Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Skip to main content
- ProQuest
- Recent Searches
- Selected Itemsp
- My Research and Language Selection{
- VHelp and support
- All databases
- Change databases
- Global Newsstream
- Basic Search
- Advanced Search
- Publications
- 1Back to results
- 4
- (previous record)
- Document
- 12 of 87
- -
- (next record)
- Detailed Timeline Of The Juan F. Consent Decree; State Files Motion To End 20 Years Of Federal Court Rule
- Weblog post. Capital Watch [Hartford courant - BLOG], Hartford: Newstex. Apr 13, 2010.
- Publisher logo. Links to publisher website, opened in a new window.
- Full text
- Abstract/Details
- Hide highlighting
- Abstract
- Translate
- Abstract
- The following is a detailed timeline in the Juan F. consent decree in the 20-year-old case of Juan F. vs. the state. This is a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of abused and neglected children that dates back to the days of Gov. William A. O'Neill.The case has continued under Governors Lowell P. Weicker, John G. Rowland, and M. Jodi Rell. On Tuesday, the state filed an unprecedented motion in federal court to end federal oversight, saying that the state has improved the system to the point that federal oversight is no longer needed.Lasting just as long as another famous court contest, the Juan F. case is the Sheff vs. O'Neill battle of the child welfare system.The Hartford Courant's chief researcher, Tina Bachetti, compiled this timeline.December 1989: Suit filed
- The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union's Children's Rights Project file a class-action lawsuit against Gov. William O'Neill and the state Department of Children and Youth Services. The suit charges that an overworked and underfunded DCYS fails to provide services including abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, foster care, mental health care, caseloads and staffing.January 1991: Decree signed
- Lawyers for the children and the state sign a formal federal consent decree, known as the "Juan F." consent decree, after one of the child plaintiffs. Sweeping changes are called for, including the establishment of a training academy for DCYS employees and foster parents; reducing caseloads for workers, who average 34 cases each; uniform standards on how abuse and neglect cases should be handled; and an independent court monitor to assess progress.March 1993: Out of compliance
- Budget cuts of more than $8.7 million at DCYS results in noncompliance with the decree in terms of staffing, payments to foster parents and program improvements.June 1993: Judge orders staff increase
- U.S. District Judge Alan Nevas orders DCF to hire more staff to reduce caseloads and to increase payments to foster parents. (Also that year, the department changes its name to the Department of Children and Families.)
- MoreK
- LEC
- LEC
- Full Text
- Translate
- Full text
- Apr. 13, 2010 (The Hartford Courant delivered by Newstex) --
- The following is a detailed timeline in the Juan F. consent decree in the 20-year-old case of Juan F. vs. the state. This is a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of abused and neglected children that dates back to the days of Gov. William A. O'Neill.
- The case has continued under Governors Lowell P. Weicker, John G. Rowland, and M. Jodi Rell. On Tuesday, the state filed an unprecedented motion in federal court to end federal oversight, saying that the state has improved the system to the point that federal oversight is no longer needed.
- Lasting just as long as another famous court contest, the Juan F. case is the Sheff vs. O'Neill battle of the child welfare system.
- The Hartford Courant's chief researcher, Tina Bachetti, compiled this timeline.
- December 1989: Suit filed
- The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union's Children's Rights Project file a class-action lawsuit against Gov. William O'Neill and the state Department of Children and Youth Services. The suit charges that an overworked and underfunded DCYS fails to provide services including abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, foster care, mental health care, caseloads and staffing.
- January 1991: Decree signed
- Lawyers for the children and the state sign a formal federal consent decree, known as the "Juan F." consent decree, after one of the child plaintiffs. Sweeping changes are called for, including the establishment of a training academy for DCYS employees and foster parents; reducing caseloads for workers, who average 34 cases each; uniform standards on how abuse and neglect cases should be handled; and an independent court monitor to assess progress.
- March 1993: Out of compliance
- Budget cuts of more than $8.7 million at DCYS results in noncompliance with the decree in terms of staffing, payments to foster parents and program improvements.
- June 1993: Judge orders staff increase
- U.S. District Judge Alan Nevas orders DCF to hire more staff to reduce caseloads and to increase payments to foster parents. (Also that year, the department changes its name to the Department of Children and Families.)
- February 1995: Problems reported
- Federal monitor reports caseloads continue to be a problem.
- March 1995: Investigation ordered
- Gov. John G. Rowland demands an investigation of DCF after 9-month-old Emily Hernandez is raped and murdered by her mother's live-in boyfriend and 16-month-old Candy Fortis is killed by her father. After reviewing thousands of files at DCF, state officials remove more than 100 children from their parents' custody and put them in foster care.
- February 1996: Problems reported
- Monitor reports DCF not meeting caseload standards.
- November 2000: Failures reported
- Monitor finds that workers fail to make required face-to-face visits to children in foster homes 98 percent of the time and fail to make required telephone contacts 96 percent of the time. Also, more than 25 percent of foster homes exceed capacity and nearly 8 percent have expired licenses.
- February-June 2001: More workers sought
- Monitor finds DCF must hire many additional social workers to reduce overtime and meet caseload and visitation standards.
- July 2001-June 2002: Court issues orders
- Lawyers for children intermittently accuse the state of noncompliance. DCF officials say they are concerned mandates are too restrictive. Court issues orders holding DCF accountable to visitation, adoption and mental health standards.
- November 2001: Smaller caseloads
- The state agrees to reduce caseloads to a maximum of 23 per social worker after report finds DCF is not meeting foster child visitation standards.
- January 2002: Speeding adoptions
- DCF agrees to speed up the adoption process. DCF officials say adoption rates have improved from a low of 146 in 1996, when Connecticut had the worst adoption records of any state in the country, to 603 in 2000.
- February 2002: 22-point plan
- Court approves a 22-point plan to replace the multi-volume requirements of the consent decree. Goals include avoiding crowding in foster homes, reducing the number of moves children make while in foster care, and reducing the length of time children spend in foster care. DCF must also maintain current levels of staff and spending under the terms. Federal oversight will end if DCF meets performance standards.
- November 2002: Incomplete records
- Monitor says incomplete DCF records make it difficult to assess DCF's success in meeting service demands for foster children. Study also shows DCF is doing better in meeting children's mental health, medical and dental needs, but fails to meet the goal of completing investigations of alleged abuse and neglect within 30 days.
- April 2003: Monitor says DCF falls short
- Monitor finds DCF is "falling far short of agreed-upon measures" in reducing overcrowded foster homes, overstays in shelters and in recruiting new foster homes.
- July 2003: Ordered to reduce caseloads
- Court order issued accepting monitor's findings that DCF is in significant noncompliance with caseload standards and staffing requirements; state ordered to reduce caseloads and hire more staff immediately.
- September 2003: Receivership sought
- Lawyers for children ask court to place DCF in federal receivership.
- October 2003: New agreement
- Agreement makes partners of the federal court monitor, the DCF commissioner, and the state Office of Policy and Management secretary, who will work together to control the agency. The agreement removes the threat of federal receivership for DCF; dissolves the terms of the old federal consent decree, and is meant to eliminate some of the legal and political obstacles that have crippled the process in the past.
- August 2004: Hires help caseloads
- DCF says it has added 94 caseworkers since July 2003 and is now compliance with caseload standards.
- March 2007: 80% compliance
- DCF agrees to ramp up services in an elaboration of one of the main goals in the 22-point Exit Plan - that DCF must "meet children's needs" - at least 80 percent of the time
- May 2008: Takeover urged
- Plaintiff lawyers urge a partial federal takeover of DCF, accusing the state of failing to meet two key parts of the settlement: planning for the needs of children, and providing adequate services. DCF says it has had many successes, including meeting at least 16 of its 22 goals for the past six quarters.
- July 2008: Judge approves settlement
- A federal judge approves a settlement that orders the state to recruit more foster families and reduce the number of non-family group homes for abused youth.
- Credit: Christopher Keating
- The views expressed on blogs distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors ("Blogs on Demand(R)") are solely the author's and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Posts from such authors are provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Blogs on Demand(R) are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. No content on such Blogs on Demand(R) is "read and approved" before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its re-distributors make any claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained therein or linked to from such blogs, nor take responsibility for any aspect of such blog content. All content on Blogs on Demand(R) shall be construed as author-based content and commentary. Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the quality of the opinions, commentary or anything else offered on such Blogs on Demand(R). Reader's comments reflect their individual opinion and their publication within Blogs on Demand(R) shall not infer or connote an endorsement by Newstex or its re-distributors of such reader's comments or views. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to delete posts and comments at its and their sole discretion.
- Word count: 1261
- LEC
- LEC
- Capitol Watch (c) 2010
- Search this database...Search this database...;Search button
- Save as PDF
- Cite
- 9Email
- Print
- PSave
- Add to Selected items
- Related items ?
- 2003 SAEM Annual meeting abstracts
- Stiell, Ian G; Wells, George A; Spaite, Daniel W; Nesbitt, Lisa; et al. Academic Emergency Medicine; Des Plaines Vol. 10, Iss. 5, (May 2003): 423-586.
- The Economics of Adoption of Children from Foster Care
- Hansen, Mary Eschelbach; Hansen, Bradley A. Child Welfare; Arlington Vol. 85, Iss. 3, (May/Jun 2006): 559-83.
- Role Sequencing: Does Order Matter for Mental Health?
- Jackson, Pamela Braboy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior; Washington Vol. 45, Iss. 2, (Jun 2004): 132-154.
- Using Subsidies to Promote the Adoption of Children from Foster Care
- Hansen, Mary Eschelbach. Journal of Family and Economic Issues; New York Vol. 28, Iss. 3, (Sep 2007): 377.
- Comparisons of Union vs Non-Union Business Professoriates
- McKinzie, Kaye; Griffin, Ken; Weber, James E. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics; Thunder Bay Vol. 18, Iss. 2, (Jun 2016): 90-95.
- Show more related items
- >Back to top
- Chicago Public Library logo
- Contact Us
- Terms and Conditions
- Privacy Policy
- Cookie Policy
- Cookie Preferences
- Accessibility
- Credits
- Copyright © 2018 ProQuest LLC.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment