organization that performs research on best practices in child welfare and sets professional standards for child welfare agencies. See Trial Tr. vol. 11, 33:5–9, 33:23–34:1, Feb. 28, 2013, ECF No. 335. COA standards are derived both from the opinions of independent panels (comprised of experts drawn from across the social services spectrum) and from the relevant academic literature. Rule 30(b)(6) Dep. Council Accreditation, Richard Klarberg 37:19–20, 41:20–42:4, Aug. 9, 2012, ECF No. 226–1. Standards that have been transcribed in draft form are then disseminated for comment to individuals who have expertise in the applicable field. Id. at 41:14–19, 46:17–22. The comments received are customarily incorporated into...