University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Baby Neal v. Casey CW-PA-0002
Docket / Court 2:90-cv-02343-RK ( E.D. Pa. )
State/Territory Pennsylvania
Case Type(s) Child Welfare
Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Public Benefits / Government Services
Attorney Organization ACLU National (all projects)
Children's Rights, Inc.
Case Summary
This class action involving neglected and abused children placed in Philadelphia's foster care system was filed on April 4, 1990, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and Children's Rights, Inc. and ... read more >
This class action involving neglected and abused children placed in Philadelphia's foster care system was filed on April 4, 1990, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and Children's Rights, Inc. and American Civil Liberties Union, sought class action certification as well as declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, President Judge of County Court of Common Pleas, Mayor of Philadelphia, and Department of Human Services, claiming that the defendants responsible for the operation and administration of DHS failed to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements that protect and serve children in the child welfare system. The plaintiffs alleged that the state violated their rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and state law.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that systematic deficiencies prevented DHS from: providing protective service investigations; monitoring and supervising children in state custody; providing safe and secure foster care placements; providing written case plans; providing necessary medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational services; and planning for the return of children to their families or planning to find alternative permanent placements for the children. These deficiencies were, they said, caused by insufficient number of trained caseworkers; insufficient number of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational service providers; insufficient number of trained foster parents; insufficient number of placements for children who need more structured environments than foster homes; insufficient number of potential adoptive parents; and inadequate policies and procedures.

On January 6, 1992, the plaintiff's class certification was denied by the district court. In addition, the court stated that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Next Friends were acting with "a good faith interest" in the children's welfare. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration for class certification and, in the alternative, a Motion to Certify Subclasses on March 20, 1992. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied and the court noted that it could not rule on the Motion to Certify Subclasses at the time. However, the court did grant the plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution of New Next Friends. 1992 WL 58311.

On April 13, 1993, the defendants filed for summary judgment, and the district court partially ruled in their favor. The district court ruled that individuals are not granted a private right of enforcement under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 or the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The district court also granted defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs' claims that their constitutional right to a relationship free from unwarranted governmental interference has been violated and claims that the plaintiffs have a constitutional right to the least restrictive placement. The defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Rehabilitation Act, the Disabilities Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Procedural Due Process Clause were denied. 821 F.Supp. 320.

In May of 1993, the plaintiffs renewed their Motion of Certification for Subclasses. On October 13, 1993, the district court denied the Motion. The court opined that the injunction plaintiffs sought, which consisted of addressing "specific case-by-case deficiencies" of DHS, was not "appropriate" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 151 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Pa. 1993). While the motion was pending, fourteen children intervened (the Third Circuit later noted that this constituted a demonstration that "children in DHS's custody and care continued to be harmed by DHS's failure to provide legally mandated child welfare services." 43 F.3d 48 (3rd Cir. 1994).)

The plaintiffs again sought reconsideration; however, the district court denied the motion and "forbade" the plaintiffs from pursuing further class certification motions. The case was scheduled for trial, but, by 1994, most of the individual service needs of the plaintiffs were met or resolved, and the parties settled the remaining claims, while preserving the plaintiffs' right to appeal class certification denial.

After being denied class and sub-class certification many times, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case, stating that the plaintiffs satisfied all requirements under Rule 23 and that forcing DHS to comply with state and constitutional mandates would constitute relief applicable to the entire class. The fact that the plaintiffs sought only injunctive and declaratory relief, rather than damages, also enhanced the "appropriateness" of class certification. In addition, the Third Circuit opined that the district court abused its discretion by denying the class certification. 43 F.3d 48 (3rd Cir. 1994).

On December 7, 1995, the plaintiffs filed for a Motion of Reconsideration regarding the district court's April 13, 1993 Order, which granted in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs sought reinstatement of their claims under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The district court denied the Motion, stating that the Motion was untimely and baseless. 1995 WL 728589.

According to the docket sheet, the plaintiffs and city defendants filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on October 5, 1998, and the court granted preliminary approval the following November. The remaining defendants also reached settlement agreements with the plaintiffs. From mid-November of 1998 to September of 2001, the court approved all settlement agreements between plaintiffs and defendants.

Alice Liu - 04/03/2013

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Benefit Source
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Crowding / caseload
Least restrictive environment
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Classification / placement
Failure to train
Family abuse and neglect
Family reunification
Foster care (benefits, training)
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Individualized planning
Neglect by staff
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Reassessment and care planning
Relative caretakers
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Medical/Mental Health
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Causes of Action Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
State law
Defendant(s) Children and Youth Division of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services
Department of Human Services of the City of Philadelphia
Department of Public Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Governor of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Mayor of Philadelphia
President Judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are abused and neglected children placed in the custody of Philadelphia's Department of Human Services.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National (all projects)
Children's Rights, Inc.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Filed 04/04/1990
Case Closing Year 2001
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Legal Accountability in the Service-Based Welfare State: Lessons from Child Welfare Reform
Date: Summer 2009
By: Kathleen G. Noonan, Charles F. Sabel, William H. Simon (Center for High Impact Philanthropy , Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School Faculty)
Citation: 34 Law & Soc. Inquiry 523 (Summer 2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Casenote, "Can You Hear Me?" The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Addresses the Systemic Deficiencies of the Philadelphia Child Welfare System in Baby Neal v. Casey
Date: June 1996
By: Scott J. Preston
Citation: 29 Creighton L. Rev. 1653 (1996)
[ Detail ]

  Baby Neal v. Casey
Juvenile Law Center
Date: May 9, 1994
By: Juvenile Law Center
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Baby Neal v. Casey
National Center for Youth Law
By: National Center for Youth Law
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
E.D. Pa.
CW-PA-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D. Pa.
Opinion [ECF# 116] (1992 WL 58311)
CW-PA-0002-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
E.D. Pa.
Opinion [ECF# 176] (821 F.Supp. 320)
CW-PA-0002-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
E.D. Pa.
Opinion [ECF# 188] (151 F.R.D. 282)
CW-PA-0002-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Court of Appeals
Opinion (43 F.3d 48)
CW-PA-0002-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
E.D. Pa.
Opinion [ECF# 230] (1995 WL 728589)
CW-PA-0002-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
show all people docs
Judges Becker, Edward Roy (E.D. Pa., Third Circuit) show/hide docs
Cowen, Robert E. (D.N.J., Third Circuit) show/hide docs
Garth, Leonard I. (D.N.J., Third Circuit) show/hide docs
Kelly, Robert F. (E.D. Pa.) show/hide docs
CW-PA-0002-0001 | CW-PA-0002-0003 | CW-PA-0002-0004 | CW-PA-0002-0005 | CW-PA-0002-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Chawaga, Stephen Paul (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Dahlberg, Robin L. (New York) show/hide docs
Firestein, Rose E. (New York) show/hide docs
Fox, Lawrence J. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Kohart, Mary E. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Lambiase, Susan (New York) show/hide docs
Lowry, Marcia Robinson (New York) show/hide docs
Mushlin, Michael B. (New York) show/hide docs
Park, Rachel (New York) show/hide docs
Peters, Mark G. (New York) show/hide docs
Presser, Stefan (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Rapuano, Lori J. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Robb, E. Graham (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Saint-Antoine, Paul H. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
WOOLDRIDGE, Ann A. (New York) show/hide docs
Defendant's Lawyers Booth, Christopher R. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Brown, Mary Kay (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Brown, Marianne (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Brown, Lorray (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
First, Jefferey B. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Hairston, Roosevelt Jr (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Johns, Charles W. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Kessler, Alan C. (New Jersey) show/hide docs
Ryan, Patrick T. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Shestack, Jerome J. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Singley, Carl E. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
Williams, A. Taylor (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -