R.C. ex rel. Ala. Disabilities Advocacy v. Walley

• Decision Date: 16 January 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:88cv1170-ID.
• Citation: 475 F.Supp.2d 1118
• Parties: R.C. by his next friend, THE ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY, PROGRAM, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Page WALLEY, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

475 F.Supp.2d 1118

R.C. by his next friend, THE ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY, PROGRAM, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Page WALLEY, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, Defendant.

Civil Action 2:88cv1170-ID.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

January 16, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ashley Lomers, Barbara A. Lawrence, James A. Tucker, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Douglas Richard Miller Nazarian, Patrick J. Reynolds, Ralph S. Tyler, Hogan & Hartson LLP, Baltimore, MD, Ira A. Burnim, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Troy Robin King, Attorney General's Office, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.

Lisa Marie Mardis, Birmingham, AL, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DE MENT, Senior District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................1122
                 II. JURISDICTION.................................................................1123
                III. STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................1123
                      A. The Standard for Termination of the Consent Decree.......................1123
                         1.   Generally...........................................................1123
                         2.   The Terms of the Consent Decree and its Termination Clause..........1124
                

                              a. Implementation of the "System of Care"...........................1124
                              b. Termination Clause...............................................1124
                              c. The Requirements of the Consent Decree...........................1125
                         3.   Substantial Compliance..............................................1126
                      B. Evidentiary Hearing......................................................1128
                      C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law..................................1129
                 IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND............................................1129
                      A. Brief Summary of R.C.I...................................................1129
                      B. Orders and Pleadings Filed after R.C.I...................................1130
                      C. The Court Monitor's 2006 On-Site Sustainability Reviews..................1132
                  V. DISCUSSION...................................................................1134
                      A. Analysis of Substantial Compliance under the First Prong of the
                Termination Clause of the Consent Decree...............................1134
                      B. Analysis of Substantial Compliance under the Second Prong of the
                Termination Clause of the Consent Decree...............................1136
                         1.   Preliminary Findings Concerning the 2006 On-Site Sustainability
                                Reviews and the Parties' Positions as to What the Reviews Mean
                                in terms of Substantial Compliance................................1137
                         2.   Ratings: Overall Child Status and Overall Performance...............1138
                         3.   Core Purpose One....................................................1139
                         4.   Core Purpose Four...................................................1142
                         5.   Core Purpose Two: Service Delivery and Competent Staff..............1145
                              a.  Service Delivery................................................1145
                              b.  Competent Staff.................................................1146
                                   i. DHR's Demonstrated Compliance with the Court's Order
                                       on Developing a Licensed Child Welfare Social Worker
                                       Workforce..................................................1146
                                  ii. Stakeholders' Reports.......................................1147
                                 iii. Training....................................................1148
                         6.   Core Purpose Two: Appropriate Caseloads.............................1148
                              a. Staffing Allocations and the Child Welfare Staffing Committee....1150
                              b. DHR's Compliance with the Monitoring and Reporting Sections
                                  of Court's 1998 Order...........................................1154
                              c. The Court Monitor's Measurements for Ascertaining Substantial
                                      Compliance with the Court's 1998 Order and Examination
                                  of the Evidence from the 2006 On-Site Sustainability Reviews....1154
                                 i. Counties' Average R.C. Workloads..............................1155
                                ii. Counties' Seven-Month Track Record............................1156
                               iii. Data Pertaining to Percentages of Staff "Over Standards"......1157
                                    Findings Regarding Exception Reports..........................1161
                                    Findings Regarding Staff Turnover.............................1162
                                    Findings Regarding DHR's Good Faith...........................1163
                              d. The Court's Overall Findings of Substantial Compliance Concerning
                                           Core Purpose Two's Goal of Compliant Caseloads.........1164
                         7.   Core Purpose Three..................................................1165
                              a. Positions of the Parties and the Court Monitor...................1166
                              b. Timely Completion of ISPs........................................1166
                              c. Serviceable ISPs.................................................1167
                              d. The 2006 On-Site Sustainability Reviews..........................1168
                              e. Findings.........................................................1169
                         8.   Core Purpose Five...................................................1170
                         9.   The 2006 On-Site Sustainability Reviews: The Three Counties
                                Which the Court Monitor Deemed Were Not in Substantial
                                Compliance with the Consent Decree................................1177
                              a. The Arguments of the Parties.....................................1177
                              b. DHR Has Detected Problems........................................1178
                        10.   Other Noteworthy Evidence...........................................1180
                

                11.   The End of Federal Judicial Supervision Does Not Mean the End
                                of Oversight: DHR's Quality Assurance System and Other
                                Supervision Mechanisms............................................1182
                  VI. CONCLUSION..................................................................1183
                 VII. ORDER........................................................................1185
                

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause is before the court on the second motion for order terminating Consent Decree (Doc. No. 761), filed by the Honorable Page Walley, Ph.D., who by virtue of his position as the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR") is the defendant in this long-running litigation involving institutional reform of DHR's child welfare system.¹ The first motion for order terminating Consent Decree was denied by the court in a memorandum opinion and order entered on May 13, 2005. See R.C. v. Walley ("R.C.I'), 390 F.Supp.2d 1030 (M.D.Ala.2005). In R.C.I, the court found that "Defendant ha[d] not submitted evidence sufficient to sustain his burden of demonstrating that DHR .`is' and .`will remain' in substantial compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree and of the Implementation Plan as required for termination of said Decree." Id. at 1033.

As grounds for his second motion, Defendant asserts that he has submitted an adequate evidentiary record to support termination of the Consent Decree, which has governed in this case since 1991, and that this evidence addresses and cures the deficiencies outlined by the court in R.C.I. Conversely, Plaintiffs, who opposed the first motion and likewise oppose the instant "second" motion, argue that there is no evidentiary basis for termination of the Consent Decree and that continued judicial oversight is necessary to bring Defendant in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree.

After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law and the record as a whole, the court finds that DHR successfully has reformed its child welfare system by developing a system of care which substantially complies with the requirements of the Consent Decree and the Implementation Plan and that judicial oversight is no longer necessary to avoid return to the depraved conditions that led to the commencement of this lawsuit in 1988 and to the court's intervention.² The court finds that Defendant has met his burden of demonstrating DHR's substantial compliance under the Consent Decree's two-pronged termination clause and that, accordingly, Defendant's motion is due to be granted.³

II. JURISDICTION

The Consent Decree bestows upon the court shared authority with the court monitor to determine compliance with the Consent Decree, but sole authority to terminate the Consent Decree upon motion of Defendant. (Consent Decree ¶:¶ 86, 91, 93, entered June 11, 1991 (Doc. No. 235)), as amended by 1999 Consent Order (Doc. No. 511); R.C.I, 390 F.Supp.2d at 1034. A court also maintains inherent jurisdiction over its decrees. See Vanguards of Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 23 F.3d 1013, 1018 (6th Cir.1994); Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir.1985) ("Consent decrees are subject to continuing supervision and enforcement by the court."). The court, thus, acts within its jurisdiction in ruling on the present motion to terminate the Consent Decree.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. The Standard for Termination of the Consent Decree

1. Generally

The court begins with the principles, duly emphasized by Defendant, that Consent Decrees "are not intended to operate in perpetuity," Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), and that "[r]eturning governmental entities to the...