Massachusetts Child Welfare Federal Appeal Opinion Upholding Dismissal of Lawsuit

8/20/2019 Massachusetts Child Welfare Federal Appeal Opinion Upholding Dismissal of Lawsuit

1/40

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2467

CONNOR B. , by hi s next f r i end Rochel l e Vi gur s; ADAM S. , by hi snext f r i end Deni se Sul l i van; CAMI LA R. , by her next f r i end Br yanCl auson; ANDRE S. , by hi s next f r i end J ul i a Pear son; SETH T. , byhi s next f r i end Susan Kr amer ; and RAKEEM D. , by hi s next f r i end

Br yan Cl auson, f or t hemsel ves and t hose si mi l ar l y si t uat ed,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

DEVAL L. PATRI CK, i n hi s capaci t y as Governor of t he Commonweal t hof Massachuset t s; J OHN POLANOWI CZ, i n hi s capaci t y as Secr etary

of t he Massachuset t s Execut i ve Of f i ce of Heal t h and HumanSer vi ces; and ERI N DEVENEY, i n her capaci t y as I nt er i m

Commi ss i oner of t he Massachuset t s Depar t ment of Chi l dr en andFami l i es,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eLynch, Chi ef J udge,

Sel ya and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Sara M. Bart osz, wi t h whom Marci a Robi nson Lowr y, Rachel B.Ni l i , Sar ah T. Russo, Chi l dr en' s Ri ght s, Mar y K. Ryan, Dani el J .Gl eason, J onathan D. Per sky, and Nut t er McCl ennen & Fi sh, LLP wereon br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Li za J . Tr an, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whom Mar t haCoakl ey, At t or ney Gener al of Massachuset t s, was on br i ef , f orappel l ees.

Andrew C. Gl ass, Stacey L. Gorman, and K&L Gates LLP, on br i ef f or Cent er f or Publ i c Repr esent at i on, J uveni l e Law Cent er ,

Case: 13-2467 Document: 00116776092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2014 Entry ID: 587386


2/40

Massachuset t s J uveni l e Bar Associ at i on, Nat i onal Cent er f or Yout hLaw, and Yout h Law Cent er , as ami ci cur i ae i n support of pl ai nt i f f s - appel l ant s .

December 15, 2014



3/40

LYNCH, Chief Judge. There i s a common underst andi ng i n

t hi s case, shared by both the Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s and the

pl ai nt i f f s, t hat t he Massachuset t s Depar t ment of Chi l dr en and

Fami l i es' ( DCF) admi ni st r at i on of t he f ost er car e syst emhas f l aws

and i s i n need of i mpr ovement . I n some i nst ances, t hese f l aws have

l ed t o hor r i f i c and hear t br eaki ng out comes f or chi l dr en.

Pl ai nt i f f s, admi r abl y concer ned about f ost er chi l dr en,

seek t o have a f ederal cour t both or der and over see i mpr ovement s.

"A f eder al cour t , of cour se, must i dent i f y a const i t ut i onal

pr edi cat e f or t he i mposi t i on of any af f i r mat i ve dut y on a St at e. "

Youngber g v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 319 n. 25 ( 1982) . The pl ai nt i f f s

have art i cul ated convi nci ng moral argument s t hat Massachuset t s

shoul d do bet t er . But t hey have not est abl i shed, based on t he

f act s, t hat t her e have been const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons as t o t he

cl ass of f ost er chi l dr en, so t hey ar e not ent i t l ed t o an i nj unct i on

or f eder al cour t over si ght . I mpr ovement s i n t he syst em must come

t hr ough t he nor mal st at e pol i t i cal pr ocesses. The pr obl ems ar e now

f or t he Gover nor and l egi sl at ur e of Massachuset t s t o r esol ve.

Si x chi l dr en br ought t hi s cl ass act i on i n f eder al

di st r i ct cour t on behal f of about 8, 500 chi l dr en who ar e or wi l l be

commi t t ed t o Massachuset t s f ost er car e cust ody as a r esul t of t hei r

havi ng suf f er ed f r om abuse or negl ect . These si x pl ai nt i f f s di d

not seek i ndi vi dual r el i ef , but r el i ef on behal f of t he cl ass.

They asser t ed t hat DCF so exposes t he pl ai nt i f f cl ass t o har m or

-3-



4/40

t he r i sk of har m t hat i t vi ol at es var i ous Amendment s t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on, as wel l as t he Adopt i on Assi st ance and Chi l d

Wel f are Act of 1980 ( AACWA) , 42 U. S. C. §§ 670 et seq.

Af t er t he pl ai nt i f f s f ul l y pr esent ed t hei r evi dence at

t r i al , and af t er t he def endant s exami ned t wo f ur t her wi t nesses but

bef or e t hey put on t hei r whol e case, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

j udgment on t he r ecor d, under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 52( c) , f or t he

def endant s on al l cl ai ms. Connor B. ex r el . Vi gur s v. Pat r i ck, 985

F. Supp. 2d 129, 138 n. 10, 166 ( D. Mass. 2013) . The di st r i ct

cour t ' s car ef ul f act ual f i ndi ngs ar e suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, and

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal concl usi ons cont ai n no er r or s of l aw.

We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on.

I .

A. Li t i gat i on

Sui t 1 was f i l ed on Apr i l 15, 2010, agai nst t he Gover nor

of Massachuset t s, t he Secr et ar y of t he Execut i ve Of f i ce of Heal t h

and Human Ser vi ces, and t he Commi ssi oner of DCF, i n t hei r of f i ci al

capaci t i es. The def endant s ar e al l eged t o have admi ni st er ed t he

f ost er car e system i n vi ol at i on of t he subst ant i ve and pr ocedur al

1 The pl ai nt i f f s ar e r epr esent ed by Chi l dr en' s Ri ght s, a

nonpr of i t advocacy or gani zat i on t hat has br ought ot her si mi l arcases, among other s. See Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 133 n. 2;see al so, e. g. , DG ex rel . St r i ckl i n v. Devaughn, 594 F. 3d 1188( 10t h Ci r . 2010) ( af f i r mi ng cl ass cer t i f i cat i on i n sui t agai nstOkl ahoma' s f ost er car e syst em) ; Cassi e M. ex rel . I r ons v. Chaf ee,16 F. Supp. 3d 33 ( D. R. I . 2014) ( gr ant i ng j udgment f or def endant son t he r ecor d i n sui t agai nst Rhode I sl and' s f ost er car e system) .

-4-



5/40

component s of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Fourt eenth Amendment ,

t he const i t ut i onal r i ght t o f ami l i al associ at i on, and t wo r i ght s

ar i si ng f r om t he AACWA, al l r esul t i ng i n har m t o f ost er chi l dr en

whi l e i n DCF' s care. Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 133

( summar i zi ng al l egat i ons) . The pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt sought a

br oad i nj unct i on pr event i ng t he def endant s " f r om subj ect i ng

Pl ai nt i f f Chi l dr en t o pr acti ces t hat vi ol at e t hei r r i ght s. " They

al so sought hi ghl y speci f i c i nj unct i ve or der s whi ch ar e set f or t h

i n Appendi x A. These pr oposed orders cont ai n subcategor i es,

i ncl udi ng or der s gover ni ng casel oad l i mi t s, compr ehensi ve t r ai ni ng

pr ogr ams, assessment s of addi t i onal servi ces f or each chi l d,

moni t or i ng, vi si t at i on r i ght s, case pl ans, qual i t y assur ance

syst ems, per f ormance- based cont r act moni t or i ng, mai nt enance r ates,

and appoi nt ment of exper t moni t or s. I n some of t hese ar eas, t he

pl ai nt i f f s sought adopt i on of st andar ds f r ompr i vat e or gani zat i ons

such as t he Counci l on Accr edi t at i on and t he Chi l d Wel f ar e League

of Amer i ca. Pl ai nt i f f s al so sought t hei r at t or neys' f ees, as wel l

as cost s and expenses. 2

The di st r i ct cour t soon cer t i f i ed t he desi r ed cl ass on

Febr uar y 28, 2011. Connor B. ex r el . Vi gur s v. Pat r i ck, 272 F. R. D.

288, 291 ( D. Mass. 2011) . The cl ass consi st s of "al l chi l dr en who

2 See gener al l y, e. g. , Per due v. Kenny A. ex r el . Wi nn, 559U. S. 542 ( 2010) ( di scussi ng t he cal cul at i on of at t or neys' f eesaf t er a consent decr ee i n a cl ass act i on by f ost er car e chi l dr enagai nst Geor gi a) .

-5-



6/40


7/40

management of f ost er car e has been l ess t han st el l ar , " t he f act s

di d not demonst r at e cl ass- wi de const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons, nor a

vi ol at i on of t he AACWA, and so i nj unct i ve r el i ef was not war r ant ed.

I d. at 162- 66. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

B. Fi ndi ngs

We f i r st r ecount undi sput ed backgr ound mater i al and

f i ndi ngs t o set t he cont ext . The hi st or y of bot h abused chi l dr en

and ef f or t s t o i mpr ove t he car e of chi l dr en i n Massachuset t s f ost er

car e cust ody pr ecedes the Apr i l 2010 f i l i ng of sui t . I n 2006, i n

r eact i on t o sever al hi gh- pr of i l e f ai l ur es by DCF, t he Massachuset t s

st at e l egi sl at ur e est abl i shed a commi t t ee t o st udy t he st at e' s

chi l d wel f ar e syst em. That commi t t ee i ssued a r epor t ent i t l ed

"Fi r st , Do No Har m, " whi ch l ed t o t he enact ment i n J ul y 2008 of

st at e l egi sl at i on r ef or mi ng DCF' s appr oach t o chi l dr en i n i t s car e.

See 2008 Mass. Act s ch. 176.

I n J une 2007, al so bef or e t hi s l i t i gat i on was br ought , a

new Commi ss i oner , Ant hony "Angel o" McCl ai n, arr i ved at DCF wi t h a

mandate t o moderni ze and t r ansf ormt he depar t ment . I n May 2008, he

began devel opment of a new st r ategi c pl an, i nvol vi ng a r ange of

i deas f or i mpr ovement f r om publ i c and pr i vat e sour ces. The goal

was t o adopt a subset of t hose i deas, t hose that were consonant

wi t h t he st at e' s cont ext and compl ement ar y to DCF' s exi st i ng

pr ogr ams. Thi s pl anni ng pr ocess l ed t o over 500 r ecommendat i ons,

whi ch t he Commi ss i oner pr i or i t i zed and addr essed. DCF then adopt ed

-7-



8/40

some of t hose recommendat i ons i n t he 2009 st r ategi c pl an and

i ni t i at ed demonst r abl e ef f or t s t o i mpl ement t hem. For exampl e, DCF

has made use of casewor ker s mor e ef f i ci ent and l ess abr asi ve f or

f ami l i es. I t r educed t he number of casewor ker s t hat deal t wi t h

f ami l i es at t he i ni t i al screeni ng, f r om t hr ee casewor ker s t o t wo,

and r eassi gned t he t hi r d casewor ker ' s r esponsi bi l i t i es t o t he ot her

t wo. Thi s meant f ami l i es coul d r educe t he number of DCF workers

wi t h whomt hey i nt er act ed and br i ef ed on t hei r si t uat i on. DCF al so

ext ended t he t i me al l ot t ed f or i ni t i al screeni ngs, so t hose

scr eeni ngs coul d be more t horough and i nvol ve i nput f r oma br oader

var i et y of peopl e. The goal of t hi s pr ocess, as t he Commi ssi oner

expl ai ned at t r i al , was t o i nst i t ut e "cont i nuous ef f or t s t o get

bet t er . . . each mont h, each quar t er . " Thi s ef f or t pr eceeded

f i l i ng of t hi s sui t .

Most of t he sever e abuses t he si x named pl ai nt i f f s

exper i enced whi l e i n DCF cust ody were bef ore or dur i ng 2009.

Sever al of t he si x named pl ai nt i f f s suf f er ed i nst ances of r ape,

sexual abuse, beat i ngs, f or ce- f eedi ng, and mal t r eat ment . For

exampl e, Connor B. at age si x was pl aced i n a home wi t h a t eenager

known t o be at r i sk f or sexual l y abusi ng younger chi l dr en and was

r epeat edl y r aped. Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 141. The t eenager

was r emoved and DCF r evoked t he l i cense of t he f aci l i t y. I d. The

di st r i ct cour t pr ovi ded a f ul l er descri pt i on of t hese abuses. I d. ;

-8-



9/40

see al so Connor B. , 272 F. R. D. at 291- 92 ( r ecount i ng t he

al l egat i ons of each named pl ai nt i f f f r om t he compl ai nt ) .

DCF has cont i nued i t s moder ni zat i on ef f or t s si nce t he

f i l i ng of t hi s l awsui t . For exampl e, DCF i s updat i ng i t s

assessment pr ot ocol s f or i t s del i ver y of ser vi ces t o f ocus on t he

chi l d' s cur r ent wel l - bei ng and t o yi el d "pr act i cal act i onabl e

i nf or mat i on, " dr awi ng f r om t wo nat i onal cl i ni cal appr oaches.

I t i s al so t r ue t hat DCF t ook over $100 mi l l i on i n budget

cut s over t he f i ve year s f ol l owi ng t he 2008 r ecessi on.

Nonethel ess, af t er sui t was br ought , DCF devel oped a second

st r at egi c pl an, f or 2012- 15, seeki ng t o bui l d on t he f i r st set of

pr ocess and st r uct ur al i mpr ovement s and to i mpr ove t he cont ent of

car e.

DCF' s st r at egi c pl an has al so l ed t o pr ogr ess and

i mpr ovement s f or chi l dr en i n DCF' s car e. For t he year s si nce 1997

f or whi ch f eder al dat a i s avai l abl e, over 98% of chi l dr en i n t he

f ost er car e syst em di d not suf f er f r om any abuse or negl ect .

Connor B. , 985 F. 3d at 139- 40. Of t he one- t o- t wo percent who di d

suf f er one i nci dent of abuse, i t has become mor e unl i kel y t hey wi l l

suf f er a second i nst ance. I n 2009, about 88% of t hat smal l

per cent age of chi l dr en who di d suf f er an i nci dent of abuse or

negl ect made no second support ed al l egat i on of abuse or negl ect

wi t hi n t he next year . By 2011, 92% of t hat one- t o- t wo per cent who

had been abused once i n cust ody di d not suf f er f ur t her abuse.

-9-



10/40

DCF' s st r at egi c pl an i dent i f i ed as a pr obl em t hat i t

l agged behi nd ot her st at es i n i t s r at e of pl aci ng chi l dr en wi t h

f ami l y ( "ki nshi p pl acement " ) . At t r i al , t he Commi ssi oner admi t t ed

f al l i ng shor t of t he st at e st at ut or y st andar d f or ki nshi p

pl acement . 4 The r eason was, i n par t , because t he chi l dr en' s f ami l y

members of t en encount ered chal l enges i n t he backgr ound check

pr ocess, f or exampl e due t o a past cr i mi nal convi ct i on. I n

r esponse, as par t of what DCF has cal l ed t he "Ki n Fi r st "

i ni t i at i ve, DCF made i t easi er f or f ami l y member s t o get backgr ound

check wai ver s, whi ch hel ped i ncr ease t he number of chi l dr en i n

ki nshi p pl acement s f r om20% t o between 27% and 28% over t he cour se

of t he 2009 st r at egi c pl an. The number of chi l dr en i n f ami l y

set t i ngs who ar e al so i n ki nshi p pl acement s i ncr eased t o bet ween

55% and 60% over t he same t i me. That progr ess has been noted.

Massachuset t s of f i ci al s, i ncl udi ng t he Secret ar y of t he Execut i ve

Of f i ce of Heal t h and Human Ser vi ces, r ecogni zed DCF f or i t s sel f -

4 By st at ut e and r egul at i on, Massachuset t s expr esses apr ef er ence f or pl acement of chi l dr en wi t h t hei r ki n when doi ng soi s i n t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l d. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.119, § 23( c) ( "Whenever t he depar t ment pl aces a chi l d i n f ost ercare, t he depart ment shal l i mmedi atel y commence a sear ch t o l ocat eany rel at i ve of t he chi l d or ot her adul t per son who has pl ayed as i gni f i cant pos i t i ve rol e i n t hat chi l d' s l i f e i n order t o

determi ne whether t he chi l d may appr opr i atel y be pl aced wi t h t hatr el at i ve or per son i f , i n t he j udgment of t he depar t ment , t hatpl acement woul d be i n t he best i nt er est of t he chi l d. " ( emphasi sadded) ) ; 110 Mass. Code. Regs. § 7. 101( 2) ( 2014) ( "The Depar t mentshal l consi der , consi st ent wi t h t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l d,t he f ol l owi ng pl acement r esour ces i n t he f ol l owi ng or der : ( a)pl acement wi t h a ki nshi p f ami l y . . . . " ( emphasi s added) ) .

-10-



11/40

di r ected i mpr ovement ef f ort s i n 2012 and 2013, and t he f ederal

gover nment sel ected DCF t o par t i ci pat e wi t h a handf ul of ot her

st at es i n a pi l ot pr ogr am and awar ded DCF a gr ant t o t r ai n i t s

st akehol der s on t r auma- i nf or med pr act i ces.

Turni ng t o addi t i onal f i ndi ngs f r omt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

opi ni on, whi ch we do not r epeat i n f ul l , t hey reach a wi de swat h of

DCF' s act i vi t i es. 5 For exampl e, t he cour t f ound t hat chi l dr en i n

DCF cust ody6 r ecei ve "r el at i vel y rare" vi s i t s f rom t hei r f ami l y.

I d. at 142- 43. "DCF regul ar l y makes use of a var i et y of shor t - t er m

5 The pl ai nt i f f s of f er ed evi dence f r om st udi es conduct ed byt he Chi l dr en' s Resear ch Cent er , exper t t est i mony, t est i mony of DCFof f i ci al s, f eder al r epor t i ng, and st andar ds est abl i shed by nat i onalchi l d wel f ar e or gani zat i ons. See Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at136- 40 & n. 10.

6 A chi l d mi ght ent er DCF cust ody by means of t hr ee di f f erentpr ocedur es, as r el evant her e, goi ng t hr ough t he st at e cour t syst em.Fi r st , t he nor mal pr ocedur e t o commi t a chi l d t o cust ody requi r es

not i ce, an i ndependent i nvest i gat i on, a hear i ng, and a j udi ci aldet er mi nat i on t hat t he par ent i s unf i t by cl ear and convi nci ngevi dence. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, §§ 24- 26; Adopt i on of Car l os, 596 N. E. 2d 1383, 1388- 90 ( Mass. 1992) . Second, t heemer gency pr ocedur e al l ows t r ansf er of a chi l d t o 72- hour cust odyi f "t he cour t i s sat i sf i ed af t er [ someone] t est i f i es under oat ht hat t her e i s r easonabl e cause t o bel i eve t hat : ( i ) t he chi l d i ssuf f er i ng f r om ser i ous abuse or negl ect or i s i n i mmedi at e dangerof ser i ous abuse or negl ect ; and ( i i ) t hat i mmedi at e r emoval of t hechi l d i s necessar y t o pr ot ect t he chi l d. . . . " Mass. Gen. Lawsch. 119, § 24. Fi nal l y, t he pr ocedur e f or t empor ar y cust odypendi ng t he st at ut or y hear i ng r equi r es t hat a cour t f i r st cer t i f y

t hat "cont i nuat i on of t he chi l d i n [ t he chi l d' s] home i s cont r ar yt o [ t he chi l d' s] best i nt er est s and" DCF at t empt ed t o "pr event orel i mi nat e t he need f or r emoval f r om t he home. " I d. §§ 25, 29C. Atal l t hese pr oceedi ngs, t he chi l d and t he par ent have t he r i ght t ocounsel . I d. § 29. See gener al l y Ki ndr egan, J r . et al . , 3 Mass.Prac. , Fam. Law & Prac. § 87. 1 ( 4t h ed. ) ( summar i zi ng t hesepr ocedur es) .

-11-



12/40

pl acement s, " whi ch "di sr upt t he l i ves of chi l dr en i n car e. " I d. at

143. Onl y "bet ween 43%and 50%of chi l dr en r ecei ved mont hl y vi si t s

f r om [ ] casewor ker s, " and t he cour t acknowl edged t hat t her e i s "a

cor r el at i on [ ] bet ween t he f r equency of casewor ker vi si t s and

f avor abl e f ost er car e out comes. " I d. at 146. Fewer t han 20% of

chi l dr en r ecei ve a t i mel y medi cal scr eeni ng on ent r y i nt o f ost er

car e. I d. at 148. Up t o 35% of chi l dr en l ack an i ndi vi dual i zed

case pl an f or t hei r t i me i n f ost er car e, and many of t he r emai nder

have i ncompl et e case pl ans. I d. at 155.

The cour t al so f ound t hat t hese shor t f al l s ar e f ar f r om

t he whol e st or y. Most not abl y, DCF has consi st ent l y and

successf ul l y pr ot ected about 99% of chi l dr en i n i t s car e f r om

mal t r eat ment . I d. at 140 ( ci t i ng dat a f r om 2006 t o 2011) . Though

DCF l ags behi nd ot her st at es and nat i onal met r i cs i n ( a) t he number

of chi l dr en who suf f er f r om mal t r eat ment i n f ost er car e, ( b) t he

r at e of chi l dr en who r eent er f ost er car e af t er l eavi ng i t , and ( c)

caseworker casel oads, DCF has i mpr oved i n each of t hese categor i es.

See i d. at 140, 145- 46, 151- 52. Si mi l ar l y, t hough DCF has been

subj ect t o f ederal l y mandated i mpr ovement pl ans under t he Soci al

Secur i t y Act and i t s r egul at i ons, see 45 C. F. R. § 1355. 35, each

t i me t he st at e has sat i sf i ed t hose pl ans.

-12-



13/40

I I .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear

er r or , and t he gover ni ng l egal i ssues de novo. 7 Powel l v.

Al exander , 391 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . "An i nqui r y i nt o whet her

cur r ent [ i nst i t ut i onal ] condi t i ons const i t ut e an ongoi ng vi ol at i on

of a f eder al r i ght compr i ses a mi xed quest i on of f act and l aw, t he

answer t o whi ch we revi ew al ong a degr ee- of - def erence cont i nuum,

r angi ng f r om pl enar y r evi ew f or l aw- domi nat ed quest i ons t o

cl ear - er r or r evi ew f or f act - domi nat ed quest i ons. " Heal ey v.

Spencer , 765 F. 3d 65, 73- 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Mor al es

Fel i ci ano v. Rul l án, 378 F. 3d 42, 52- 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, we r evi ew " t he l egal l abel s

appl i ed t o f act s" mor e cl osel y t han we t r adi t i onal l y r evi ew f act ual

f i ndi ngs, t hough "of t en wi t h some def er ence t o t he di st r i ct j udge. "

Bat t i st a v. Cl ar ke, 645 F. 3d 449, 454 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . The

pl ai nt i f f s do not gener al l y di sput e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f actual

f i ndi ngs. Thei r r eal di sput e i s wi t h t he l egal concl usi ons that

shoul d be dr awn f r om t hose f i ndi ngs.

7 J udgment on t he recor d i s appr opr i ate when "a part y has beenf ul l y hear d on an i ssue dur i ng a nonj ur y t r i al and t he cour t f i nds

agai nst t he par t y on t hat i ssue. " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 52( c) ; seeMor al es Fel i ci ano v. Rul l án, 378 F. 3d 42, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ."[ T] he cour t ' s t ask i s t o wei gh t he evi dence, r esol ve any conf l i ct si n i t , and deci de f or i t sel f i n whi ch par t y' s f avor t hepr eponder ance of t he evi dence l i es. " 9C Mi l l er et al . , Fed. Pr ac.& Proc. Ci v. § 2573. 1 ( 3d ed. 2014) . There was no Rul e 52( c)error.

-13-



14/40

We choose t o wr i t e nar r owl y. As J ust i ce Sout er has

not ed, cour t s shoul d avoi d, i f possi bl e, t ur ni ng "f r esh f ur r ows i n

t he ' t r eacher ous f i el d' of subst ant i ve due pr ocess. " Tr oxel v.

Gr anvi l l e, 530 U. S. 57, 76 ( 2000) ( Sout er , J . , concur r i ng i n t he

j udgment ) ( quot i ng Moore v. Ci t y of East Cl evel and, 431 U. S. 494,

502 ( 1977) ( opi ni on of Powel l , J . ) ) . The par t i es di sput e t he

appr opr i at e l egal st andar d t he pl ai nt i f f cl ass has t o meet t o show

a consti t ut i onal vi ol at i on, speci f i cal l y whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s

must show t hat t he def endant s' t r eat ment of chi l dr en "shocks t he

consci ence, " see Cnt y. of Sacr ament o v. Lewi s, 523 U. S. 833, 846

( 1998) , or whet her i t suf f i ces t hat t hey have met a di f f er ent

st andar d under Youngber g v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307 ( 1982) . We have

no need t o deci de t hat l egal quest i on because the pl ai nt i f f s'

evi dence does not est abl i sh t hat even the Youngber g st andar d i s

met . Our concl usi ons ar e si mi l ar l y nar r ow on t he r emai ni ng cl ai ms.

I I I .

A. Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess Cl ai m

The Due Pr ocess Cl ause i mposes a dut y on t he st at e f or

t he "saf et y and gener al wel l - bei ng" of an i ndi vi dual when t he st at e

af f i r mat i vel y "r est r ai n[ s] t he i ndi vi dual ' s f r eedom t o act on hi s

own behal f - - t hr ough i ncar cer at i on, i nst i t ut i onal i zat i on, or ot her

si mi l ar r est r ai nt of per sonal l i ber t y. " DeShaney v. Wi nnebago

Cnt y. Dep' t of Soc. Ser vs. , 489 U. S. 189, 200 ( 1989) . Not abl y,

t hi s dut y does not ar i se f r om "t he [ s] t at e' s knowl edge of t he

-14-



15/40

i ndi vi dual ' s pr edi cament or f r omi t s expr essi ons of i nt ent t o hel p"

t he i ndi vi dual . I d. The par t i es agr ee on t hi s.

Whet her t he st at e depr i ved an i ndi vi dual of " f r eedom t o

act on hi s own behal f , " and so i s subj ect t o a cor r el at i ve

const i t ut i onal dut y, i s of t en descr i bed as whet her a "speci al

r el at i onshi p" exi st s bet ween t he st at e and t he i ndi vi dual . J . R. v.

Gl or i a, 593 F. 3d 73, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Ri ver a v. Rhode

I sl and, 402 F. 3d 27, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Though we have never hel d t hat such a r el at i onshi p

exi st s bet ween t he st at e and chi l dr en i n f ost er car e, we have

assumed so arguendo. See Gl or i a, 593 F. 3d at 80. We do so agai n

here.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he speci al r el at i onshi p of

f ost er car e ent ai l s a dut y on t he st at e t o pr ovi de f or si x

par t i cul ar r i ght s: ( 1) t o a saf e l i vi ng envi r onment , ( 2) t o

ser vi ces necessar y f or t he chi l dr en' s physi cal and psychol ogi cal

wel l - bei ng, ( 3) t o t r eat ment and car e consi st ent wi t h t he pur pose

of t hei r ent r y i nt o t he f ost er case syst em, ( 4) t o cust ody onl y f or

such t i me as i s necessary, ( 5) t o recei pt of car e and t r eat ment

t hr ough t he exer ci se of accept ed pr of essi onal j udgment , and ( 6) t o

t he l east r est r i ct i ve pl acement . Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at

158- 59. We need not and do not r esol ve whether t he Const i t ut i on

of f er s such br oad posi t i ve guar ant ees. The def endant s do not

chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s hol di ng, so we wi l l al so assume

-15-



16/40

ar guendo that t hese si x ar eas const i t ut e an appr opr i at e f r amewor k

f or anal ysi s.

The Supreme Cour t has expl ai ned t hat execut i ve branch

actor s vi ol at e an i ndi vi dual ' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s onl y i f t hey

engage i n conduct t hat "shocks t he consci ence. " Lewi s, 523 U. S. at

846; see Gl or i a, 593 F. 3d at 79- 80. I n par t i cul ar , Lewi s makes

cl ear t hat har m caused by of f i ci al s' negl i gence cat egor i cal l y

cannot be a Due Process vi ol at i on. Lewi s, 523 U. S. at 848- 49.

Si xt een years bef ore Lewi s, i n Youngberg, t he Supr eme

Cour t f ound cogni zabl e cer t ai n l i mi t ed subst ant i ve due pr ocess

cl ai ms by an adul t i nvol unt ar i l y commi t t ed i n a st at e i nst i t ut i on

f or t he i nt el l ectual l y di sabl ed. I n Youngber g, t he pl ai nt i f f

cl ai med due pr ocess r i ght s t o "saf e condi t i ons of conf i nement , "

"f r eedomf r ombodi l y r estr ai nt s, " and "t r ai ni ng or ' habi l i t at i on. ' "

457 U. S. at 309. The Cour t af f i r med t he f i r st t wo as hi st or i c

l i ber t y i nt er est s. I d. at 315- 16. As t o t he t hi r d, t hough t he

st at e had a dut y to pr ovi de "cer t ai n servi ces and car e" t o t hose

i nvol unt ar i l y i n i t s cust ody, t he st at e al so "necessar i l y has

consi der abl e di scr et i on i n det er mi ni ng t he nat ur e and scope of i t s

r esponsi bi l i t i es, " i ncl udi ng di scret i on i n choosi ng among aspect s

of a pr obl em t o appr oach at a gi ven t i me. I d. at 317. The Cour t

f ound onl y that t he st at e owed t he pl ai nt i f f "mi ni mal l y adequat e or

r easonabl e t r ai ni ng t o ensur e" hi s ot her l i ber t y i nt er est s, r at her

t han f i ndi ng an i ndependent "gener al const i t ut i onal r i ght t o

-16-



17/40

t r ai ni ng per se" or t r eat ment t hat woul d enabl e t he pl ai nt i f f t o

achi eve hi s "maxi mum pot ent i al . " I d. at 318- 19 & n. 23.

Even t hose est abl i shed l i ber t y i nt er est r i ght s wer e "not

absol ut e. " I d. at 320. The i ssue was "not si mpl y whet her a

l i ber t y i nt er est has been i nf r i nged but whet her t he ext ent or

nat ur e of t he r est r ai nt or l ack of absol ut e saf et y i s such as t o

vi ol at e due pr ocess. " I d. I mpor t ant l y, t he Cour t hel d t hat

" l i abi l i t y may be i mposed onl y when t he deci si on by the

pr of essi onal i s such a subst ant i al depar t ur e f r om accept ed

pr of essi onal j udgment , pr act i ce, or st andar ds as t o demonst r at e

t hat t he per son r esponsi bl e act ual l y di d not base t he deci si on on

such a j udgment . " I d. at 323. Thi s i s what i s r ef er r ed t o as t he

Youngber g st andar d.

Whatever t ensi on t here i s bet ween t he Youngberg st andard

and t he Lewi s shocks- t he- consci ence t est 8 i s of no moment her e.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound, on t he f act s, t hat nei t her st andar d was

8 The pl ai nt i f f s ur ge t hat t hese cases, r ead t oget her , showt hat t he Youngber g st andar d i s t he def i ni t i on of consci ence-shocki ng conduct i n t he cont ext of t hose i nvol unt ar i l y commi t t ed - -i ncl udi ng bot h t he pl ai nt i f f i n Youngber g and t he cl ass her e.

Rej ect i ng t hat ar gument , t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed a "new, t wo-pr onged appr oach, " r equi r i ng t he pl ai nt i f f s t o pr ove bot h t hat t hedef endant s' conduct vi ol at ed t he Youngber g st andar d "and t hat suchconduct shocks t he consci ence. " Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 160( quot i ng Connor B. , 771 F. Supp. 2d at 163) ( i nt er nal quot at i onmar k omi t t ed) . On appeal , t he def endant s vi gor ousl y def end t hedi s t r i ct cour t ' s rul e.

-17-



18/40

met . I t suf f i ces that we agr ee t hat t he Youngberg st andard was not

met and do not go f ur t her . 9

Youngber g al so r equi r es t hat cour t s presume t hat t he

deci si ons of qual i f i ed pr of essi onal s - - l i ke t he admi ni st r at or s of

DCF - - ar e val i d. 10 457 U. S. at 323. Li abi l i t y i s appr opr i at e onl y

when t he pr of essi onal s' deci si on i s " such a subst ant i al depar t ur e

f r om accept ed pr of essi onal j udgment , pr act i ce, or st andar ds as t o

demonst r at e t hat t he per son[ s] r esponsi bl e act ual l y di d not base

t he deci si on on such a j udgment . " I d. Such def er ence t o st at e

of f i ci al s i s appr opr i at e t o mi ni mi ze undue "i nt er f er ence by the

f eder al j udi ci ar y wi t h t he i nt er nal oper at i ons of [ st at e]

i nst i t ut i ons, " as "[ i ] t i s not appr opr i at e f or t he cour t s t o

9 Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l yadopt ed a mens r ea r equi r ement f or t he Youngberg t est by usi ng t het er m "want on. " Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 160 ( const r ui ng t he

st andard t o r equi r e " t he most want on abandonment of car etaki ngr esponsi bi l i t i es, " r at her t han "mer e devi ance f r om pr of essi onalnor ms" ) . We di sagr ee. Readi ng t he opi ni on as a whol e, t hedi st r i ct cour t di d not mi sappr ehend t he cor r ect st andar d, t houghi t s choi ce of col or f ul l anguage was unf or t unat e. The cour t appl i edt he cor r ect Youngber g st andar d, f ocusi ng on obj ect i ve measures of DCF' s per f or mance, not t he st at e of mi nd of t he actor s.

10 Thi s i s not a t ypi cal Youngber g case, i n whi ch t hepl ai nt i f f s chal l enge a pr of essi onal ' s par t i cul ar deci si on orpr act i ce t hat appl i es t o t hem, l i ke t he medi cal pr ot ocol s i n Youngber g i t sel f . See, e. g. , Santana v. Col l azo, 793 F. 2d 41, 42

( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( descr i bi ng chal l enge t o use of i sol at i on at j uveni l e det ent i on f aci l i t y) . Nonet hel ess , admi ni st r at i on of af ost er car e syst emi s a mat t er of pr of essi onal j udgment , si mi l ar l yi nvol vi ng speci al i zed exper t i se and pr of essi onal nor ms. See, e. g. ,Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 136- 38 ( descr i bi ng t he credent i al sand exper t i se of i ndi vi dual pr of essi onal s and i nst i t ut i onsappear i ng at t r i al ) .

-18-



19/40

speci f y whi ch of sever al pr of essi onal l y accept abl e choi ces shoul d

have been made. " I d. at 321- 22 ( quot i ng Romeo v. Youngber g, 644

F. 2d 147, 178 ( 3d Ci r . 1980) ( Sei t z, C. J . , concur r i ng) ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . As t he Cour t expl ai ned i n Lewi s, " t he

Four t eent h Amendment i s not a ' f ont of t or t l aw t o be super i mposed

upon what ever syst ems may al r eady be admi ni st er ed by the

St at es . . . . ' " 523 U. S. at 848 ( quot i ng Paul v. Davi s, 424 U. S.

693, 701 (1976) ) .

We agr ee t hat t he si x i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f chi l dr en wer e

i n f act har med. But t he pl ai nt i f f s do not ask f or a det er mi nat i on

as t o whet her t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s of t hose si x wer e vi ol at ed.

Thi s l awsui t was not f r amed t o br i ng r el i ef t o t he named

pl ai nt i f f s , but t o obt ai n cl ass- wi de f eder al i nj unct i ve r el i ef

mandat i ng f eder al cour t over si ght of t he enor mousl y compl ex st at e

f ost er car e syst em.

The DCF, apar t f r om bei ng subj ect t o f eder al

const i t ut i onal obl i gat i ons, has dut i es i mposed by st at e stat ut es

and r egul at i ons. But vi ol at i on of a st at e l aw dut y i s not a gr ound

on whi ch t o awar d f eder al i nj unct i ve r el i ef . And t her e i s no cl ai m

t hat t her e i s a const i t ut i onal i nf i r mi t y i n any r el evant st at e l aw.

The pl ai nt i f f s have sought t o t ake aspi r at i onal

st at ut or y, r egul at or y, and pr i vat e st andar ds11 as t o a var i et y of

11 The di st r i ct cour t ext ensi vel y di scussed t he r egul at or yst r uct ur e and sour ces of chi l d wel f ar e st andar ds i n i t s opi ni on,and we r ef er t he r eader t o t hat . See Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at

-19-



20/40

t opi cs wi t hi n t he over al l compl ex of f ost er chi l d car e and conver t

each of t hem t o const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s. The di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y rej ect ed t hat at t empt , as do we.

Thi s i s not a case i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s have shown

t hat t he DCF has engaged i n par t i cul ar pr act i ces whi ch have al r eady

caused di r ect har m t o t he ent i r e cl ass or even a maj or i t y of t he

cl ass. Nor have t he pl ai nt i f f s shown t hat t he Youngber g st andar d

has been met on exi st i ng condi t i ons. The asser t i on al so f ai l s t hat

t he pr esent def i ci enci es mean t hat t he chi l dr en are exposed t o an

i ncrement al l y gr eat er r i sk of f ut ur e har m, and har m of

const i t ut i onal di mensi ons. That t her e may be def i ci enci es yet t o

be f ul l y addr essed does not est abl i sh t hat t her e has been a

const i t ut i onal l y cogni zabl e i ncr eased r i sk of cl ass- wi de har m, much

l ess t hat t he Youngber g st andar d has been sat i sf i ed.

Ther e ar e good r easons cl ass - wi de chal l enges t o a st at e

agency' s ent i r e set of pr act i ces f or car e of f ost er chi l dr en ar e

di f f i cul t t o br i ng successf ul l y. As Youngber g st at es, " t her e

cer t ai nl y i s no r eason t o t hi nk j udges or j ur i es ar e bet t er

136, 139- 40, 142- 51, 153- 56. However , t he f ederal st andards werei nt ent i onal l y set above t he per f or mance of most st at es - - at t he75t h per cent i l e of st at es - - speci f i cal l y t o push st at es t o i mpr ove

agai nst t hat benchmar k. I d. at 139 n. 13; see Ti t l e I V–E Fost erCar e El i gi bi l i t y Revi ews and Chi l d and Fami l y Ser vi ces St at e Pl anRevi ews, 65 Fed. Reg. 4020, 4025 ( J an. 25, 2000) ( codi f i ed at 45C. F. R. pt s. 1355–1357) ( "We recogni ze t hat we have set a hi ghst andar d. However , we t hi nk i t i s at t ai nabl e and t hat our over al lappr oach f or movi ng St ates t o the st andard t hr ough cont i nuousi mpr ovement i s sound. " ) .

-20-



21/40

qual i f i ed t han appr opr i at e pr of essi onal s i n" admi ni st er i ng an

i nst i t ut i on. 457 U. S. at 322- 23. J udi ci al r evi ew i s "l i mi t [ ed] , "

t o pr event "i nt er f er ence by the f eder al j udi ci ar y wi t h t he i nt er nal

oper at i ons of t hese i nst i t ut i ons. " I d. at 322. The pr esumpt i ve

cor r ect ness of t he deci si ons of pr of essi onal s i s "necessar y t o

enabl e i nst i t ut i ons of t hi s t ype - - of t en, unf or t unat el y,

over cr owded and under st af f ed - - t o cont i nue t o f unct i on. " I d. at

324.

The pl ai nt i f f cl ass has f ai l ed t o show t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act and ul t i mat e concl usi ons ar e cl ear l y

er r oneous. The bot t om l i ne of t he f i ndi ngs i s t hat i n al l but one

year of t he per i od 2006- 11, mor e than 99%of chi l dr en i n DCF f ost er

car e cust ody wer e saf e f r om abuse and negl ect whi l e i n cust ody.

Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 140. 12 Where DCF was not abl e t o

pr event mal t r eat ment f r om occur r i ng, t he cour t f ound DCF "act ed

r easonabl y when such event s t ook pl ace by removi ng t he f ost er chi l d

f r om t he har mf ul envi r onment . " I d. at 161.

The f act t hat a chi l d r eent er s f ost er car e agai n af t er

r el ease f r om cust ody does not est abl i sh t hat t her e has been a

consti t ut i onal vi ol at i on - - i n f act, t he best i nt er est s of t he

chi l d may r equi r e i t . Even usi ng t hat as a met r i c, r eent r y r at es

f or chi l dr en who have pr evi ousl y been i n f ost er care have dr opped

12 And even i n i t s wor st year , Massachuset t s mi ssed t henat i onal st andar d set by t he f eder al gover nment by l ess t han oneper cent . Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 139- 40, 160- 61.

-21-



22/40

f r om 22. 3% i n 2000- 01 ( compar ed t o t he nat i onal st andar d of 8. 6%)

t o between 15% and 16% f or years between 2006 and 2011 ( cl ose t o

t he nat i onal medi ans f l uct uat i ng bet ween 11. 8% and 15%) . I d. at

145- 46. I ndeed, DCF has i mpr oved on a var i et y of met r i cs i n r ecent

year s, i ncl udi ng ki nshi p pl acement s, casewor ker casel oads, and

pr event i on of r epeat i nci dence of mal t r eat ment . 13

The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat pl acement probl ems coul d be

"t r aced t o a si ngl e r oot cause: " t he "sever e shor t age i n t he number

of f ost er homes. " I d. at 144. I t al so not ed t hat i ncreasi ng t he

number of f ost er homes woul d not necessar i l y i t sel f r esol ve t he

ongoi ng pl acement di f f i cul t i es. I d. at 144- 45 ( expl ai ni ng t he need

t o r ecrui t f ost er homes wi t h par t i cul ar char acter i st i cs, l i ke t he

abi l i t y t o handl e cer t ai n t ypes of behavi or , t o meet each chi l d' s

i ndi vi dual needs) . As t he def endant s obser ved at or al ar gument ,

i nsof ar as DCF has f al l en shor t of f eder al r equi r ement s, i t has

al so f ul l y i mpl ement ed t he at t endant f ederal l y i mposed i mpr ovement

pl ans.

The cour t di d not accept t he pl ai nt i f f s' asser t i ons t hat

DCF of f i ci al s had unconst i t ut i onal l y mi smanaged the syst em, or t hat

DCF of f i ci al s engaged i n subst ant i al depar t ur es f r om pr of essi onal

13 Whi l e t he pl ai nt i f f s vi ew DCF' s conduct t hr ough t he l ens of t hei r cl ass, DCF exer ci ses i t s pr of essi onal j udgment t o i mpr ove t hesyst emas a whol e, whi ch encompasses chi l dr en f ar beyond t he cl ass.DCF' s ef f or t s t o i mpr ove i t s scr eeni ng pr ocess bef or e chi l dr enent er f ost er car e cust ody, as di scussed above, but t r ess t hedef endant s' case.

-22-



23/40


24/40

pr of essi onal j udgment i n or der i ng i mpr ovement s over t i me, or i n

deci di ng whi ch def i ci enci es t o addr ess f i r st . I nst ead, pl ai nt i f f s

character i ze t hese i mpr ovement s as no more than "pr el i mi nary" and

i nadequat e i n l i ght of t he scope of t he pr obl em. A st at e i s not

r equi r ed t o "choose bet ween at t acki ng ever y aspect of a pr obl emor

not at t acki ng t he pr obl em at al l . " Youngber g, 457 U. S. at 317

( quot i ng Dandr i dge v. Wi l l i ams, 397 U. S. 471, 486- 87 ( 1970) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Not onl y has cl ass- wi de l i abi l i t y not been shown, i t sel f

a needed pr ecur sor t o any rel i ef , but pl ai nt i f f s have al so not met

t he r equi r ement s f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef . See eBay I nc. v.

Mer cExchange, L. L. C. , 547 U. S. 388, 391 ( 2006) ( descr i bi ng t he

equi t abl e r equi r ement s f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef ) . To gr ant i nj unct i ve

r el i ef not wi t hst andi ng DCF' s concr et e, good f ai t h i mpr ovement s i s

pr eci sel y t he ki nd of subst i t ut i on of j udi ci al j udgment f or

pr of essi onal j udgment t hat Youngber g pr ohi bi t s, especi al l y i n l i ght

of t he "sensi t i ve f eder al i sm concer ns" at pl ay i n i nst i t ut i onal

r ef or m l i t i gat i on. See Hor ne v. Fl or es, 557 U. S. 433, 448 ( 2009)

( not i ng i n a di f f er ent cont ext t hat "[ f ] eder al i sm concer ns ar e

hei ght ened" when r el i ef woul d "di ct at [ e] st at e or l ocal budget

pr i or i t i es" ) .

The pl ai nt i f f s of f er a f i nal ar gument t hat t he cour t ' s

sever al ment i ons of budget ary const r ai nt s on DCF const i t ut es l egal

er r or j ust i f yi ng aut omat i c r ever sal . They ci t e Wat son v. Ci t y of

-24-



25/40


26/40


27/40

t o deci de "t he car e, cust ody, and cont r ol of t hei r chi l dr en. "

E. g. , Tr oxel , 530 U. S. at 66 ( 2000) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Hat ch v.

Dep' t f or Chi l dr en, Yout h, & Thei r Fami l i es, 274 F. 3d 12, 20 ( 1st

Ci r . 2001) . That par ent al i nt er est i s not t he di r ect i ssue her e,

as t he st at e cour t s have gr ant ed cust ody her e t o DCF, not t he

parent s. Thi s i s not a case i n whi ch we ar e asked t o assess a

par ent ' s chal l enge t o t he st at e' s r emoval of a chi l d f r om t he

par ent ' s cust ody. Rat her , t he chal l enge her e i s t o t he adequacy of

t he st at e' s ef f or t s t o mai nt ai n f ami l y cont act s af t er i t has

pr oper l y removed a chi l d.

I t i s al so t r ue t hat t he Supr eme Cour t and t hi s cour t

have used l anguage expr essi ng an i nt er est i n f ami l i al i nt egr i t y,

pr i vacy, and associ at i on i n br oader t er ms t han t hat of par ent s

havi ng cont r ol of t hei r chi l dr en. See, e. g. , M. L. B. v. S. L. J . , 519

U. S. 102, 119 ( 1996) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " t he i nt er est of par ent s i n

t hei r r el at i onshi p wi t h t hei r chi l dr en i s suf f i ci ent l y f undament al

t o come wi t hi n t he f i ni t e cl ass of l i ber t y i nt er est s pr ot ected by

t he Four t eent h Amendment " ( quot i ng Sant osky v. Kr amer , 455 U. S.

745, 774 ( 1982) ( Rehnqui st , J . , di ssent i ng) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) ) ) ; St anl ey v. I l l i noi s, 405 U. S. 645, 651 ( 1972)

( "The i nt egr i t y of t he f ami l y uni t has f ound pr ot ect i on i n t he Due

Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment . . . . " ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ) ; Par ker v. Hur l ey, 514 F. 3d 87, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( ci t i ng M. L. B. , 519 U. S. at 116) ( "The due pr ocess r i ght of

-27-



28/40

parent al aut onomy mi ght be consi dered a subset of a br oader

subst ant i ve due pr ocess r i ght of f ami l i al pr i vacy. ") ; Car t er v.

Li ndgr en, 502 F. 3d 26, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( di scussi ng t he " r i ght t o

f ami l i al i nt egr i t y" r egar di ng par ent al cust ody) .

The scope of t hi s i nter est i n f ami l i al i ntegr i t y i s f ar

f r om cl ear . See Payne- Bar ahona v. Gonzál es, 474 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng t hat t he f ami l y i nt egr i t y cases "ar e not abl e f or

t he di vi si on of vi ews i n most of t he cases and f or t he di f f i cul t y

of f i t t i ng t he anal yses or r esul t s i nt o a coher ent pat t er n") . I t

i s cl ear t hat t he i nt er est i s a l i mi t ed one. I n par t i cul ar , i t i s

bal anced agai nst t he st at e' s r i ght t o i nvest i gat e al l egat i ons of

abuse or negl ect and t ake appr opr i at e r emedi al act i on. See Car t er ,

502 F. 3d at 30; Hatch, 274 F. 3d at 20- 22.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t hi s f ami l y i ntegr i t y

" r i ght " i s onl y " i mpl i cat ed when chi l dr en [ i n cust ody] ar e deni ed

any meani ngf ul cont act wi t h f ami l y members. " Connor B. , 771 F.

Supp. 2d at 164 ( r ej ect i ng t he "any cont act " st andar d as t oo

st r i ngent ) ; accor d Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 163. The di st r i ct

cour t al so vi ewed t hi s i nt er est " t hr ough t he l ens of subst ant i ve

due pr ocess, as t he f or mer i s der i ved i n whol e or i n par t f r om t he

l at t er . " Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 163. The pl ai nt i f f s

chal l enge nei t her of t hese char act er i zat i ons, so we accept t hem

ar guendo. I ndeed, i t i s not cl ear t hat t hi s ar gument adds anythi ng

t o t he subst ant i ve due pr ocess cl ai m.

-28-



29/40

The pl ai nt i f f s' pr i nci pal ar gument on appeal i s t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed r el i ef on t hi s r i ght t o meani ngf ul f ami l y

cont act f or chi l dr en i n DCF car e sol el y due to DCF' s budget ar y

const r ai nt s. Not so. Vi ewi ng t hi s r i ght t hr ough t he l ens of

subst ant i ve due pr ocess, at i ssue i s DCF' s appl i cat i on of

pr of essi onal j udgment i n admi ni st er i ng t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he

chi l dr en i n i t s cust ody and t hei r f ami l i es.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat DCF has a af f i r mat i ve

const i t ut i onal dut y t o f aci l i t at e par ent al and si bl i ng vi si t at i on.

Even i f so, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound Massachuset t s was i n

subst ant i al conf or mi t y wi t h f eder al st at ut or y l aw under t he Soci al

Secur i t y Act based on t he f i r st r ound of f eder al assessment s. I d.

at 142, 163- 64. That compl i ance wi t h t he st at ut e under cut s any

cl ai m of a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on dur i ng t hi s t i me per i od.

The pl ai nt i f f s t hen f ocus on t he f act t hat Massachuset t s

was f ound i n need of i mpr ovement by t he Chi l dr en' s Bur eau of t he

Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human Servi ces i n i t s second round of

assessment s, compl et ed i n 2007. I d. at 142, 163- 64. Si mi l ar l y,

t he di st r i ct cour t ext r apol at ed f r om t he pl ai nt i f f s' st udy of DCF

case f i l es f r om 2009- 10 t o f i nd t hat onl y 20. 9% of chi l dr en

r ecei ved consi st ent mont hl y vi si t s f r om si bl i ngs, and 37. 6% f r om

par ent s. I d. at 142- 43, 163- 64. But DCF r epr esent s t hat i t has

compl i ed wi t h t he i mpr ovement pl an der i ved f r om t hat f eder al

r evi ew, and t he pl ai nt i f f s do not suggest ot her wi se.

-29-



30/40

I ndeed, i t woul d be i r r esponsi bl e of DCF t o pr ovi de

f ami l y access i n cer t ai n si t uat i ons. By def i ni t i on, t he cl ass

members are t hose chi l dr en who have been removed f r om t hei r

f ami l i es because a st at e j uveni l e cour t has r evi ewed test i mony and

det er mi ned t hat t hey suf f er ed abuse or negl ect at t hei r par ent s'

hands or t hose of t he r el evant super vi sory adul t . Connor B. , 272

F. R. D. at 291; Connor B. , 771 F. Supp. 2d at 150. The pl ai nt i f f s

do not quant i f y t he number of chi l dr en f or whom f ami l y vi si t s are

appr opr i ate but unpr ovi ded.

DCF' s appr oach t o f ami l i al i nt egr i t y i s al so much br oader

t han t he vi si t at i on i nt er est pr essed by t he pl ai nt i f f s. DCF has

made ef f or t s t o i mpr ove i t s i ni t i al screeni ng pr ot ocol s wi t h t he

ai m of i mpr ovi ng DCF' s wor ki ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t hose f ami l i es.

Si mi l ar l y, whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed t hat DCF f ai l ed t o

pl ace chi l dr en wi t h si bl i ngs or near f ami l i es i n about a t hi r d of

cases, chi l dr en wi t h si bl i ngs i n f ost er car e ar e of t en pl aced wi t h

at l east one si bl i ng f or at l east par t of t hei r t i me. Connor B. ,

985 F. Supp. 2d at 142- 43.

Ki nshi p pl acement s, as descr i bed ear l i er , ar e a pr esent

and ongoi ng l ocus of DCF i mpr ovement s. To t he ext ent t hat chi l dr en

ar e not pl aced wi t h t hei r ki n, i t i s i n par t because not al l

chi l dr en have ki n wi t h whom t hey coul d pr oper l y be pl aced,

par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he ot her f actor s ( l i ke t hose r el at ed t o

chi l d saf et y) whi ch bear on t he pl acement deci si on. See Connor B. ,

-30-



31/40

985 F. Supp. 2d at 142 ( ci t i ng 110 Mass. Code Regs. §§ 7. 108,

7. 113) ( expl ai ni ng consi der at i ons ot her t han ki nshi p t hat af f ect

t he pl acement choi ce) .

The r ecor d does not show t hat t he pl ai nt i f f cl ass i s

deni ed any meani ngf ul cont act wi t h thei r f ami l y members on a

cl ass- wi de basi s, nor t hat any pur por t ed f ai l ur e on t he par t of DCF

t o f aci l i t at e f ami l i al cont act i s a subst ant i al depar t ur e f r om

accept ed pr of essi onal j udgment . To t he cont r ar y, i t shows t hat DCF

exer ci sed pr of essi onal j udgment i n admi ni st er i ng i t s syst em wi t h

r ef er ence t o f ami l i al associ at i on, and t he f eder al gover nment has

f ound i t adequate.

2. Procedur al Due Process

The pl ai nt i f f s al so appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

t hei r f eder al pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m. The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue

t hat t her e ar e f our pr ot ect ed r i ght s as t o chi l dr en i n cust ody to

whi ch pr ocedur al due pr ocess must at t ach. Those r i ght s ar e ( 1)

r i ght s i n r el at i on t o "pl acement of chi l dr en i n pr i vat e f ami l i es;

ear l y and per i odi c scr eeni ng, di agnost i c and t r eat ment st andar ds;

i ndi vi dual i zed heal t h car e pl an, " ( 2) t he r i ght t o a medi cal

passpor t , ( 3) r i ght s t o si bl i ng vi si t at i on, and ( 4) t he r i ght t o be

consi der ed f or pl acement wi t h r el at i ves or s i mi l ar per sons. Connor

B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 164. We wi l l assume ar guendo t hat t hese

r i ght s may gr ound a const i t ut i onal cl ai m.

-31-



32/40

The pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m i s t hat advance wr i t t en not i ce of

DCF' s i nt ent t o "deny, r educe, or t er mi nat e ser vi ces" - - whi ch i s

r equi r ed by t he st at e r egul at i ons gover ni ng DCF, 110 Mass. Code

Regs. § 8. 01( 1) - - i s "not uni f or ml y and consi st ent l y pr ovi ded. "

Anot her st at e r egul at i on al so gr ant s chi l dr en i n DCF cust ody t he

r i ght t o appeal , i nt er al i a, "t he suspensi on, r educt i on, or

t er mi nat i on of a servi ce. " 110 Mass. Code Regs. § 10. 06( 3) .

Under t he rel evant st at e l aw, t hose hear i ngs " shal l be schedul ed"

wi t hi n 90 days. I d. § 10. 10( 2) ( 2011) ; see i d. § 10. 10( 1) ( 2014)

( usi ng a 65- day deadl i ne) . But DCF has not met t hose st ate l aw

r equi r ement s. Fai r hear i ngs are subj ect t o "over whel mi ng backl ogs"

such t hat t hey ar e r ar el y hel d wi t hi n t he r egul at or y t i me f r ame.

Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 156, 164.

Even so, t he pl ai nt i f f s' evi dence does not suf f i ce t o

est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of any f eder al pr ocedur al due pr ocess r i ght .

The pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege t hat DCF' s pol i ci es r egar di ng t hese

r i ght s ar e i nadequat e. When DCF devi at es f r om t hose pol i ci es, i t

i s a mi st ake. Such mi st akes under st at e l aw do not const i t ut e a

vi ol at i on of f eder al due pr ocess, especi al l y i n l i ght of t he

st at e' s f ai r hear i ngs. See, e. g. , San Ger óni mo Car i be Pr oj ect ,

I nc. v. Acevedo- Vi l á, 687 F. 3d 465, 478- 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( en

banc) .

Beyond t hat , t he pl ai nt i f f s have not expl ai ned, as t hey

must , why hear i ngs wi t hi n 90 days ( or 65 days) , r at her t han

-32-



33/40

hear i ngs on a l onger t i me f r ame, ar e const i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed t o

pr event er r oneous depr i vat i ons of r i ght s, nor why enf or cement of

t he regul at or y l i mi t t hey suggest i nst ead i s an appr opr i at e bur den

t o i mpose on t he st ate. See Mathews v. El dr i dge, 424 U. S. 319, 335

( 1976) . Her e, as i n t he subst ant i ve due pr ocess i nqui r y, we ar e

mi ndf ul of t he pr act i cal r eal i t y t hat i mposi ng a ser i es of

const i t ut i onal pr ocedur al r equi r ement s on an "over cr owded and

under st af f ed" i nst i t ut i on consi st i ng of i ndi vi dual s wi t h "wi del y

var yi ng needs and pr obl ems" coul d pr event t he i nst i t ut i on f r om

cont i nui ng t o f unct i on. Youngber g, 457 U. S. at 324; see al so i d.

at 321 ( l i nki ng t he subst ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr ocess

anal yses' bal ance bet ween i ndi vi dual i nt er est s and soci et y' s

demands) .

The pl ai nt i f f s r espond by ar gui ng t hat any del ay i n

gi vi ng chi l dr en t he pr ophyl act i c pr ot ect i ons descr i bed above can

l ead to i r r epar abl e har m, so t he def endant s shoul d at a mi ni mumbe

hel d t o t he r egul at or y t i me l i mi t . That argument i s agai n

i nsuf f i ci ent . The pl ai nt i f f s must expl ai n why, i n l i ght of t he

Mat hews bal anci ng t est , t he DCF' s cur r ent conduct not wi t hst andi ng

t he r egul at i on i s const i t ut i onal l y i nadequat e. They have not done

so.

3. Federal St atut ory AACWA Cl ai m

Fi nal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he def endant s f ai l ed

t o pr ovi de a subst ant i al number of cl ass members wi t h f ul l

-33-



34/40

i ndi vi dual i zed case pl ans, as r equi r ed by t he AACWA. 16 The AACWA,

par t of t he Soci al Secur i t y Act , i s a gr ant of f eder al f undi ng f or

expenses associ at ed wi t h oper at i ng a f ost er care syst em. Connor

B. , 771 F. Supp. 2d at 168. I n or der t o obt ai n t he f undi ng, t he

st at e must submi t a pl an f or t he oper at i on of i t s f ost er car e

syst emand recei ve appr oval f r omt he Secr et ar y of Heal t h and Human

Ser vi ces ( HHS) . Sut er v. Ar t i st M. , 503 U. S. 347, 351 ( 1992) ,

superseded by st atut e on other grounds, 42 U. S. C. § 1320a- 2. One

r equi r ed component of such a pl an i s t hat st ates must devel op a

case pl an " f or each chi l d r ecei vi ng f ost er car e mai nt enance

payment s. " Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 155 ( quot i ng 42 U. S. C.

§ 671( a) ( 16) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . A case pl an i s a

wr i t t en document t hat must i ncl ude t he chi l d' s r ecor ds and

i nf or mat i on about t he pl ans f or t he chi l d, such as t he pr ospect i ve

pl acement , t he ser vi ces t he chi l d wi l l r ecei ve, and t he st eps t aken

t owar d st abi l i t y and event ual per manency. 42 U. S. C. § 675( 1) . The

di st r i ct cour t hel d, and t he def endant s do not cont est her e, t hat

t he AACWA cr eates a pr i vat el y enf or ceabl e r i ght . Connor B. , 771 F.

Supp. 2d at 168- 172 ( ci t i ng Lynch v. Dukaki s, 719 F. 2d 504, 510- 11

( 1st Ci r . 1983) ) . 17

16 The pl ai nt i f f s do not appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t hei r cl ai mt hat t he def endant s f ai l ed t o make adequat e f ost er car emai ntenance payment s under t he AACWA. See Connor B. , 985 F. Supp.2d at 165- 66.

17 The par t i es di sput e whet her DCF must st r i ct l y compl y wi t ht he AACWA, or mer el y subst ant i al l y compl y wi t h i t .

-34-



35/40

The AACWA i s al so enf or ced by t he Secr et ar y of HHS, who

i s empower ed t o wi t hhol d f eder al f undi ng i f t he st at e f ai l s t o

compl y subst ant i al l y wi t h t he st at ut or y r equi r ement s and f ai l s t o

i mpl ement a cor r ect i ve pl an. SamM. ex r el . El l i ot t v. Chaf ee, 800

F. Supp. 2d 363, 388 ( D. R. I . 2011) ( ci t i ng 42 U. S. C. § 1320a- 2a) .

The Secr et ar y has chosen not t o t ake such act i on her e. No one i n

t hi s case want s t he Secr et ar y t o cut of f t he r oughl y $60 mi l l i on

Massachuset t s r ecei ves f r om HHS. See Admi ni st r at i on f or Chi l dr en

and Fami l i es, FY 2013 ACF J ust i f i cat i on of Est i mat es f or

Appr opr i at i ons Commi t t ee at 337 ( i dent i f yi ng Massachuset t s' s act ual

f ost er car e f undi ng f r om FY 2011 at sl i ght l y above $60 mi l l i on) .

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he cl ai m t hat t he AACWA had

been vi ol at ed as t o t he cl ass. That cour t ci t ed evi dence f r om t he

pl ai nt i f f s t hat t he f i l es f or 14. 6% of chi l dr en sampl ed f r om a

gr oup ent er i ng f ost er car e and 35. 1% of chi l dr en sampl ed f r om a

gr oup i n f ost er car e f or t wo year s or mor e l acked case pl ans.

Connor B. , 985 F. Supp. 2d at 155. Of t hose f i l es t hat i ncl uded

case pl ans, many wer e i ncompl et e. I d. at 155- 56. From t hi s

evi dence, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat case pl ans "are gener al l y

not wel l mai nt ai ned and, i n some cases, ar e ent i r el y unavai l abl e

f or revi ew. " I d. at 166. I t t hen concl uded t hat t hese f ai l ur es

const i t ut ed mer e "gaps i n r ecor d keepi ng, " not "gr ave st at ut or y

er r or , " "par t i cul ar l y when vi ewed i n t he cont ext of t he f i nanci al

and admi ni st r at i ve har dshi ps t hat have been di scussed above. " I d.

-35-



36/40

We under st and t he cour t t o have dr awn a di st i nct i on, i n par t ,

between whether ser vi ces were adequatel y pr ovi ded and whether t he

paperwor k was done.

We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hi s r ecor d does

not show a cl ass- wi de f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de document at i on i n t he f or m

of i ndi vi dual i zed case pl ans. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat

bet ween about 65% and 85% of chi l dr en have i ndi vi dual i zed case

pl ans. I d. That case pl ans ar e "not wel l mai nt ai ned and, i n some

cases, . . . ent i r el y unavai l abl e f or r evi ew, " i d. , i s not enough

t o pr ove t hat DCF i s out of compl i ance wi t h t he st at ut e vi s- à- vi s

t he cl ass.

I V.

Havi ng car ef ul l y hear d and anal yzed t he evi dence, t he

di st r i ct j udge of f er ed edi t or i al comment s about ar eas of DCF

def i ci ency whi ch, whi l e not unconst i t ut i onal , nonet hel ess war r ant

at t ent i on f r om t he l egi sl at i ve and execut i ve br anches.

We end where we st art ed, di r ect i ng t hese mat t ers t o t he

at t ent i on of t he st at e l egi sl at ur e and t he Gover nor . The deci si on

of t he di st r i ct cour t i s af f i r med. No cost s ar e awar ded.

So order ed.

-36-



37/40

Appendi x A

Por t i ons of t he i nj unct i ve r el i ef r equest ed i n t he compl ai nt :

e. Or der appr opr i at e r emedi al r el i ef t o ensur e Def endant s' f ut ur e

compl i ance wi t h t hei r l egal obl i gat i ons t o Pl ai nt i f f Chi l dr en,

i ncl udi ng, but not l i mi t ed t o, t he f ol l owi ng:

i . Casel oads. DCF shal l est abl i sh and i mpl ement l i mi t s

on t he casel oads of al l case- car r yi ng wor ker s f or

chi l dr en i n DCF pl acement s and pr i vate agency pl acement s

oper at i ng under cont r act wi t h DCF. These casel oad l i mi t s

shal l be based on t he st andar ds f or accr edi t at i on of

publ i c chi l d wel f ar e agenci es set by t he Counci l on

Accr edi t at i on ( "COA") and t he pr of essi onal st andar ds set

by the Chi l d Wel f are League of Amer i ca ( "CWLA") .

i i . Educat i on/ Tr ai ni ng. DCF shal l devel op and i mpl ement

educat i onal qual i f i cat i ons and a mandatory compr ehensi ve

pr e- ser vi ce and i n- ser vi ce t r ai ni ng pr ogr am f or

caseworker s and supervi sor s based on st andards f or

accept abl e management of a chi l d wel f are syst em;

i i i . Avai l abi l i t y of Necessar y Resour ces f or t he

Pl acement of Chi l dr en and Ser vi ces f or Chi l dr en and

-37-



38/40

Par ent s. An assessment shal l be conduct ed by qual i f i ed

pr of essi onal s t o det er mi ne the need f or addi t i onal

servi ces and pl acement s, i ncl udi ng t he need f or f ami l y

pr eservat i on servi ces, f ost er and adopt i ve pl acement s

( i ncl udi ng pl acement s f or chi l dr en wi t h di sabi l i t i es or

ot her behavi or al needs) , wr apar ound servi ces,

r euni f i cat i on ser vi ces, i ndependent l i vi ng ser vi ces, and

medi cal , dent al , and ment al heal t h ser vi ces, f or chi l dr en

i n f ost er car e t hr oughout t he st at e; and t he t i me per i od

dur i ng whi ch t hese pl acement s and servi ces wi l l be

devel oped. Def endant s shal l t ake t he st eps necessar y t o

devel op t hese ser vi ces and pl acement s accordi ng t o t he

assessment and t he t i me f r ames i t pr ovi des;

i v. Moni t or i ng t he Saf et y of Chi l dr en i n Pl acement . DCF

wor ker s shal l vi si t al l chi l dr en i n pl acement and t hei r

f ost er par ent s as f r equent l y as set f or t h i n t he

st andar ds set by t he COA and t he CWLA i n order t o ensure

t hat t he chi l dr en ar e saf e.

DCF shal l al so compl y wi t h t he st andards and pr ocesses

r equi r ed under Massachuset t s l aw f or t he appr oval ,

screeni ng, over si ght and ut i l i zat i on of al l pl acement

t ypes t hat house f ost er chi l dr en;

-38-



39/40

v. Chi l d- Par ent and Si bl i ng Vi si t at i on. DCF shal l

devel op and i mpl ement pol i ci es pr ovi di ng f or adequat e

vi si t at i on bet ween par ent s and chi l dr en of t hose par ent s

r emoved i nt o f ost er care and si bl i ngs one or more of whom

has been r emoved i nt o f ost er car e; Def endant s shal l

devel op and i mpl ement pol i ci es, whi ch adequatel y pr ovi de

f or si bl i ngs bei ng pl aced t oget her i n f ost er car e and i n

adopt i ve or guardi anshi p set t i ngs where t hose permanency

goal s ar e achi eved;

vi . Case and Ser vi ce Pl anni ng. DCF shal l t ake necessar y

act i on t o pr ovi de adequate and t i mel y case pl ans and case

r evi ews f or chi l dr en and adequat e and t i mel y servi ces

pl ans f or t hei r par ent s.

vi i . Qual i t y Assur ance/ Dat a. DCF shal l ensur e t hat i t

has a qual i t y assurance ( "QA") syst emconsi st ent wi t h t he

st andards of t he COA and CWLA t hat i s capabl e of

measur i ng t he qual i t y of ser vi ces pr ovi ded t o chi l dr en i n

DCF cust ody;

vi i i . Cont r act Moni t or i ng and Per f or mance- Based

Moni t or i ng. DCF shal l ensur e t hat an adequat el y st af f ed

and t r ai ned cont r act moni t or i ng uni t i s cr eat ed wi t hi n

-39-



40/40

t he st at e' s cent r al of f i ce f or pur poses of over seei ng and

managi ng t he pur chased ser vi ces of t he agency; DCF shal l

devel op and i mpl ement a per f ormance- based cont r act i ng

scheme wi t h i t s pr i vat e f ost er car e pr ovi der s t o ensur e

t he pr ot ect i on of chi l dr en;

i x. Fost er Car e Mai nt enance Rat es. DCF shal l det er mi ne

and pay f ost er care rei mbur sement r at es t hat f ul l y meet

t he el ement s set f or t h i n 42 U. S. C sect i on 675( 4) ( A) ;

x. Moni t or i ng/ Enf or cement . The pr ovi si ons of t he Cour t

or der ent er ed pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 65( d) shal l be

moni t ored by a neut r al expert moni t or appoi nt ed by t he

Cour t . I n addi t i on, t he Cour t shal l have cont i nui ng

j ur i sdi ct i on t o oversee compl i ance wi t h t hat or der .


Massachusetts Child Welfare Federal Appeal Opinion Upholding Dismissal of Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Massachusetts Child Welfare Federal Appeal Opinion Upholding Dismissal of Lawsuit