On May 10, 2000, children in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (including a subclass of African American foster care children) filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, against the state of Tennessee. The plaintiffs, represented by Children’s Rights and private counsel, sought to enjoin the state from subjecting class members to practices that violated their rights.
The plaintiffs alleged that the state violated their substantive and procedural due process rights arising from the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and relevant regulations; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The African American class members also alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations, 42 C.F.R. §80.3 et seq.
Specific alleged violations included the state’s placement of children in restrictive institutional settings, placement in emergency shelters for long periods of time, large caseloads and inadequately trained caseworkers, inappropriate foster placements, and too-frequent foster placements. In sum, the actions (or inaction) of the state endangered the health and well-being of the children in the class.
The district court (Judge Todd J. Campbell) denied the state’s motion to dismiss on October 26, 2000. 149 F.Supp.2d 941. The court urged negotiation of a settlement agreement, which was later approved in July 2001. The settlement agreement called for DCS to hire more caseworkers and to provide better training for them; develop new placements; and improve the computerized management system. It also required better review systems measuring the percentage of outcomes in different areas impacting foster care and an assessment for disparities related to African American children in care. Finally, an independent monitor was appointed to report on compliance.
Following a monitor report that documented DCS’s substantial failure to comply with the agreement, the plaintiffs filed a contempt motion on November 4, 2003. At that point, DCS was in full compliance with only 24 of 136 provisions. The plaintiffs requested an independent administrator to create a plan for implementing the remaining terms.
In December 2003, the parties settled the contempt motion. They agreed that DCS would collaborate with a technical assistance committee of five child welfare experts to develop a new implementation plan, which was later approved by the court in August 2004.
Although the progress of the implementation plan was slow at first, DCS improved in areas such as staffing and data reporting. The settlement agreement was modified in May 2007, October 2008, and December 2009. The plaintiffs reported that the new DCS leadership team had made strides in many areas including placing more foster children with families and reducing institutional placements. However, Children’s Rights also reported that they would remain in place as a watchdog to hold the agency accountable until all court-ordered reforms were implemented. Periodically, the parties filed modified settlement agreements and exit plans, which recognized the state’s progress and set out specific requirements needed in order for the state to successfully complete the court-ordered improvements and end court involvement.
On April 11, 2016, the district court ruled that DCS had reached all of the mandated goals to overhaul its foster care system. The state then entered a yearlong holding period, during which it had to sustain its performance on every measure before requesting an end to the court oversight.
On April 27, 2016, the court approved the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, ordering the defendants to pay $186,000. On April 5, 2017, the court approved an additional $135,000 in post-judgment attorneys’ fees. Finally, on November 27, 2017 and January 18, 2019, the court approved additional attorneys’ fee awards of $226,000 and $35,000.
On January 10, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. On July 17, 2017, having found that DCS had largely maintained its compliance, the court issued a modified settlement agreement and exit plan. The court terminated its jurisdiction over all matters except for the section of the exit plan pertaining to the external accountability reporting structure. Specifically, DCS was tasked with creating an external accountability reporting center and the court retained jurisdiction to monitor this portion of the agreement for 18 months. Upon the court’s termination of jurisdiction, the Center would begin public reporting.
On January 17, 2019, DCS filed an unopposed notice of compliance with the relevant section of the exit plan. On February 25, 2019, the court dismissed the case, terminating its jurisdiction.
Ariana Fink - 12/01/2012
Jessica Kincaid - 04/19/2016
Eva Richardson - 02/03/2019
Gregory Marsh - 07/07/2020
compress summary
