Named Plaintiff Juan F. was 10 years old at the time the complaint was filed. He was removed from his mother in 1985 without the state first attempting to keep him with his family. During his first three years in foster care, Juan was bounced among 11 different foster homes until he was finally evaluated at a mental health clinic, which recommended treatment and a goal of adoption. Instead, however, Juan was next placed in a short-term shelter facility for 11 months. Visits from ever-changing caseworkers were rare and inconsistent. Juan was never able to visit with his sister and brother, from whom he was separated when he entered foster care. After four years in foster care, he still had not received adequate efforts toward finding him an adoptive home.
Named Plaintiffs Dominique and Patrick S. are brothers who were ages seven and five at the time the complaint was filed. Despite multiple reports of severe neglect by their biological parents, cursory investigations failed to identify the danger the children were living in. It was not until police responded to a call and found the boys living in squalid conditions with no food, no furniture and drug paraphernalia around them that they were removed from their home and placed into foster care. The caseworker assigned to them had been employed for only five months, had received no training and had been given a caseload of almost 100 children.
U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
STATUS: Monitoring
FILED: December 19, 1989
SETTLEMENT REACHED: January 7, 1991; current Exit Plan renegotiated and approved July 11, 2006
Children’s Rights, along with local advocates in Connecticut, filed this case against the Governor of Connecticut and the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) on behalf of a class of current and future children in foster care and children not in state custody who are at risk of maltreatment. The Complaint alleged dangerous and unlawful policies and practices of the defendants, including the failure to provide adequate child protective services, the failure to make reasonable efforts to keep families together and the failure to provide minimally adequate staffing and appropriate care for children.
The parties settled the case in 1991. Initial implementation and enforcement faced many challenges and numerous administrations, whose leadership and attention to problems facing vulnerable children was extremely inconsistent. Infrastructure investments improved, but leadership was so compromised that in 2003, Children’s Rights filed a motion for contempt that led to the voluntary handover of express management authority over DCF to a task force headed by the Court Monitor. That process laid the groundwork for the current completely renegotiated Modified Revised Exit Plan, approved by the federal court in 2006, which focuses on required outcome improvements in 22 areas that DCF must meet to adequately protect the vulnerable children in its custody.
While some key problems remain, as a result of the efforts of Children’s Rights and its co-counsel Steven Frederick at Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP in Stamford, this legal reform campaign has been successful in bringing about substantial reforms for children in Connecticut. For example:
- Improved safety for children in foster care – the percent of children maltreated while in state custody decreased from 3.1 percent in 2000 to 0.2 percent in 2014.
- In 1989, approximately 60 percent of reports of abuse and neglect were not investigated at all due to staff shortages; since 2006, virtually all reports of abuse or neglect are investigated, and consistently over 90 percent of all investigations are initiated promptly.
- The percent of siblings in foster care who are placed together increased from a baseline of 57 percent in 2005 to 90.6 percent in 2014 (59% increase), measured against the standard of 95 percent or higher.
- In 1989, caseworkers routinely failed to make required visits with children in state custody; since 2007, consistently, at least 95 percent of children in foster care are visited at least once per month.
- In the last three years, under the current DCF leadership, the placement of children in foster care with relatives has increased from 21 percent to over 33 percent.
- Also in the last three years, the use of non-family group placements has dropped by 32 percent percent, which translates to almost 600 fewer children in facilities and institutions; the use of out-of-state facilities has dropped from 364 children to 26.
However, the most recent Quarterly Report, released in July 2014, flags several important areas of inadequate performance:
- DCF meets children’s service needs, including medical, dental, and mental health services, in only 57 percent of cases. This is down from a high performance mark of over 74 percent one year earlier, and far short of the 80 percent standard.
- The quality of case planning, a key tool for aligning appropriate housing and services for children, remains inadequate. Compliance dropped to 52 percent of cases sampled, down from a high performance mark of 65 percent in the third quarter of 2013, and far short of the 90 percent standard.
- DCF’s effort to support children with community based placements and services has failed to keep pace with the reduction in the historical overuse of facilities and institutions. The most recent 2014 Monitoring Report found “thousands of children and families in need of behavioral health, substance abuse, educational, medical, domestic violence, permanency and other services” and that “many more foster homes, both relative and non-relative, are needed to serve children with complex issues.”
- Alongside a recent spike in reports of abuse, the most recent Monitoring Report found many workers with caseloads over court-ordered limits, and a resulting negative impact on “the quality of the casework services.”
Children’s Rights and its co-counsel continue to work hard with the Court Monitor and the DCF leadership, and we continue to gather information from key stakeholders on the ground to address these remaining problems and move the agency forward. In order to successfully comply and exit from federal court involvement , the defendants must hit and then hold all the 22 outcome measures of the Revised Exit Plan for two consecutive quarters, and Children’s Rights will continue its work in Connecticut until required improvements are achieved.
Complaint
Full text of the complaint filed by Children’s Rights and co-counsel against the state of Connecticut seeking comprehensive reform of the child welfare system.
Consent Decree
Full text of the settlement agreement between Children’s Rights and Connecticut officials, mandating reform of the Department of Children and Families.
Stipulated Order
Full text of the stipulated order giving management authority over DCF to the court monitor, as a result of the state’s failure to implement court-ordered reforms.
Exit Plan
Full text of the 2004 exit plan, which details specific reforms and outcome measures required by the consent decree.
2005 Annual Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering DCF’s performance during 2005.
Revised Exit Plan
Full text of the 2006 revised exit plan.
2006 First Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 31, 2006.
2006 Second Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2006.
2006 Third Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1 through September 30, 2006.
2006 Fourth Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1 through December 31, 2006.
2006 Annual Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering DCF performance in 2006.
2007 First Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 31, 2007.
2007 Second Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2007.
2007 Third Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1 through September 30, 2007.
Emergency Shelter Report
Court monitor’s report on DCF’s use of emergency shelters and other congregate care facilities for children.
2008 First Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 31, 2008.
Notice of Noncompliance
Letter seeking partial federal takeover of DCF, citing defendents’ failure to comply with court-ordered requirements related to planning for foster children and meeting their service needs.
Corrective Action Plan
Federal court order requiring DCF to correct persistent problems related to over-reliance on group placements, lack of foster parents and delivery of critical services to children.
2008 Second Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2008.
2008 Third Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1 through September 30, 2008.
2008 Fourth Quarterly Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.
2009 First Quarter Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 31, 2009.
2009 Second Quarter Monitoring Report
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2009.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (December 9, 2009)
Memorandum in Support of TRO (December 9, 2009)
Affidavit of Martha Stone, executive director of Center for Children’s Advocacy (December 9, 2009)
Motion and related documents requesting a temporary restraining order blocking spending cuts that would close Connecticut’s Voluntary Services Program, aimed at treating vulnerable children at home rather than taking them into state custody.
2009 Third Quarter Monitoring Report (December 22, 2009)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1 through September 30, 2009.
2009 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report (March 31, 2010)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1 through December 31, 2009.
Notice of Noncompliance (April 12, 2010)
Letter to DCF and court-appointed monitor asserting DCF’s continued violation of federal court orders mandating improvements in the treatment of Connecticut’s vulnerable children and families.
2010 First Quarter Monitoring Report (June 25, 2010)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 30, 2010.
2010 Second Quarter Monitoring Report (September 17, 2010)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2010.
2010 Third Quarter Monitoring Report (December 22, 2010)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1 through September 30, 2010.
2010 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report (March 22, 2011)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1 through December 31, 2010.
2011 First Quarter Monitoring Report (June 22, 2011)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 31, 2011.
2011 Second Quarter Monitoring Report (October 2011)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2011.
2011 Third Quarter Monitoring Report (January 2012)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1 through September 30, 2011.
2011 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report (April 2012)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1 through December 31, 2011.
2012 First Quarter Monitoring Report (July 2012)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1 through March 31, 2012.
2012 Second Quarter Monitoring Report (September 2012)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 through June 30, 2012.
2012 Third Quarter Monitoring Report (January 2013)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012.
2012 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report (April 2013)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
2013 First Quarter Monitoring Report (June 2013)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013.
2013 Second Quarter Monitoring Report (October 2013)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013.
2013 Third Quarter Monitoring Report (January 2014)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013.
2014 First Quarter Monitoring Report (July 2014)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1, 2014 through March 31, 2014.
2014 Second Quarter Monitoring Report (October 2014)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1 , 2014 through June 30, 2014.
2014 3rd Quarter Monitoring Report (January 2015)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from July 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014.
2014 4th Quarter Monitoring Report (April 2015)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014.
2015 First Quarter Monitoring Report (July 2015)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015.
2015 Second and Third Quarter Monitoring Report (January 2016)
Court monitor’s report covering the period from April 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015.
Exit Plan Status Report (August 2016)
Report covering the period from October 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016.
Revised Exit Plan (September 2016)
Exit Plan Status Report (February 2017)
Report covering April 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016.
Time Study – Final Report (March 2017)
Monitor’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (May 2017)
Monitor’s Revised Exit Plan (May 2017)
Exit Plan Status Report covering October 1, 2016 – March 31, 2017
2017 Revised Exit Plan
Exit Plan Status Report covering October 1, 2017 – March 31, 2018
Juan F. Strategic Plan (April 25, 2018)
Exit Plan Status Report covering October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019