Case 4:77-cv-00242-DW Document 313 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

G.L., An Infant, by and through his

)

NEXT FRIENDS, et al., on his own behalf

)

And on behalf of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 77-CV-0242-DW

)

K. GARY SHERMAN, et. al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON CONDITIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is the stipulated motion of the parties to dismiss this case with conditions

and without prejudice. The Court has reviewed the motion and the Consent Decree Monitoring

Committee’s most recent Monitoring Report and has met with counsel and with the Monitoring

Committee. The Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently complied with the provisions of the

Amended Modified Consent Decree of April 1, 2004 to warrant a dismissal without prejudice

subject to conditions agreed upon by the parties. The Court GRANTS the motion, and incorporates

into this Order the attached Conditions of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 311, Ex. 1). It is

therefore

ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice on the condition that Defendants

keep in place the policies, practices and positions created pursuant to the Amended Modified

Consent Decree. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing these conditions upon

dismissal. If no motion to reinstate the case is pending before the Court on June 30, 2009, this case

will be dismissed with prejudice on that date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________/s/ Dean Whipple__________ Dean Whipple
United States District Court

Date: February 1, 2006

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

G.L., an infant, by and through his NEXT FRIEND, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GARY STANGLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 77-0242-CV-W-DW

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ joint motion for an Order modifying

the Amended Consent Decree and Monitoring Methodology previously approved by the Court. For

good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and ORDERS that the

Amended Consent Decree and Amended Monitoring Methodology be modified as set forth in the

pending motion. The Court directs the parties, together with the Court’s Foster Care Consent Decree

Committee, to incorporate the modifications approved by the Court today into the Amended Consent

Decree and Amended Monitoring Methodology. The parties or the Committee shall forward to the

Court, in one source, updated copies of the Amended Consent Decree and Amended Monitoring

Methodology.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ DEAN WHIPPLE Dean Whipple
United States District Court

Date: August 20, 2003

Case 4:77-cv-00242-DW Document 289 Filed 08/20/03 Page 1 of 1

 
 G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

873 F.Supp. 252 United States District Court,
W.D. Missouri, Western Division.
G.L., An infant, By and Through his Next Friend, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gary STANGLER, et al., Defendants.
No. 77–0242–CV–W–1. |
Dec. 14, 1994.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*252 Fred Rich, Legal Aid of W. Mo., Kansas City, MO, for plaintiffs.
Robin Dahlberg, New York City, American Civil Liberties Union.
Robert Presson, Mo. Atty. Gen. Office, Jefferson City, MO, for defendants.
ORDER
WHIPPLE, District Judge.
This cause came to be heard on the Joint Motion of the parties, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(6), for an order

substituting the attached modified Consent Decree, signed by the parties on October 18, 1994, and Operational Guide, signed by the parties on October 18, 1994, for the Court’s March 21, 1983, Order (the “Consent Decree”), 564 F.Supp. 1030 (W.D.Mo.1983), and any modifications thereto, and also holding that the Court’s December 7, 1992, Order, is superseded by the modified Consent Decree and Operational Guide, except to the extent the December 7th Order substitutes and adds parties as defendants. It appearing that changed circumstances exist, and that the modified Consent Decree and Operational Guide preserve the objectives and further the goals of the prior Consent Decree, namely the protection of children in the legal custody of the Missouri Division of Family Services, Jackson County Office(s), and the provision of child welfare services mandated by federal law, it is
ORDERED, that the modified Consent Decree, signed by the parties on October 18, 1994, and Operational Guide, signed by the parties on October 18, 1994, are substituted for the Court’s March 21, 1983, Order and any modifications thereto, and supersede the Court’s December 7, 1992, Order, except to the extent that Order substitutes and adds parties.
*253 ATTACHMENT
MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE

1

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 253 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................ 254 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 254 CORE REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................................................... 256
I. THE CLASS.......................................................................................................................................................... 256 II. PREVENTING ABUSE, NEGLECT & INAPPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE........................................................ 256
A. Licensing and Certification of Foster Homes ............................................................................. 256 B. Renewal of Foster Home Licenses and Certifications ............................................................. 256 C. Mandatory Training of Foster and Kinship Parents ................................................................. 256 D. Proper Matching of Children with Appropriate Placements................................................. 257 E. Pre–Placement Process and Supervision of Children.............................................................. 257
2

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
F. Prohibition on the Use of Inappropriate Discipline of Children and Investigation of and Responses to Suspected Incidents of Abuse, Neglect and Inappropriate Discipline ............................................................................................................................................... 258
G. Providing Adequate Support........................................................................................................... 259
III. HEALTH CARE SERVICES............................................................................................................................... 259
A. Health Care Services .......................................................................................................................... 259 B. Health Care Plan.................................................................................................................................. 259 C. Health Care History and Health Care Records........................................................................... 260 D. Medical Case Management............................................................................................................. 260
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENCY PLANS AND PERMANENCY PLANNING GOALS ................... 260
A. Permanency Planning Practice Guide .......................................................................................... 260
3

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
B. Preliminary Service Needs Determination.................................................................................. 260 C. Preliminary Planning Conference .................................................................................................. 260 D. Preliminary Permanency Plan......................................................................................................... 261 E. Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference................................................................. 261 F. Comprehensive Permanency Plan................................................................................................. 262 G. Written Service Agreements ........................................................................................................... 262 H. Six–Month Permanency Planning Review .................................................................................. 262 I. Permanency Planning Goals ............................................................................................................ 263 J. Adoption Training and Information Systems ............................................................................. 263 K. Adoption Planning Conference ...................................................................................................... 263 L. Adoption Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 263
V. PERMANENCY PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................... 264
4

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
A. Staff Caseloads, Supervision and Training .................................................................................. 264 B. Unit Structures and Managerial Positions .................................................................................. 265 C. Management Plan .............................................................................................................................. 265
Staff Recruitment and Retention Component .......................................................................................................................... 266 Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention Component ............................................. 266 Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training Component ........................................................................................... 266 Resource Development Component ............................................................................................................................................. 266 Manual and Automated Management Information Systems Component................................................................... 266 Quality Assurance Component......................................................................................................................................................... 267
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................................................................. 267
A. Vendors.................................................................................................................................................. 267
5

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
B. Remedial Actions ................................................................................................................................ 267 C. Exemptions ........................................................................................................................................... 268 D. Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 268 E. Compliance ........................................................................................................................................... 268 F. Reservation of Arguments ............................................................................................................... 269 G. Exit Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 269

EXHIBIT A ....................................................................................................................................................................... 271

—————
INTRODUCTION
At the same time that the parties negotiated the modified Consent Decree, they also negotiated an Operational Guide and a Framework for a Monitoring Methodology. *254 The Operational Guide is intended to act as an implementation plan for the Consent Decree. The definitional section and the purpose statement of the Consent Decree also apply to the Operational Guide. Any ambiguities in the mandates of the Consent Decree are to be interpreted by reference to the Operational Guide.
6

The parties intend to ask the Court to incorporate this modified Consent Decree and the attached Operational Guide into a court order which replaces the March 21, 1983, Consent Decree, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (W.D.Mo.1983), and any modifications thereto, and supersedes the Court’s Order, dated December 7, 1992, except to the extent the December 7, 1992 Order substitutes and adds parties as defendants. After the Court incorporates the Modified Consent Decree and the Operational Guide, the mandates of the Consent Decree may only be changed with court approval. The parties agree, however, the mandates of the Operational Guide may be changed by mutual consent of the parties without Court authorization or approval. The parties also agree that in exceptional circumstances, class members may be exempted from specific requirements of the Consent

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Decree or Operational Guide on a case-by-case basis by mutual consent of the parties.
The parties intend to submit the Framework for the Monitoring Methodology to the G.L. v. Stangler Foster Care Consent Decree Committee, representatives of the plaintiffs and defendants, and technical experts and is to be used by them to develop a comprehensive monitoring methodology. Once it is completed, the parties will ask the Court to incorporate the monitoring methodology into a court order. After the Court has signed such an order, the monitoring methodology only may be changed with approval from the Court.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The purpose of this Consent Decree is to provide all class members with the child welfare services required by the constitution and the laws of the United States, including, but not limited to, protection from harm while in the custody of Missouri’s Division of Family Services.
DEFINITIONS
Adoption Worker: A social worker as defined herein to whom adoption functions have been assigned. References to the term “adoption worker” throughout this document do not prohibit DFS from assigning adoption functions to a child’s primary social worker.
Alternative Care Placement: Any out-of-home placement in which a child in DFS legal custody resides.
Alternative Care Provider: A child’s actual caretaker in his/her Alternative Care Placement.
Caseload: Children assigned to a social worker where the social worker functions as the children’s case manager.
Child: An individual between the ages of zero (0)
7

and twenty-one (21) in the legal custody of DFS.
Child Abuse/Neglect Central Hotline: The state-wide, toll-free telephone number operated by the Central Registry Unit of the Missouri Division of Family Services to receive reports concerning suspected child abuse or neglect and initiate the process for investigating those reports.
Child–Specific Adoption Recruitment: The process whereby DFS, through its own program and staff, or by contracting with child placement agencies, uses child-specific information and engages in individualized recruitment activity to locate adoptive homes for designated children in the legal custody of DFS.
Children in DFS Legal Custody: Children placed in the legal custody of the Missouri Division of Family Services, Jackson County, Missouri Office, pursuant to an order of the Family Court.
Community Resources: Agencies, organizations, groups or individuals in and around Jackson County, Missouri that provide or assist in the provision of services to families and children, such as, but not limited to, the Local Investment Commission (LINC), the Missouri Foster *255 Care and Adoption Association, Partnership for Children, Family Court, Metropolitan Child Abuse Network, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), National Association of Social Workers (Missouri–Kansas unit), and Coalition for Positive Family Relationships.
DFS: Missouri Division of Family Services, a division of DSS and subject to the director of DSS.
DMS: Missouri Division of Medical Services, a division of DSS and subject to the director of DSS.
DSS: Missouri Department of Social Services.
Family: All individuals with whom the child lived prior to entering DFS custody, including parents/caretakers.
Family Court: The Family Court Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
Foster Family Home: A private residence of one (1) or more family members licensed by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to one (1) or more but

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
less than seven (7) children who are unattended by parent or guardian and who are unrelated to either foster parent by blood, marriage or adoption.
Foster Family Group Home: A private home of foster parents, including independent foster family group homes as previously defined by 13 CSR 40–72.010, licensed by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care for seven (7) to twelve (12) children who are unattended by parent or guardian and who are unrelated to either foster parent by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Foster Home: Foster Family Homes, Foster Family Group Homes, and Kinship Homes.
Foster Parent: Any individual who is licensed by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to one (1) or more children in DFS legal custody.
G.L. Monitoring Committee: The G.L. v. Stangler Consent Decree Monitoring Committee, established pursuant to court order dated July 23, 1985, or its successor.
Healthy Children & Youth Program: The Missouri Early Periodic Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) Program. See Missouri Medicaid Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jan. 10, 1992) and DSS–DFS Memorandum CS–92–26.
Kinship Home: A private home licensed or certified by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to a child in DFS legal custody where the alternative care provider is a relative of that child or a non-related adult with whom the child has a familial relationship.
Kinship Parent: Any individual who is licensed or certified by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to one (1) or more children in DFS legal custody, to whom the children are related or with whom the children have a familial relationship.
Licensing Restrictions: Those conditions placed upon a foster home by DFS licensure personnel which limit the number, ages, or gender of children the home can accept. These conditions are independent of the personal preferences of the foster parents.
Panel: The National Expert Panel established to review child welfare services in Jackson County, Missouri.
8

Panel Recommendations: Those Recommendations made by the Panel as set forth and as amended by the parties in the June 1994 version of the document entitled “Building for the Future: A High Quality System of Care for Child Welfare Services in Jackson County, Missouri,” Volume II (Work Plan).
Parents/caretakers: A child’s caretakers before he/she enters DFS custody, including, but not limited to, birth parents, relatives and other guardians.
Program Administrator: The Program Administrator for Children’s Services of DFS’ Jackson County, Missouri Office.
Serious Medical Problems: The medical problems of children who require frequent treatment and continual monitoring or treatment (including, but not limited to, lab work, x-rays, invasive procedures *256 or tests, physical or occupational therapy, or surgeries by a physician or other medical provider) due to a medical condition which affects daily functioning. This term includes physical, emotional or psychological diseases that affect wellness, growth and development.
Service Providers: Individuals, agencies or organizations to whom DFS refers children, families and alternative care providers for the provision of services.
Social Worker: An individual employed by DFS, engaged in the practice of social work, who is licensed or exempt from licensure under state statute.
Supervisor: Any individual employed by DFS to supervise/manage a unit of DFS social workers.
Temporary Foster Care Status: An alternative care placement designated by DFS as temporary until a permanent or more appropriate placement is achieved.
Vendors: Agencies, organizations or individuals with whom DFS, DMS or DSS contracts for the provision of child welfare services, including, but not limited to, foster home licensing services, case management services, training services, foster parent recruitment and retention services, and adoption recruitment services.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

CORE REQUIREMENTS
I. THE CLASS 1. The requirements of this Consent Decree shall apply to all children in the legal custody of the Missouri Division of Family Services, Jackson County, Missouri Office.

B. Renewal of Foster Home Licenses and Certifications 1. Prior to or within ninety (90) days of having its license or certification renewed, each foster home must be in full compliance with all training requirements and applicable licensure or certification requirements and regulations, including, but not limited to, Mo.Code State Regs. Title 13, § 40–60.050.

II. PREVENTING ABUSE, NEGLECT & INAPPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE
A. Licensing and Certification of Foster Homes 1. The assessment study of each prospective foster home shall be done by a trained professional and approved by a trained supervisor.
2. All foster parents shall be licensed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Mo.Code State Regs. Title 13, § 40–60.010, et seq. They shall meet the minimum qualifications set forth in Mo.Code State Regs. Title 13, § 40–60.030, and their homes shall conform to the physical standards set forth in Mo.Code State Regs. Title 13, § 40–60.040.
3. All kinship parents shall be licensed or certified in compliance with Mo.Code State Regs. Title 13, Division 40, Chapter 60, or guidelines set forth in the DFS Resource Development Handbook or its successor.
4. DFS shall approve or deny an application to become a licensed or certified foster home within ninety (90) days of receipt of that application.
5. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system accessible to all social workers involved in the licensing process. The system shall contain information about foster parent recruitment and the progress and completion of licensing and relicensing studies. The system shall track compliance with Consent Decree § II.A.4.
9

C. Mandatory Training of Foster and Kinship Parents 1. Prior to receiving a license or a certificate to be a foster home, all prospective foster parents and kinship parents shall complete at least twelve (12) hours of pre-service training. Kinship parents may be granted provisional foster parent licenses or certificates without completing the foster parent pre-service training, provided they complete it within ninety (90) days after receiving a provisional license or certificate.
2. Prior to the completion of their first two (2)–year licensure or certification period, *257 all foster parents and kinship parents shall complete fifty-two (52) hours of training, of which at least twelve (12) shall be the pre-service training specified in Consent Decree § II.C.1, and twenty (20) shall be in-service training. During each subsequent two (2)–year licensure or certification period, all foster parents and kinship parents shall complete twenty (20) hours of in-service training.
3. The pre-service and in-service training requirements shall apply to adults residing in foster homes on a permanent basis who have primary child care responsibilities.
4. The pre-service and in-service training shall utilize a core curriculum which, at a minimum, provides foster parents and kinship parents with the knowledge and skills necessary to care appropriately for the class members residing in their homes and informs them of relevant legal mandates and DFS policy. The efficacy of the core curriculum shall be reviewed every two years and the curriculum revised as necessary.
5. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
management information system accessible to all social workers involved with the foster parent and kinship parent training, licensing and certification processes. The system shall, among other things, track compliance with the mandatory training requirements of Consent Decree §§ II.C.1, II.C.2, and II.C.3.
D. Proper Matching of Children with Appropriate Placements 1. DFS shall develop and utilize a placement practice guide setting forth policies and procedures to guide social workers’ decisions related to placement. DFS shall adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in the placement practice guide.
2. DFS shall maintain sufficient staff and other resources so that all children requiring placement are placed promptly and appropriately, and in accordance with their needs. Placements shall be made taking into account the child’s need to be placed as close to home and community as possible, the importance of placing siblings together, and the need to place children in home-like settings, including into kinship homes as appropriate.
3. All social workers involved in the selection of placements for class members shall receive pre-service and annual in-service training on proper placement practices and DFS’ policies and procedures relating to placement.
4. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system accessible to all social workers involved in the placement process. The system shall contain information about available placement resources and shall track placement of all class members.
5. The placement of a child in a foster home shall be in conformity with the licensing or certification restrictions of that home.
6. At no time shall the number of children in a foster family home or kinship home exceed six (6), including the foster parents’ or the kinship parents’ own children.
7. At no time shall the number of children in a foster family home or kinship home who are five (5) years old or younger exceed four (4). At no time shall the number of children in a foster family home or a kinship home who
10

are two (2) years old or younger exceed two (2).
8. At no time shall the number of children in a foster family group home exceed twelve (12), including the foster parents’ own children.
9. Limited exceptions may be made to the capacity restrictions set forth in ¶¶ 5–7 above as set forth in Operational Guide §§ II.D.7 and II.D.8.
10. No class member shall remain in temporary foster care status for longer than thirty (30) days, except as provided in Operational Guide § II.D.11.
E. Pre–Placement Process and Supervision of the Placement 1. Prior to each new placement, DFS shall prepare the class member and his/her future alternative care provider(s) for that placement by providing to each of them relevant information concerning the other.
*258 2. Absent the circumstances described in Operational Guide §§ II.E.9–12, at least one (1) pre-placement visit shall occur twenty-four (24) hours prior to a class member’s placement in a foster home. If possible, a second pre-placement visit, preferably overnight, shall take place.
3. Except as provided in Operational Guide §§ II.E.13 and II.E.14, immediately following and during a class member’s placement in a foster home, the child’s social worker shall supervise and monitor the child’s placement as follows:
a. Within twenty-four (24) hours of each new placement, the worker shall have one (1) face-to-face visit with the child and one (1) contact with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s).
b. During the first month of each new placement, the worker shall have a minimum of one (1) face-to-face visit with the child each week and one (1) contact with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) each week. Two (2) of the face-to-face visits with the child must be with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) in the foster home.
c. During the next five (5) months of each placement,

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
the worker must have a minimum of two (2) face-to-face visits with the child each month and two (2) contacts with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) each month. One (1) of the face-to-face visits with the child must be with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) in the foster home.
d. During the remainder of the placement, the worker shall have a minimum of two (2) contacts each month with the child, one (1) of which must be a face-to-face visit with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) in the foster home.
4. Except as provided in Operational Guide §§ II.E.13–15, DFS shall provide class members in residential treatment facilities with the following supervision and monitoring:
a. Within twenty-four (24) hours of each new placement, the child’s social worker shall have one (1) face-to-face visit with the child and one (1) contact with the alternative care provider’s staff.
b. During the first month of each new placement, the worker shall have a minimum of one (1) face-to-face visit with the child each week and two (2) contacts with the alternative care provider’s staff. One (1) contact with the alternative care provider’s staff shall be face-to-face.
c. During the next five (5) months of each placement, the worker shall have a minimum of two (2) face-to-face visits with the child each month and two (2) contacts with the alternative care provider’s staff each month. One (1) of the contacts with the alternative care provider’s staff must be face-to-face.
d. During the remainder of the placement, the worker shall have a minimum of two (2) contacts each month with the child, one (1) of which is face-to-face, and one (1) face-to-face contact each month with the alternative care provider’s staff.
F. Prohibition on the Use of Inappropriate Discipline of Children and Investigation of and Responses to Suspected Incidents of Abuse, Neglect and Inappropriate Discipline. 1. DFS shall prohibit corporal punishment, inappropriate discipline, abuse, and neglect of class members.
2. Any time a social worker becomes aware that a class 11

member may have been the subject of abuse, neglect or an inappropriate method of discipline, the social worker shall:
a. Notify the Child Abuse/Neglect Central Hotline immediately.
b. Notify his/her supervisor promptly.
c. Notify the placement unit promptly.
d. Determine with his/her supervisor whether any child in the alternative care placement is in imminent danger due to abuse, neglect, inappropriate discipline, or dangerous environmental conditions, and should be removed immediately.
e. Document the incident in writing in the child’s record and the record of the alternative care placement in which the child resides.
*259 3. If the incident occurred in a foster home, DFS shall suspend placement of additional children in the home upon receiving notification of the incident until completion of the investigation.
4. Upon receiving notification of the incident, the Child Abuse/Neglect Central Hotline shall refer the case for investigation by a specialized worker who is not supervised by the Program Administrator.
5. The specialized worker shall investigate the incident pursuant to normal Child Abuse/Neglect Procedures.
6. DFS shall establish a permanent team to evaluate the results of each investigation and to make recommendations for services and corrective actions, including the possible removal of children currently in the alternative care placement. Team decisions and recommendations shall be made in writing and forwarded promptly to the Program Administrator or his/her designee for his/her review and instruction regarding further agency action.
7. Team decisions, as modified or adopted by the Program Administrator, shall be implemented. If it is decided that the foster parents or kinship parents who are the subject of the investigation must complete a corrective action plan if they wish to continue as foster parents or kinship parents, DFS shall not place any additional children in their home until they have successfully completed the plan. If the foster parents or kinship parents do not agree to undertake

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
the plan or do not complete it successfully, DFS shall decide whether to revoke their license or certification. The Program Administrator or his/her designee shall have final say on all revocation decisions.
G. Providing Adequate Supports 1. DFS shall make good faith efforts to obtain an appropriation from the General Assembly for the financing necessary to increase foster care board rates towards an amount consistent with the middle level of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s standard for the cost of raising a child in the urban Midwest and to maintain it at that rate.
2. DFS shall collaborate with foster and kinship parents as individuals and as organized foster and kinship parent groups to establish programs to better assist foster and kinship parents in caring for class members in their homes and to provide incentives for foster and kinship parents to remain as foster and kinship parents.
3. If day care services are necessary, DFS shall provide reimbursement for day care services approved by the social worker of the class member.
4. DFS shall establish and fill position(s) for foster and kinship parent ombudsperson(s) and adoptive parent ombudsperson(s) as specified in Operational Guide § II.G.
III. HEALTH CARE SERVICES
A. Health Care Services 1. All class members shall receive a physical examination within thirty-six (36) hours of coming into DFS custody.
2. All class members shall receive a hearing and eye examination within one (1) month after coming into DFS custody. Class members three (3) years of age or older shall receive a dental examination within one (1) month after coming into DFS custody.
12

3. All class members shall receive subsequent medical, dental, hearing and eye examinations at the times set forth by the Healthy Children & Youth Program (HCY).
4. All class members shall receive necessary and appropriate health care follow-up services and specialized health care services in a timely manner. DFS shall provide transportation for class members if necessary.
B. Health Care Plan 1. DFS shall develop a health care plan for every class member within thirty (30) days of the child’s entry into DFS custody.
2. The health care plan shall describe the class member’s health care needs, set forth how those needs will be addressed, when *260 they will be addressed, and who will be responsible for addressing them.
3. Each class member’s health care plan shall be revised as needed based on the child’s situation.
4. DFS shall take all steps within its control to implement each class member’s health care plan.
C. Health Care History and Health Care Records 1. At the time a class member enters DFS custody, DFS shall collect all available health care information about that child.
2. As long as a class member remains in DFS custody, DFS shall maintain accurate health care records for that child that include the child’s health care history and the examinations, treatments or hospitalizations that the child has while in DFS custody.
3. The class member’s social worker shall have readily available access to the child’s medical history and current health care plan. The social worker shall provide relevant health care information to each and every individual who needs access to that information to provide necessary and appropriate care to the child.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
D. Medical Case Management 1. Each class member shall receive the medical case planning and management services necessary to meet his/her health care needs pursuant to a medical case management system established pursuant to Operational Guide §§ III.D.1 and III.D.2.

3. DFS shall establish, with the Family Court, a process by which it receives immediate notification of the Family Court’s placement of children in DFS custody.
4. In those situations where a class member needs emergency medical or psychological service intervention prior to the three (3)–day Preliminary Planning Conference discussed below, DFS shall take all steps within its control to provide those services.

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENCY PLANS AND PERMANENCY PLANNING GOALS
A. Permanency Planning Practice Guide 1. DFS shall develop and utilize a permanency planning practice guide setting forth principles, policies and procedures for the provision of family-focused permanency planning and child-specific adoption services, including the preparation of children for adoption. DFS shall adhere to the principles, policies and procedures set forth in the permanency planning practice guide.

C. Preliminary Planning Conference 1. A Preliminary Planning Conference shall be held for each class member who enters DFS custody as a result of a report of child abuse or neglect, even if that child is only in DFS custody temporarily, no more than three (3) working days after the child’s entry into DFS custody, but in all cases prior to the child’s detention hearing at the Family Court. The child’s social worker shall convene the conference. For all other class members, DFS shall conduct a Preliminary Planning Conference within three (3) working *261 days after receiving notice of the child’s entry into DFS custody.

B. Preliminary Service Needs Determination 1. DFS shall establish a daily review process which evaluates all children who have entered DFS custody, as a result of a report of child abuse or neglect, within the previous twenty-four (24) hours to determine if placement was, and continues to be, necessary. With the Family Court’s permission, children for whom placement is not necessary shall be returned home promptly.
2. Within three (3) working days of a class member’s entry into DFS custody as a result of a report of child abuse or neglect, the social worker(s) assigned to the child’s case shall make a preliminary determination, based on all information obtainable, of the child’s service needs and the service needs of the child’s family. For all other class members, DFS shall conduct a preliminary determination of their service needs and the service needs of their families within three (3) working days of receipt of notification of the children’s entry into DFS custody.
13

D. Preliminary Permanency Plan 1. During the Preliminary Planning Conference, a Preliminary Permanency Plan shall be developed, tailored to the individual needs and circumstances of the class member and his/her family. At a minimum, this plan shall set forth with specificity the following:
a. The reason for the child’s entry into DFS custody.
b. A preliminary assessment of the child’s immediate service needs; the steps that shall be taken to meet those immediate needs; the identity of the person(s) (by name or by title) responsible for taking those steps; and the time periods within which the steps shall be taken.
c. The child’s preliminary permanency planning goal.
d. A target date for accomplishment of the permanency planning goal.
e. A preliminary assessment of the services needed by the child and the child’s family to achieve the

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
permanency planning goal.
f. A schedule of the services that DFS will provide to the child and the child’s family to accomplish the permanency planning goal; the time periods within which they will be provided; and the DFS employees (by name or title) responsible for their provision.
g. Diagnostic and evaluative services needed to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the services needed to implement the permanency planning goal, including, but not limited to, the services needed by the child’s family; the steps that DFS shall take to obtain the diagnostic and evaluative services; and the time periods within which the steps shall be taken.
h. Unless the child’s circumstances dictate otherwise, a weekly parent/child and weekly child/sibling visitation schedule that shall be followed until the Comprehensive Permanency Plan is developed and implemented.
2. DFS shall implement each class member’s Preliminary Permanency Plan, taking all steps within its control to provide identified services and facilitate parent/child and child/sibling visitation.

rights have been terminated.
g. the attorneys for the child’s parents/caretakers unless the parental rights of the parents/caretakers have been terminated.
h. the child’s potential guardian, if the child’s permanency planning goal is guardianship.
i. the child’s adoption worker, if the child’s permanency planning goal is adoption.
j. the child’s adoptive resource if the child’s permanency planning goal is adoption and a resource has been identified.
k. the child’s alternative care providers.
l. the child’s medical case manager (when assigned).
m. representatives from the child’s school district if the child is of school age.
n. representatives from the Family Court.
o. the child’s and the family’s services providers (e.g., counselors, therapists, etc.)

E. Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of a class member’s entry into DFS custody, the child’s Permanency Planning Review Team shall convene for the purpose of reviewing and making changes to the child’s Preliminary Permanency Plan.
2. A class member’s Permanency Planning Review Team shall include:
a. the child’s social worker.
b. the child’s worker’s supervisor.
c. a community representative not employed by DFS.
d. the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney.
e. the child unless his/her presence is waived as specified in Operational Guide §§ IV.E.4 and IV.E.5.
f. the child’s parents/caretakers unless their parental
14

*262 F. Comprehensive Permanency Plan 1. Prior to the first meeting of the child’s Permanency Planning Review Team, the child’s social worker, with input from the child’s parents/caretakers, the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney and the child’s and family’s service providers, shall develop a Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
2. The child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–629, 671–679, and Mo.Code State Reg. Title 13, § 40–30.010(4).
3. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan also shall set forth the following:
a. A target date for accomplishment of the child’s permanency planning goal.
b. A comprehensive assessment of the services needed

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
to achieve the permanency planning goal.
c. A schedule of the services that DFS shall provide to accomplish the permanency planning goal; the time periods within which they will be provided; and the DFS employees (by name or title) responsible for their provision.
d. Interim goals and measurable objectives needed to be met by the parents/caretakers, the child, the child’s potential guardian, and/or the child’s adoptive resource, to achieve completion of the permanency planning goal; a target date for accomplishment of each goal and/or objective; and the individuals responsible for achieving completion of the interim goals and measurable objectives.
e. Schedules for parent/child visitation and weekly child/sibling visitation. If the child’s goal is reunification, the schedule shall provide for weekly parent/child visitation unless a therapist recommends, or the Family Court orders, otherwise. If the goal is other than reunification, frequency of visitation shall be determined by the best interest of the child and the child’s permanency planning goal.
4. DFS shall implement each child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan, taking all steps within its control to provide identified services and facilitate parent/child and child/sibling visitation.
G. Written Service Agreements 1. Written Service Agreement(s) shall be developed contemporaneously with the child’s first Comprehensive Permanency Plan. Within thirty (30) days of any change in the child’s permanency planning goal, additional Written Service Agreements shall be developed, as necessary, and existing ones reviewed and renegotiated, again as necessary. All Written Service Agreements shall be renegotiated, reviewed or renewed at least every ninety (90) days.
2. Each Written Service Agreement shall, at a minimum, contain the elements set forth in Operational Guide § IV.G.2.
3. DFS shall implement each Written Service Agreement, taking all steps within its control to provide the identified
15

services.
H. Six–Month Permanency Planning Review 1. No later than six (6) months after a class member has entered DFS custody and every six (6) months thereafter, the child’s Permanency Planning Review Team shall meet to review and make changes to the child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
2. Prior to the meeting, the child’s social worker, with input from the child’s family and, if possible, the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney, the child’s service providers and the family’s service providers, shall revise the child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan so that it contains the following:
a. A description of what has happened to the child and family since the last meeting of the Permanency Planning Review Team.
b. What progress, if any, has been made toward achieving the child’s permanency planning goal and the interim goals and objectives set forth in the prior Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
c. A reunification plan for the child and parent/caretaker, if DFS plans to recommend, or has recommended, to the Family Court that reunification of the child and parent/caretaker take place. In addition, *263 the Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall contain an aftercare plan, including information about the child’s health care and specifying the services to be offered to the parent/caretaker and the child after the child returns, shall be developed.
3. DFS shall implement each Comprehensive Permanency Plan resulting from a six (6)–month Permanency Planning Review, taking all steps within its control to provide identified services and facilitate parent/child and child/sibling visitation.
I. Permanency Planning Goals 1. Throughout the permanency planning process, each class member shall have a permanency planning goal that reflects the current facts and circumstances of that child’s

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
case. Appropriate permanency planning goals shall be limited to reunification, adoption, guardianship or independent living.
a. No child under the age of sixteen (16) may be assigned a permanency planning goal of independent living except as set forth in Operational Guide § IV.I.2.
2. If a child’s goal is reunification, at the child’s Preliminary Permanency Planning Conference and at each meeting of the Permanency Planning Review Team, conference attendees shall consider and document the following:
a. Whether adoption may be an appropriate goal.
b. If it is not an appropriate goal, whether it might become such a goal, and, if so, when and under what circumstances it may become a goal.
c. If it is an appropriate goal, whether a voluntary relinquishment of parental rights may be obtained from the child’s parents.
3. If it is decided that adoption might be an appropriate goal and that a voluntary relinquishment cannot be obtained, the case shall be referred to DFS’ Legal Section for a determination as to whether grounds for termination of parental rights exist. If DFS’ Legal Section determines that sufficient grounds for termination exist, the child’s social worker shall forward to the Family Court all documentation necessary to initiate a termination of parental rights proceeding. Such documentation shall be forwarded within thirty (30) days of the decision to refer the case to DFS’ Legal Section.
4. Within five (5) days of receiving written notification from the Family Court that a termination of parental rights petition will be filed, the social worker shall change the child’s permanency planning goal to adoption and refer the child’s case to the Adoption Unit or begin adoption planning immediately.
16

J. Adoption Training and Information Systems 1. All social workers involved in the adoption process shall receive pre-service and annual in-service training on adoption issues.
2. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system, accessible to all social workers involved in the adoption process. The system shall contain information about available adoption resources and efforts undertaken to find adoptive homes for children with permanency planning goals of adoption. The system also shall monitor DFS’ compliance with the adoption time lines mandated by Consent Decree §§ IV.I.3, IV.I.4, IV.K.1, IV.L.1 and IV.L.3, and Operational Guide §§ IV.L.1 and IV.L.2.
K. Adoption Planning Conference 1. Within thirty (30) days of a child’s permanency planning goal becoming adoption, an adoption planning conference shall be convened.
L. Adoption Plan 1. At the Adoption Planning Conference, the child’s adoption worker, with input from the attendees, shall develop a plan to prepare the child for adoption and to find him/her an adoptive home as soon as possible. The plan shall set forth with specificity the following:
a. The steps to be taken to prepare the child for adoption, including the provision of counseling services.
b. The steps to be taken to find the child an adoptive home.
*264 c. The steps to be taken once an adoptive resource has been located.
d. The individuals (designated by name or title) responsible for taking the steps set forth above.
e. Time frames within which the above steps shall be taken, which, at a minimum, provide that DFS commences the child-specific recruitment mandated by Operational Guide § IV.L.1.c. within sixty (60) days of

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
a child’s Adoption Planning Conference if an appropriate match has not been found before then.
f. Periodic and regular contact between the child’s adoption worker, the child, his/her alternative care providers, his/her adoptive resource (if one has been located) and his/her guardian ad litem/attorney to keep them informed of the manner in which the adoption process is proceeding.
g. Once an adoptive resource is identified, the resources and services necessary to make the adoption placement successful.
2. DFS shall implement each child’s Adoption Plan.
3. Each class member’s Adoption Plan shall be reviewed no later than every ninety (90) days and revised if necessary.
4. Once a termination of parental rights petition has been filed, the fact that a child has not been legally freed for adoption shall not, by itself, be used to justify failure to engage in adoption planning or recruitment or to initiate appropriate contact with an identified adoptive resource, unless the Family Court has instructed otherwise.
V. PERMANENCY PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
A. Staff Caseloads, Supervision and Training 1. Social workers whose caseloads contain at least one (1) class member shall have caseloads of no more than twenty-five (25) children. Social workers whose caseloads consist solely of class members shall have caseloads of no more than fifteen (15) children.
2. Social workers performing licensing or adoptive home studies shall have caseloads of no more than twenty-five (25) studies at any given time. No more than fifteen (15) of these studies shall be initial studies.
3. Social workers who are doing home studies as well as serving as case managers to class members shall have caseloads of no more than twenty-five (25) studies or children. No more than fifteen (15) of the studies may be initial studies. No more than fourteen (14) of the children
17

may be class members.
4. With respect to units with social workers whose combined caseloads include more than six (6) class members and any units providing placement, licensing, resource development or adoption services, the following shall apply:
a. DFS shall provide each social worker with adequate supervision as defined in the Operational Guide.
b. No supervisor shall supervise more than six (6) workers at any given time. Supervisors may supervise more than six (6) workers for a period not to exceed two (2) weeks if workers are transferring out of the unit and other workers have transferred into the unit.
c. No supervisor shall carry a caseload except on an emergency or temporary basis as defined in Operational Guide § V.A.1 (Panel Recommendation 11).
d. DFS shall make good faith efforts to provide each unit with sufficient clerical support. Towards that end, DFS shall increase its current clerical staff by hiring six (6) additional full-time equivalent clerical personnel between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995. These clerical personnel shall be available to social workers whose caseloads contain class members.
e. DFS shall make good faith efforts to provide every two (2) units with a paraprofessional. Towards that end, DFS shall increase its current paraprofessional staff by hiring six (6) new full-time equivalent paraprofessionals by June 30, 1995. These paraprofessionals shall be available to social workers whose caseloads contain class members. In addition, DFS shall take steps to obtain volunteer paraprofessional *265 assistance from community groups, volunteer organizations, and local universities and schools.
5. No class member shall remain without an assigned social worker for more than five (5) business days.
6. DFS shall provide all new social workers and new supervisors who shall provide services to class members with at least one hundred and five (105) hours of multi-faceted, state-of-the-art orientation training. It shall provide appropriate job-specific orientation training to paraprofessional staff.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
7. DFS shall provide at least thirty (30) hours of annual in-service training to all staff providing services to class members, including managers, supervisors and social workers, and eight (8) hours of annual in-service training to clerical staff and paraprofessional staff.
8. By January 1996, DFS shall provide retraining, using a competency based curriculum, to all staff providing services to class members hired before January 1995, including direct service staff, supervisors and managers.

staffed with, at minimum, a Coordinator of Training and Staff Development and two (2) training specialists. The Training Unit shall be responsible for developing and implementing the staff, foster parent and kinship parent training component of the Management Plan.
8. DFS shall contract for or hire one (1) full-time staff person with responsibility for the programming and maintaining of its Jackson County, Missouri automated management information systems.

B. Unit Structures and Managerial Personnel 1. DFS shall recruit, select and hire a Deputy Program Administrator for Children’s Services for the DFS Jackson County, Missouri Office.
2. DFS shall establish a placement mechanism whose staffing and resource needs shall be based on an annual needs assessment.
3. DFS shall obtain or designate one (1) full-time equivalent position to provide educational advocacy services for class members.
4. DFS shall establish a recruitment/retention team consisting of a minimum of six (6) full-time persons who report to one (1) supervisor. The team shall have responsibility for the Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention component of the Management Plan.
5. DFS shall designate a Resource Development Coordinator, who, together with the management staff of DFS’ Jackson County, Missouri Office, shall have responsibility for developing and implementing the Resource Development component of the Management Plan. The Resource Development Coordinator shall be assisted in implementation of the Resource Development component by the management staff and one (1) full-time person, who is not also a part of the recruitment/retention team.
6. DFS shall establish a Quality Assurance Unit, staffed with individuals specifically trained to develop and implement the Quality Assurance component of the Management Plan.
7. DFS shall establish a Training Unit which shall be
18

C. Management Plan 1. DFS shall develop a Management Plan to assist it in providing child welfare services. Because it is anticipated that the Management Plan shall address the provision of child welfare services to all eligible families and children, including those families who do not have children in DFS legal custody and those children who are not class members, the parties recognize that the plan may address issues and topics outside the scope of the Consent Decree. The inclusion of such issues and topics in the Management Plan shall not be deemed to broaden DFS’ responsibilities under this Consent Decree and the accompanying Operational Guide. Such issues and topics shall not be monitored and shall not be available for use against the defendants.
2. The Management Plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following components, each *266 of which is defined in further detail in subsequent sections of this Consent Decree:
a. Staff Recruitment and Retention.
b. Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention.
c. Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training.
d. Resource Development.
e. Quality Assurance.
f. Manual and Automated Management Information Systems.
3. Each component of the Management Plan shall, at a minimum, provide for the following:

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
a. An annual needs assessment conducted pursuant to reasonable professional standards.
b. The establishment of goals based upon the needs assessment.
c. Identified activities and specific tasks designed to accomplish the goals, including strategies to obtain or develop the resources needed to accomplish the goals.
d. Timetables for accomplishing the goals set forth in subsection (b) and the activities and tasks set forth in subsection (c).
e. The designation, by title or name, of the individuals responsible for completion of the activities or tasks, including designation of the management staff person who shall have primary responsibility for implementation of each component of the Management Plan.
4. The Management Plan and each of its components shall be revised annually.
5. DFS shall implement the Management Plan and each of its components by conducting the needs assessments mandated by Consent Decree § V.C.3.a, establishing the goals mandated by Consent Decree § V.C.3.b., and undertaking the activities and accomplishing the specific tasks mandated by Consent Decree § V.C.3.c. within the time periods mandated by Consent Decree § V.C.3.d.

Foster Parent Retention component of the Management Plan shall provide for the development, with input from community resources, of a multi-year plan to recruit a sufficient number and variety of foster and adoptive parents and to retain a sufficient number and variety of foster parents in an effort to facilitate the timely and appropriate placement of each class member.
Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training Component 8. The Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training component of the Management Plan shall be a Comprehensive Annual Training Plan which provides for all staff, foster parent and kinship parent pre-service, orientation and in-service training required by the Consent Decree and the Operational Guide.
Resource Development Component 9. The Resource Development component of the Management Plan shall be a Jackson County Resource Development Plan, developed with input from community resources, that sets forth the resource needs of the Jackson County, Missouri Office of DFS and strategies for meeting those needs.

Staff Recruitment and Retention Component 6. The Staff Recruitment and Retention component of the Management Plan shall be developed, with input from community resources, to recruit qualified candidates for supervisor, social worker and support staff (including administrative, clerical and paraprofessional) positions, and to retain qualified supervisors, social workers and support staff (including administrative, clerical and paraprofessional personnel).
Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention Component 7. The Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and
19

Manual and Automated Management Information Systems Component 10. The Manual and Automated Management Information Systems component of the Management Plan shall provide for a comprehensive review of all management information systems and record keeping systems utilized in DFS’ Jackson County, Missouri *267 Office and a revision of those systems, if necessary, to reduce duplication and the paperwork burden on social workers and supervisors, and to permit timely and complete record-keeping, and the accessibility of information. In addition, it shall provide for the automation of management information systems, including, but not limited to, the information systems utilized by supervisors and social workers involved in the licensing, foster parent

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
training, placement and adoption processes to aid in pro-active case management.
Quality Assurance Component 11. The Quality Assurance component of the Management Plan shall provide for the development of a comprehensive quality assurance program. At a minimum, the program shall provide for periodic systemic and specialized reviews, timely reporting mechanisms, remedial actions and such training as may be necessary.
12. DFS, in conjunction with DMS, shall establish on-going quality assurance procedures to assure implementation of health care plans and the provision to class members of medical case management and planning in accordance with reasonable professional standards.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Vendors 1. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall preclude DFS from contracting with qualified vendors to license, relicense or certify foster homes; to provide foster parent recruitment, retention and training services; to provide adoption services; and to provide case management services.
a. The vendors with whom DFS contracts for the provision of licensing services; foster parent recruitment, retention and training services; adoption services; and case management services shall be bound by the requirements of the Consent Decree, including the training requirements.
b. Should DFS contract with any vendor for the provision of case management services, it shall develop a plan setting forth how it intends to monitor and supervise these vendors and submit it to the plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment. The plan shall be implemented within a reasonable period.
20

B. Remedial Actions 1. DFS shall develop and implement a plan to identify class members who have had a goal of reunification for more than eighteen (18) months, and all class members who have a goal of reunification but have not had parental contact for at least six (6) months. In addition, the plan shall provide for the following:
a. An accelerated reevaluation of the permanency planning goals for each of these children, a determination of whether that goal remains appropriate, and if necessary, a change in goal.
b. Intensive casework designed to achieve successful implementation of each child’s permanency planning goal within a reasonable period of time.
2. DFS shall develop and implement a plan designed to provide special, intensive recruitment and adoptive placement efforts for those class members who have had a goal of adoption for more than nine (9) months but who have no identified and available adoptive resource.
3. DFS shall develop and implement a plan designed to close foster homes where DFS has determined that the foster parents should no longer serve as foster parents or the foster parents have indicated that they no longer wish to care for children in DFS legal custody.
4. DFS shall develop and implement a plan designed to take appropriate corrective action with respect to reports of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline that concern class members that have been received since January 1, 1993, and that have been substantiated or determined to be “probable cause” (substantiated) or “unsubstantiated with preventive services indicated.”
*268 C. Exemptions 1. In exceptional circumstances, class members may be exempted from specific requirements of the Consent Decree or Operational Guide on a case-by-case basis by mutual consent of the parties. Requests for such exemptions shall be made in writing by the Program Administrator or his/her designee to plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall respond in writing and if the

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
exemption is agreed upon, correspondence pertaining thereto shall be placed in the class member’s case file.
D. Monitoring 1. The G.L. v. Stangler Foster Care Consent Decree Monitoring Committee, established pursuant to Court Order dated July 23, 1985, shall continue to exist until the Consent Decree expires pursuant to the terms of the Exit Plan described below. It shall monitor defendants’ compliance with the Consent Decree and the Operational Guide pursuant to a methodology agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Court for its incorporation into a court order, and shall report the results of its monitoring activities in semi-annual reports to the Court and the parties. The Committee may prepare additional reports as the parties request or the Court directs.
2. Any party may challenge the accuracy of a report issued by the G.L. Monitoring Committee by filing a motion with the Court within sixty (60) days of the Committee’s issuance of that report.
3. Defendants shall permit the G.L. Monitoring Committee to have access to all information, personnel and documents necessary to complete the specific tasks identified in the Monitoring Methodology. This access may include, but is not limited to, access to class members and their families; alternative care providers; service providers; vendors; case records concerning class members, their families and their placements; and DFS staff, both at the state and local level. Any requests for access to personnel and information not contemplated by the Monitoring Methodology shall be made to a designated DFS employee. Such personnel and information shall be made available at reasonable times and places and in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the operation of DFS.
4. Defendants shall provide the G.L. Monitoring Committee with the office space, office equipment, compensation and funding reasonably necessary for it to perform its job, subject to Court approval.
5. By December 31, 1994, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a comprehensive methodology, developed with assistance from the G.L. Monitoring Committee and appropriate technical experts and based on the Framework for Monitoring Methodology referred
21

to in the Introduction to this Consent Decree. That methodology may include an analysis of information collected: (a) by DFS’ management and information systems; (b) from a review of relevant case records; and (c) from interviews with class members and their families, DFS staff, alternative care providers, and service providers.
6. The monitoring methodology can be changed only with approval from the Court.
E. Compliance 1. Notwithstanding Consent Decree § VI.G, the parties agree that defendants shall work to achieve 100% compliance with each and every provision of the Consent Decree and Operational Guide.
2. Plaintiffs agree not to move to hold defendants in contempt for:
a. Failure to reach 100% compliance with respect to a particular provision of the Consent Decree or Operational Guide, provided defendants have reached the compliance level for that provision set forth in the Exit Plan.
b. Failure to comply with all of Panel Recommendation 3, Task 1.c of Panel Recommendation 10, or Tasks 1 and 2 of Panel Recommendation 11.
c. Any reasons prohibited by Consent Decree § V.C.1 and Framework for Monitoring Methodology § VII (Additional Measures).
*269 d. Failure of individuals identified in Consent Decree §§ IV.E.2.c-o to attend any Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conferences.
F. Reservation of Arguments 1. Subject to Consent Decree §§ V.C.1 and VI.E.2, plaintiffs reserve any and all legal or factual arguments, theories or claims that may be advanced: (a) to enforce the Consent Decree or the Operational Guide, including, but not limited to, any arguments, claims or theories that may be made in support of a motion for an order holding

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
defendants in contempt; or (b) to bar expiration of the Consent Decree and the Operational Guide or the transfer of any provision of either document on the grounds specified in Consent Decree § VI.G.2.d.
2. Defendants reserve any and all legal or factual arguments, claims or defenses, including, but not limited to, any defenses based on the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution, that may be made to defend against a motion: (a) to enforce the Consent Decree or Operational Guide, including, but not limited to, a motion for an order holding defendants in contempt; or (b) to bar expiration of the Consent Decree and the Operational Guide or the transfer of any provision of either document on the grounds specified in Consent Decree § VI.G.2.d.
3. Notwithstanding Consent Decree § VI.E.2, but subject to Consent Decree § V.C.1, the parties are not precluded from using any data or factual information gathered by the G.L. Monitoring Committee, for whatever reason, to support or to defend against a motion: (a) to enforce the Consent Decree and Operational Guide, including a motion to hold defendants in contempt for failing to comply with sections of the Consent Decree and Operational Guide not listed in Consent Decree § VI.E.2; or (b) to bar the expiration of the Consent Decree and the Operational Guide or the transfer of any provision of either document on the grounds specified in Consent Decree § VI.G.2.d.
4. Nothing contained in the Consent Decree, Operational Guide or Monitoring Methodology shall be deemed to require a level of compliance than would otherwise exist under law. The standards contained in the Exit Plan are only for purposes of exit from the Consent Decree and its related provisions and shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement by the parties on what constitutes substantial compliance for any other purpose.
5. All claims by plaintiffs for costs and attorneys’ fees are reserved, unless otherwise resolved prior to the Court’s approval of the Consent Decree.
G. Exit Plan 1. To exit from the Consent Decree, the Operational Guide and the Monitoring Methodology, defendants are required to reach the compliance levels contained in the Exit Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
22

by reference, and to sustain that compliance for one (1) one and one-half (1 ½) year period as reflected in three (3) consecutive six (6)–month reports of the G.L. Monitoring Committee. Should defendants’ level of compliance with any given standard be no more than five (5) percent below that set forth in the Exit Plan for any one (1) of the six (6)–month periods defendants shall not be precluded from exiting the Consent Decree.
2. Exiting from the Consent Decree, Operational Guide and Monitoring Methodology shall occur as follows:
a. The Exit Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A, is divided into ten (10) sections.
b. The G.L. Monitoring Committee shall transfer monitoring of each section to DFS’ internal Quality Assurance Unit immediately after defendants reach the designated compliance level with respect to each identified standard of that section and sustain compliance at that level for the designated period of time. While defendants shall make good faith efforts to maintain the designated compliance levels, a drop in compliance levels after the transfer of a section shall not be, by itself, grounds for a motion to enforce the Consent Decree or Operational Guide, to hold defendants in contempt or to bar future expiration of the Consent Decree as set *270 forth in the Exit Plan. Notwithstanding the above, plaintiffs may seek to enforce transferred sections or standards if a drop in compliance levels results in a violation of the plaintiff children’s constitutional or federal statutory rights. Nor are plaintiffs precluded from seeking to enforce transferred sections or standards as remedial measures in connection with motions to enforce sections or provisions that have not been transferred.
c. The Consent Decree, Operational Guide and Monitoring Methodology shall expire, without any further order of the court and will be of no further force and effect, sixty (60) days after the transfer of the last section(s) to DFS’ internal Quality Assurance Unit.
d. The reports of the G.L. Monitoring Committee shall identify the sections, if any, that are to be transferred to DFS’ internal Quality Assurance Unit for the subsequent monitoring period. Plaintiffs reserve the right to move, after receiving the reports with such notification, to bar the transfer of monitoring to the Quality Assurance Unit or to bar the expiration of the Consent Decree, Operational Guide and Monitoring Methodology on the grounds that defendants are

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
continuing to violate the constitutional or federal statutory rights of the plaintiff children or that defendants have not complied with the prerequisites for transfer or expiration. e. The Exit Plan has not included any target dates for meeting the compliance standard. To the extent that any provisions of the Consent Decree, Operational Guide or Panel Recommendation referenced in the Exit Plan refers to target dates, such dates are not intended to be part of the Exit Plan.
3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this lawsuit until the Consent Decree, Operational Guide and Monitoring Methodology expire in their entirety pursuant to the terms of the Exit Plan.
Dated: October 18, 1994. /s/ Gary Stangler
Gary Stangler
Director
Department of Social Services
State of Missouri /s/ Carmen K. Schulze
Carmen K. Schulze
Director
Division of Family Services
Department of Social Services
State of Missouri /s/ Mary Browning
Mary Browning
Deputy Director
Division of Legal Services
Department of Social Services
221 West High Street
23

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Missouri Bar No. 34633
/s/ Richard L. Matt Richard L. Matt Deputy Director Children’s Services Division of Family Services Department of Social Services State of Missouri
/s/ Kathleen Dowd Kathleen Dowd Program Administrator Children’s Services Division of Family Services, Jackson County Office Department of Social Services State of Missouri
/s/ Robert Presson Robert Presson Assistant Attorney General 221 West High Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Missouri Bar No. 23256
/s/ Robin L. Dahlberg Robin L. Dahlberg Senior Staff Counsel

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Children’s Rights Project American Civil Liberties Union 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036
*271 /s/ Fred Rich Fred Rich Legal Aid of Western Missouri 1005 Grand Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Missouri Bar No. 28152 SO ORDERED:
/s/ Dean Whipple Dean Whipple, Judge United States District Court
EXHIBIT A
(EXIT PLAN)
I. Licensing and Certification: 1. 95% of licensing and certification studies mandated by Consent Decree § II.A shall be done by trained professionals. 2. 95% of foster homes shall be licensed, relicensed or certified in accordance with Consent Decree §§ II.A.2, II.A.3 and II.B.1. 3. 80% of applications to become a foster parent or kinship parent shall be acted upon within ninety (90) days
24

of the receipt of a completed, official application form by the DFS licensing unit.
4. DFS shall implement the foster parent training curriculum required by Consent Decree § II.C.4 and Operational Guide §§ II.C.1 and II.C.2.
5. 95% of foster parents, kinship parents and adults with primary child care responsibilities as defined in Consent Decree § II.C.3 and Operational Guide § II.C.4 shall complete pre-service training within the time period set forth in Consent Decree § II.C.1.
6. 95% of foster parents, kinship parents and adults with primary child care responsibilities as defined in Consent Decree § II.C.3 and Operational Guide § II.C.4 shall complete the in-service training required by Consent Decree § II.C.2 within ninety (90) days of relicensure or certification as per Consent Decree § II.B.1.
II. Placement: 1. DFS shall develop, disseminate and train workers on the placement practice guide mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.1 and Operational Guide §§ II.D.1 (Panel Recommendation 56) and II.D.2.
2. DFS shall establish a placement mechanism, as required by Consent Decree § V.B.2 and Operational Guide § V.B.1 (Panel Recommendation 54), that has the staffing and resources identified by the most recent needs assessment.
3. 95% of social workers engaged in the selection of alternative care placements shall receive the training required by Consent Decree § II.D.3 and Operational Guide § II.D.3.
4. Throughout each six (6) month monitoring period, 85% of a randomly selected, statistically valid sample of class members shall be in placements that conform to Consent Decree §§ II.D.5–10 and Operational Guide §§ II.D.5–8 and II.D.11. A placement that is not in conformity for more than one reason shall constitute only one instance of non-compliance. Multiple inappropriate placements of a single class member during a six (6) month monitoring period shall constitute only one instance of non-compliance.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
5. 95% of class members and alternative care providers shall be provided with 80% of available relevant information as defined by Operational Guide §§ II.E.1 and II.E.3 prior to each new placement or at the time of placement as permitted by Operational Guide II.E.4.
6. 85% of pre-placement visits required by Consent Decree § II.E.2 and Operational Guide §§ II.E.5 and II.E.9–12 shall occur.
7. DFS shall review the placements of 90% of class members coming into its custody as a result of a report of abuse or neglect within twenty-four (24) hours of their entry into DFS custody. Reviews conducted as specified in Operational Guide § IV.B.2 shall be deemed in compliance.
8. In 90% of the cases in which DFS determines after the twenty-four (24)–hour review that out-of-home placement is not necessary, DFS shall recommend to the Family Court, within twenty-four (24) hours of its determination, that the child should be returned home.
*272 III. Supervision of Class: 1. 90% of class members and their alternative care providers shall receive 90% of the visits and contacts required by Consent Decree §§ II.E.3 and II.E.4 and Operational Guide § II.E.13–15.
2. 95% of all incidents of suspected abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline shall be reported as required by Consent Decree §§ II.F.2.a–c.
3. 95% of all incidents of suspected abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline shall be documented as required by Consent Decree §§ II.F.2.e and Operational Guide § II.F.3.
4. 95% of all incidents of suspected abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline shall be investigated and acted upon as required by Consent Decree §§ II.F.4–7 and Operational Guide §§ II.F.1, II.F.2, and II.F.4–6.
5. 95% of the foster homes that are the subject of pending investigations of suspected incidents of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline, shall not receive additional placements of children as per Consent Decree § II.F.3.
25

IV. Medical: 1. 95% of all class members shall receive medical, hearing, eye and dental examinations as specified in Consent Decree §§ III.A.1–3 and Operational Guide § III.A.1.
2. 95% of class members shall receive necessary and appropriate health care follow-up services and specialized health care services in a timely manner as required by Consent Decree § III.A.4 and Operational Guide § III.A.2.
3. 95% of class members shall have health care plans within thirty (30) days of their entry into DFS custody.
4. 90% of class members shall have health care plans that include the elements set forth in Operational Guide § III.B.1.
5. Health care plans of 90% of class members shall be reviewed and revised with the frequency required by Consent Decree § III.B.3 and Operational Guide § III.B.2.
6. For 90% of the class members, DFS shall disseminate health care information in its possession pertaining to those children as required by Consent Decree § III.C.3 and Operational Guide § III.C.2.
7. DFS shall have implemented a medical case management system mandated by Consent Decree § III.D.1 and Operational Guide §§ III.D.1 and III.D.2.
V. Planning: 1. DFS shall develop, disseminate and train staff on the permanency planning practice guide required by Consent Decree § IV.A.1 and Operational Guide §§ IV.A.1 (Panel Recommendations 53, 64 and 67 (task 4)) and IV.A.2.
2. 90% of the class members shall receive a preliminary needs assessment within the time periods specified in Consent Decree § IV.B.2.
3. 90% of class members shall have a preliminary planning conference within the time periods specified in

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Consent Decree § IV.C.1.
4. 90% of class members shall have preliminary permanency plans that contain the elements set forth below:
a. Preliminary assessment of child’s immediate service needs.
b. Preliminary permanency planning goal.
c. Preliminary assessment of services needed to achieve permanency planning goal.
d. Schedule of services.
e. Visitation schedule.
5. 95% of class members shall have a comprehensive permanency planning conference within the time periods specified in Consent Decree § IV.E.1 or Operational Guide § IV.E.3.
6. 90% of class members shall receive a comprehensive assessment of their service needs and the service needs of their families within thirty (30) days of their entry into DFS custody.
7. 95% of class members shall receive a comprehensive permanency plan within the *273 time period specified in Consent Decree § IV.F.1 and Operational Guide § IV.F.2.
8. 90% of class members shall have comprehensive permanency plans that contain the elements set forth in Consent Decree § IV.F.3.
9. 90% of class members shall have a permanency planning goal that complies with Consent Decree § IV.I.1 and Operational Guide § IV.I.2.
10. DFS shall solicit and document the input of the families of 90% of class members with a goal of reunification in the development of the children’s comprehensive permanency plan.
11. The comprehensive permanency plans of 90% of class members shall be reviewed with the frequency required by Consent Decree § IV.H.1.
12. Prior to the review contemplated by Consent Decree § IV.H.1, the comprehensive permanency plans of 90% of the class members shall be revised to address the items set
26

forth in Consent Decree § IV.H.2.
13. 95% of class members shall have written service agreements developed and signed as set forth in Consent Decree §§ IV.G.1 and IV.G.2 and Operational Guide §§ IV.G.1 and IV.G.2.
VI. Service Provision: 1. 90% of class members with emergency medical or psychological needs shall begin to receive services within the time period specified in Consent Decree § IV.B.4.
2. 90% of class members shall receive the services identified in their preliminary plan within the time frame set forth in the plan. Services provided within a 10% variance of the time originally specified in the plan shall be deemed in compliance.
3. 90% of the class members shall receive the services identified in their comprehensive permanency plans within the time frame specified therein. Services provided within a 10% variance of the time originally scheduled shall be deemed to be in compliance.
4. 90% of class members shall receive 85% of child/parent visits required by a preliminary or comprehensive permanency plan shall have occurred. Child/parent visits that do not occur because of the specific circumstances of the child or the parent (and such specific circumstances are documented in the child’s case record) shall not be included within the sample analyzed to determine compliance levels.
5. 90% of class members shall receive 85% of child/sibling visits required by a preliminary or comprehensive permanency plan shall have occurred. Child/sibling visits that do not occur because of the specific circumstances of the child or the sibling(s) (and such specific circumstances are documented in the child’s case record) shall not be included within the sample analyzed to determine compliance levels.
VII. Adoption: 1. 95% of social workers involved in the adoption process

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
shall receive the training required by Consent Decree § IV.J.1 and Operational Guide §§ IV.J.1 and IV.J.2.
2. In 90% of the instances in which a permanency planning review team decides to refer a child’s case to DFS’ Legal Section for determination as to whether sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights exist, the steps mandated by Consent Decree §§ IV.I.3 and IV.I.4 shall be taken within the time periods mandated by Consent Decree §§ IV.I.3 and IV.I.4.
3. 90% of class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall have an adoption planning conference within thirty (30) days of the assignment of a goal of adoption.
4. 95% of a class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall have adoption plans that contain the elements set forth below:
a. Steps to be taken to prepare the child for adoption.
b. Steps to be taken to find the child an adoptive home.
c. Time frames within which steps shall be taken.
*274 d. Steps to be taken once an adoptive resource has been located.
e. Schedule of contacts.
5. 90% of the class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall receive 90% of the adoptive recruitment activities set forth in their adoption plans within the time periods set forth in those plans, Consent Decree § IV.L.1.e and Operational Guide § IV.L.1. Recruitment activities occurring within a 10% variance of the time specified in the adoption plans, Consent Decree § IV.L.1.e or the Operational Guide shall be deemed in compliance.
6. 90% of class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall receive 90% of all visits and contacts required by Operational Guide IV.L.3 and IV.L.4 and their adoption plans.
7. 95% of adoption plans shall be reviewed at least every ninety (90) days.
27

VIII. Staff Caseloads and Training: 1. DFS shall be operating a training unit as required by Consent Decree § V.B.7 and Operational Guide § V.B.1 (Panel Recommendation 13), and shall have reviewed its staffing and resource needs annually.
2. 95% of DFS staff shall receive the orientation and in-service training required by Consent Decree §§ V.A.6–7 within the time frames set forth therein.
3. DFS shall retrain staff as required by Consent Decree § V.A.8.
4. 95% of social workers shall have caseloads in conformity with Consent Decree §§ V.A.1–3.
5. 90% of supervisors supervising units whose workers have combined caseloads of six (6) or more class members or that provide licensing, placement, resource development or adoption services shall be supervising no more than six (6) social workers. Exceptions may be made as set forth in Consent Decree § V.A.4.b.
IX. Information Systems: 1. Social workers engaged in foster and kinship parent training, licensing and certification processes shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Consent Decree § II.C.5.
2. Social workers engaged in licensing or certification of foster homes shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Consent Decree § II.A.5.
3. Social workers engaged in the placement process shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Consent Decree § II.D.4.
4. Social workers engaged in the adoption process shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Consent Decree § IV.J.2.
5. DFS shall hire or contract with a full-time person to program and maintain the automated management information system.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
X. Management: 1. DFS shall have hired a Deputy Program Administrator for Children’s Services for the Jackson County Office.
2. DFS shall have hired six (6) additional full-time equivalent clerical workers between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1995.
3. DFS shall have hired six (6) additional full-time equivalent paraprofessionals between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1995.
4. DFS shall have designated a full-time equivalent position with appropriate knowledge of the local educational system to act as the educational advocate required by Consent Decree § V.B.3.
5. DFS shall have designated a Resource Development Coordinator and assigned the staffing required by Consent Decree § V.B.5.
6. DFS shall be operating a foster and adoptive parent recruitment and retention program, staffed with six (6) full-time social workers who report to one (1) supervisor.
*275 7. DFS shall have established a Quality Assurance Unit capable of assuming the tasks and responsibilities of the G.L. Monitoring Committee and conducting its own quality assurance program.
8. DFS shall establish, with the Family Court, the process mandated by Consent Decree § IV.B.3.
9. DFS shall develop and implement annual plans to recruit and retain social work staff.
10. DFS shall develop and implement annual plans to recruit and retain foster and adoptive parents, including temporary and specialized/professional foster parents.
11. DFS shall develop and implement annual plans to increase the number of providers that provide services to class members and their families.
12. DFS shall operate a program that provides support and incentives to foster, kinship, and prospective adoptive parents as required by Consent Decree § II.G and
28

Operational Guide § II.G.
13. DFS shall be operating the ombudsperson program as required by Consent Decree § II.G.4. and Operational Guide §§ II.G.1 (Panel Recommendation 22 (task 4.d), II.G.2.b and II.G.3.
14. DFS shall take the remedial measures required by the Consent Decree §§ VI.B.1–4 and Operational Guide §§ VI.B.1–2.
MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE OPERATIONAL GUIDE
I. INTRODUCTION When this Operational Guide directs DFS to implement a Panel Recommendation, it directs DFS to implement the tasks and products of that Recommendation as those tasks and products have been or may be amended by mutual consent of plaintiffs and defendants. The parties recognize that some of the tasks and products permit administrative flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment.
Copies of the relevant Panel Recommendations, including their tasks and products, are attached hereto in numerical order and incorporated by reference. Certain of the attached Panel Recommendations have been modified by mutual consent of the parties.
The fact that a Panel Recommendation may be referred to in a section of the Operational Guide or with reference to a particular section of the Consent Decree does not mean that the Recommendation is irrelevant to other sections.
Where there is a conflict between the language of a Panel Recommendation and the text of the Operational Guide, the Operational Guide controls.
II. PREVENTING ABUSE, NEGLECT & INAPPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
A. Licensing and Certification of Foster Homes 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 21, including its tasks and products.
2. For purposes of Consent Decree § II.A.1, a professional or supervisor shall be considered trained if he/she receives preservice and annual in-service training on the licensing process, the practice issues attendant to conducting a home study, the decisions involved in assessing the suitability of a foster home and the adequacy of foster parenting skills, and the specific psychological, emotional, physical and educational problems that children in DFS legal custody are likely to have.
3. The curriculum used for the orientation and annual in-service training mandated by Consent Decree § II.A.1, or any revisions thereto, shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
4. All references to state regulations in this section shall be to regulations in effect in January 1994 or as subsequently amended. Proposed amendments to these regulations shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment *276 prior to publication in the Missouri Register.

3. Should DFS wish to permit foster and kinship parents to obtain training credits for training that does not occur in the traditional classroom setting, it shall provide plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee with a list of out-of-classroom training options available to foster and kinship parents, the training credits afforded by each, and mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of such training on a foster-parent-by-foster-parent basis.
4. For purposes of Consent Decree § II.C.3, adults with primary child care responsibilities shall be defined as adults, identified by the foster or kinship parents at the time of licensure, relicensure or certification, as providing a minimum of forty (40) hours of child care per week throughout the upcoming licensure period. These adults must complete the same hours of training required of the foster or kinship parents during that licensure period.
5. DFS shall review annually with each foster and kinship parent his or her compliance with the Consent Decree’s mandatory foster and kinship parent training requirements and, where appropriate, develop a plan to ensure that the foster or kinship parent receives the required number of hours prior to the expiration of the licensing period.

B. Renewal of Foster Home Licenses and Certifications 1. All references to state regulations in this section shall be to regulations in effect in January 1994 or as subsequently amended. Proposed amendments to these regulations shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to publication in the Missouri Register.
C. Mandatory Training of Foster and Kinship Parents 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 24, including its tasks and products.
2. The core curriculum referred to in the Consent Decree shall include those topics outlined in Panel Recommendation 24.
29

D. Proper Matching of Children with Appropriate Placements 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 54 and 56, including their tasks and products.
2. The placement practice guide mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.1 shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to its adoption and publication.
3. The training mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.3 shall consist of at least six (6) hours of pre-service and six (6) hours of annual in-service training. The six (6) hour pre-service and the six (6) hour annual in-service training may count towards the social worker’s annual thirty (30) hour in-service training.
4. The curriculum used for the training mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.3 and any revisions thereto, shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
5. During the first year of a foster parents’ first two (2)–year licensure period, DFS shall not make any placements in the foster home that would cause a change in the foster home’s licensing restrictions. During subsequent licensure periods, placement in a foster home that would cause a change in the home’s licensing restrictions only may be made with prior written approval of the licensing supervisor.
6. During the first six (6) months of the first foster parent licensure period, DFS shall not permit more than one (1) foster child to reside with foster parents who have had no previous foster care experience. Exceptions can be made for sibling groups of two (2). Placement of children over the age of eighteen (18) and under the continuing jurisdiction of the Family Court shall be exempt from this requirement with the foster parents’ consent.
7. With respect to foster family homes, DFS may exceed the capacity restrictions set forth in Consent Decree §§ II.D.5–7 only if *277 necessary to place the siblings of a child already residing in the foster family home. If DFS wishes to make exceptions to the capacity restrictions of Consent Decree §§ II.D.5–7, the licensing unit must conduct an assessment of the foster family home’s ability to adequately accommodate the placements before the exception is made and document that assessment in the foster parents’ record. If the licensing unit determines that the foster family home can accommodate the sibling placements only if appropriate supports and services are provided, DFS shall provide such supports and services. Under no circumstances shall the number of children in the foster family home exceed two (2) above the foster family home’s license capacity. Under no circumstances shall there be more than five (5) children who are five (5) years old or younger or three (3) children who are two (2) years old or younger.
8. With respect to kinship homes, DFS may exceed the capacity restrictions set forth in Consent Decree §§ II.D.5–7, provided that the licensing unit conducts an assessment of the kinship home’s ability to adequately accommodate the placements before the exception is made and documents that assessment in the kinship parents’ record. If the licensing unit determines that the kinship home can accommodate the placements only if appropriate supports and services are provided, DFS shall provide such supports and services. Under no circumstances shall the number of children in the kinship home exceed two (2) above the kinship home’s licensed or certified capacity. Under no circumstances shall there
30

be more than five (5) children who are five (5) years old or younger or three (3) children who are two (2) years old or younger.
9. Each class member’s social worker shall document, in writing why a particular alternative care placement has been chosen for that child.
10. Each alternative care placement must be approved, in writing, by a supervisor with knowledge of the case.
11. A child may remain in temporary foster care status for longer than thirty (30) days under the following circumstances:
a. The child will be released from DFS custody within the next thirty (30) calendar days.
b. The child will be moving to a specified, available placement within the next thirty (30) calendar days.
c. The Family Court has ordered that the child remain in a designated placement for a period of time longer than thirty (30) days.
E. Pre–Placement Process and Supervision of the Placement 1. Relevant information to be provided to a class member pursuant to Consent Decree § II.E.1 shall include as much information as is appropriate for the child’s age about the foster home, its composition, the location of the foster home and the school the child will be attending. If possible, DFS shall provide the child with a photograph of the prospective foster family.
2. DFS shall help each class member with the trauma of separation from his/her family and his/her placement in DFS custody.
3. Relevant information to be provided to alternative care providers pursuant to Consent Decree § II.E.1 shall include, but is not limited to, reasons for the child’s placement, the child’s permanency planning goal, the child’s medical history, the child’s school placement, a description of the child’s medical, psychological, educational and behavioral problems, if any, the child’s service needs, the steps DFS shall be taking to meet those needs, and the services DFS shall provide to the

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
alternative care providers, if any, to assist them in caring for the child.
4. If a placement is an emergency placement as defined in Operational Guide II.E.11, information may be provided to the class member and the alternative care provider either prior to or at the time of placement.
5. The following persons shall be present at the pre-placement visit mandated by Consent Decree § II.E.2:
a. The child.
*278 b. The child’s social worker.
c. The alternative care provider(s).
6. The child’s parents/caretakers shall be present at the pre-placement visit if available and if appropriate based on the child’s permanency planning goal or the circumstances of the child’s placement.
7. Other children and persons living or working in the home should be present at the pre-placement visit if available.
8. The child’s social worker shall schedule the pre-placement visit so that all individuals listed in ¶ 5 above are present and the maximum number of individuals listed in ¶¶ 6 and 7 above may attend.
9. Pre-placement visits with children who are being released from a medical hospital or facility to which they were admitted for non-psychiatric reasons shall occur at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to placement but do not have to occur in the foster home.
10. Pre-placement visits for children who are being released from residential treatment facilities, psychiatric facilities or medical facilities to which they were admitted for psychiatric reasons shall take place pursuant to plans developed by DFS and the discharging facility.
11. Pre-placement visits do not need to occur if the placement is an emergency placement. For purposes of this section, an emergency placement is defined as a placement that occurs under the following circumstances:
a. the child is in imminent danger in his/her current placement and must be removed immediately, or
b. DFS receives less than seventy-two (72) hours notice
31

of the need to place the child.
12. Children who are already residing in a particular placement when the Family Court orders that they be placed in that placement are exempt from the pre-placement visit requirement.
13. If a child is placed in a new alternative care placement on a Friday night, Saturday or holiday, DFS shall provide that child with the twenty-four (24) hour visit mandated by Consent Decree §§ II.3.a and II.4.a on the next business day.
14. Another worker with knowledge of the child may be designated to make the visits required by Consent Decree §§ II.E.3 and II.E.4 only if the child’s worker is on leave and the fact that he/she is on leave has been documented. A worker is on leave when he/she has not reported for work because he/she is on annual leave, maternity leave, sick leave, compensatory leave, leave without pay, military leave, or administrative leave. With respect to Consent Decree §§ II.E.3.a and II.E.4.a, the supervisor of the child’s regular worker shall make the twenty-four (24) hour visit if the regular social worker cannot do so for reasons other than those set forth above. If the foster family is unavailable due to family emergency or vacation, the child’s worker shall make the twenty-four (24) hour visit within twenty-four (24) hours of the family becoming available.
15. Class members in residential treatment facilities located more than seventy-five (75) miles from the main office of the Jackson County DFS are exempt from the visitation requirements of Consent Decree § II.E.4. Instead, the child’s social worker shall attend periodic reviews of the child’s course of treatment convened by the residential treatment facilities.
F. Prohibition on the Use of Inappropriate Discipline of Children and Investigation of and Responses to Suspected Incidents of Inappropriate Discipline, Neglect and Abuse. 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree section, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 43, including its tasks and products.
2. If the investigation into an incident of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline results in a finding of “probable cause” (substantiation), or a finding of “unsubstantiated,

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
but preventive services indicated,” the team referred to in Consent Decree § II.F.6 shall meet within five (5) business days of the conclusion of the investigation.
*279 3. The facts surrounding an incident of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline, including any findings made at the conclusion of the investigation, shall remain in the child’s record and the record of the alternative care providers even if the report is determined to be unsubstantiated.
4. For purposes of Consent Decree § II.F.5, normal Child Abuse/Neglect Procedures are defined as those set forth in the Missouri DFS Child Abuse/Neglect Investigation Handbook.
5. For purposes of Consent Decree §§ II.F.4 and II.F.5, specialized workers are defined as workers assigned to the Out of Home Investigation Unit under the supervision of the DFS Central Office.
6. If services are provided to or corrective actions taken by alternative care providers who are the subject of reports of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline, documentation of those services and corrective actions shall be placed in the alternative care providers’ record.

activities to enhance material support and assistance for foster parents, kinship parents and foster children from businesses, churches and civic organizations in the Jackson County, Missouri area. Furthermore, DFS actively shall seek out increased civic support for the foster parenting program in Jackson County.
c. Enhancing the availability of free and/or low-cost respite care and child care services that are available to foster and kinship parents.
d. Providing support to programs and stores operated by foster, kinship and adoptive parents which provide clothing, food, and other items for active foster parents.
3. The foster and adoptive parent ombudspersons shall be available to assist any foster, kinship and prospective adoptive parent who wishes to raise any issue with DFS, including, but not limited to, permanency planning concerns and supports and services the foster, kinship or prospective adoptive parent may need to better understand and carry out his/her role.
III. HEALTH CARE SERVICES

G. Providing Adequate Supports 1. To assist it in achieving implementation of the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 22, including its tasks and products.
2. Collaborative activities by DFS with foster and kinship parents shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Making efforts to develop inter-agency agreements in order to increase and streamline foster parent, kinship parent and foster child access to:
(1) Women, Infants, Children (WIC) Program.
(2) Local public health services.
(3) First Steps Program.
(4) Immunization programs offered by and through the Department of Health.
b. Directing and supporting foster parent ombudsperson 32

A. Health Care Services 1. For children two (2) years old and younger, examinations required by the Healthy Children & Youth Program (HCY) after the initial thirty (30)–day examination shall be deemed to be in compliance with Consent Decree § III.A if received within fifteen (15) days of the times specified by the Program. For children over the age of two (2), examinations required by HCY’s examination schedule after the initial thirty (30)–day examination shall be deemed to be in compliance if received within thirty (30) days of the times specified by the Program.
2. Specialized and follow-up health care services received within a reasonable time of the period specified by the health care provider shall be deemed to be in compliance with Consent Decree § III.A.4.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
B. Health Care Plan 1. At a minimum, each health care plan mandated by Consent Decree § III.B.1 shall include the following:
a. Preliminary and final diagnoses.
b. Required medications.
*280 c. Follow-up appointments.
d. Required medical or specialized services.
2. At a minimum, children with serious medical problems shall have their health care plans reviewed at least every two (2) months and revised as needed. All other children shall have their health care plans reviewed at least every six (6) months and revised as needed.
3. Each child’s health care plan shall be made part of the child’s medical record and Comprehensive Permanency Plans.
C. Health Care History and Health Care Records 1. To collect all available health care information about a child as mandated by Consent Decree § III.C.1, DFS shall obtain relevant information from the child’s family and records from the child’s previous health care providers, and ascertain whether the child is currently on medication and has or has had:
a. Medical problems, including chronic ailments or childhood illnesses, and dental, eye or hearing problems.
b. Inoculations and immunization.
c. Psychological problems.
d. Allergies.
2. To comply with Consent Decree § III.C.3, the child’s social worker shall, at a minimum, provide a summary of available health care information, including the child’s health care plan, to:
a. Foster and kinship parents at the time of placement or one week after the plan is developed.
b. To the child’s family at the time the child is returned
33

home.
c. To those service providers providing services to the child that are related to the child’s health care problems. The health care plan, however, shall only be provided if appropriate.
D. Medical Case Management 1. To assist it in achieving implementation with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 25 and 26, including their tasks and products.
2. The Medical Care Oversight Committee contemplated by Panel Recommendation 25 shall include representatives from the Family Court, Missouri Foster Care and Adoption Association and the current Jackson County Medical Care Coordinator. The Committee may seek technical assistance from the community as necessary and make recommendations to DFS for the appointment of additional community members.
3. DFS shall take steps to reduce duplicative and overburdensome paperwork requirements associated with medical case management.
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENCY PLANS AND PERMANENCY PLANNING GOALS
A. Permanency Planning Guide 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 53, 64 and 67, including their tasks and products.
2. The permanency planning practice guide mandated by Consent Decree § IV.A.1 shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to its adoption and publication.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
B. Preliminary Service Needs Determination 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 41 and 55, including their tasks and products.
2. The placement of children who enter DFS’ custody on Friday night, Saturday or a holiday shall be reviewed on the next business day.
3. With respect to Consent Decree § IV.B.1, DFS shall make a recommendation to the Family Court on or before the next business day that a child be returned home if it determines that out-of-home placement is not necessary.
*281 C. Preliminary Planning Conference 1. The social worker assigned to the child, a supervisor with knowledge of the case, and, if the child was the subject of a report of child abuse or neglect, the social worker assigned to investigate/assess that report, shall attend the Preliminary Planning Conference mandated by Consent Decree § IV.C.1.
2. DFS shall invite to the Preliminary Planning Conference the child’s parents/caretakers and the child, if DFS determines that the child’s presence would be appropriate. DFS shall facilitate the attendance of the child’s parents/caretakers in the conference. If parents/caretakers do not attend, DFS shall document reasons for non-attendance and the attempts to facilitate attendance.
3. DFS shall notify the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney and the attorney for the child’s parents/caretakers of the date, time and place of the conference if DFS is aware that such individuals have been retained, assigned or appointed to the case.
D. Preliminary Permanency Plan 1. The service assessments required by Consent Decree §§ IV.D.1.b, IV.D.1.e. and IV.D.1.g shall include, but are not limited to, assessments of the child’s medical, psychological, behavioral and educational needs.
2. If the preliminary plan does not provide for a weekly
34

parent/child or child/sibling visitation schedule, the reasons for having a different schedule shall be documented in the Preliminary Permanency Plan.
3. The Preliminary Permanency Plan shall be signed by the those persons in attendance at the Preliminary Planning Conference who are in agreement with the plan. If an individual attending the conference is not in agreement with the plan, his/her dissent and the reasons therefore shall be noted on the plan. DFS shall develop a procedure for reviewing and acting upon dissents.
4. After it is completed, the Preliminary Permanency Plan shall be submitted promptly to the Family Court, the child’s parents/caretakers and the child’s alternative care providers. It also shall be submitted to the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney and the attorneys for the parents/caretakers if/when such individuals have been retained, assigned or appointed.
E. Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference 1. DFS shall provide each member of a child’s Permanency Planning Review Team with written notice of the date, time and location of the Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference at least ten (10) working days prior to the conference. Those team members whose identity and/or location is not known to DFS ten (10) working days prior to the conference shall be given notice of the conference by telephone as soon as DFS becomes aware of their identity and/or location.
2. DFS shall facilitate the attendance of the child’s parents/caretakers in the conference. If parents/caretakers do not attend, DFS shall document reasons for non-attendance and the attempts to facilitate attendance.
3. The Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference may be postponed at the discretion of the Program Administrator or his/her designee if a significant number of Permanency Planning Review Team members cannot attend. Under no circumstances, shall the Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference be held more than forty-five (45) days after a child has entered DFS custody.
4. A child age twelve (12) or over may waive his/her presence at the Preliminary Planning Conference or may have his/her presence waived by his/her guardian ad litem/attorney.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
5. A child, under age twelve (12), may have his/her presence waived by mutual consent of his/her guardian ad litem/attorney and social worker.
F. Comprehensive Permanency Plan 1. The statutes and regulations referred to in Consent Decree § IV.F.2 are those in existence in January 1994, or as subsequently amended. Proposed amendments to the *282 state regulations shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to their publication.
2. If a child’s first Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference is not held within thirty (30) days of the child’s entry into DFS custody for the reasons set forth in Operational Guide § IV.E.3, the child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall be developed no later than forty-five (45) days from the child’s entry into DFS custody.
3. The comprehensive service assessment required by Consent Decree § IV.F.3.b shall include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the child’s medical, psychological, behavioral and educational services.
4. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall be signed by each member of the child’s Permanency Planning Review Team in attendance and in agreement with the plan. If a member of the team is not in agreement with the plan, his/her dissent and the reasons therefore shall be noted on the plan. DFS shall develop a procedure for reviewing and acting upon dissents.
5. After it is completed, the Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall be submitted promptly to the Family Court, the child’s parents/caretakers, the attorneys for the parents/caretakers (if such attorneys have been assigned or retained), the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney and the child’s alternative care providers.
G. Written Service Agreements 1. Written Service Agreements are agreements between DFS and appropriate persons based on the child’s
35

permanency planning goal. The Written Service Agreements shall set forth with particularity the roles and responsibilities of each person/party to the agreement with regard to implementation of the child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
2. Each Written Service Agreement shall, at a minimum, specify the following:
a. The steps to be taken by the parties to the agreement to meet the interim goals and objectives set forth in the child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
b. The individuals (designated by name or title) responsible for taking the steps set forth above.
c. Time frames within which the above steps will be taken.
d. Time frames and mechanisms for measuring progress in achieving goals and objectives and evaluating service intervention.
3. The facts and circumstances of a child’s case may require that there be more than one Written Service Agreement.
a. If a child’s permanency planning goal is reunification, DFS shall develop a Written Service Agreement with the child’s parents/caretakers and, if appropriate, the child.
b. If a child’s permanency planning goal is independent living, DFS shall develop a Written Service Agreement with the child, and if appropriate, the child’s parents/caretakers.
c. If a child’s permanency planning goal is guardianship, DFS shall enter into a Written Service Agreement with the child’s potential guardian, if identified, the child’s parents/caretakers, if appropriate, and/or the child, if appropriate.
d. If a child’s permanency planning goal is adoption, DFS shall enter into a Written Service Agreement with the child’s adoptive resource, if identified, the child’s parents/caretakers, if appropriate, and/or the child, if appropriate.
4. If the child’s goal is independent living, the Written Service Agreement shall include a specific plan for the development of an alternative living arrangement when the child leaves alternative care and the supports

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
necessary to make that living arrangement successful.
5. Each Written Service Agreement shall be signed by all parties to the agreement or their agent/representative. If any party refuses to sign and does not agree with the Written Service Agreement, the social worker shall document that party’s disagreement and the reasons therefore.
*283 H. Six–Month Permanency Planning Review 1. DFS shall provide each member of a child’s Permanency Planning Review Team with written notice of the date, time and location of a six (6)–month Permanency Planning Review at least ten (10) working days prior to the conference. Those team members whose identity and/or location are not known to DFS ten (10) working days prior to the conference shall be given notice of the conference by telephone as soon as DFS becomes aware of their identity and location.
2. DFS shall facilitate the attendance of the child’s parents/caretakers in the conference. If parents/caretakers do not attend, DFS shall document reasons for non-attendance and the attempts to facilitate attendance.
3. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan resulting from each six (6)–month Permanency Planning Review shall be signed by each team member in attendance and in agreement with the plan. If a member of the team is not in agreement with the plan, his/her dissent and the reasons therefore shall be noted on the plan. DFS shall develop a procedure for reviewing and acting upon dissents.
4. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan resulting from each six (6)–month Permanency Planning Review shall be submitted promptly to the Family Court, the child’s parents/caretakers, the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney, the attorneys for the parents/caretakers and the child’s alternative care provider.
5. A child’s social worker may change the interim goals and objectives set forth in a child’s Comprehensive Permanency Plan prior to a meeting of the child’s Permanency Planning Review Team if the child’s and/or family’s circumstances indicate that such a change is warranted and the worker’s supervisor has approved the changes. A child’s social worker may change the child’s permanency planning goal prior to a meeting of the
36

child’s Permanency Planning Review Team if the worker’s supervisor and the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney each approve the change.
I. Permanency Planning Goals 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 64, including its tasks and products.
2. Class members who are fourteen (14) or fifteen (15) years old may be assigned a permanency planning goal of independent living if they have stated that they do not wish to be adopted or have a guardian appointed and it has been documented that adoption or guardianship is not in the child’s best interest.
J. Adoption Training and Information Systems 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 62 and 67, including their tasks and products.
2. At a minimum, the adoption training mandated by Consent Decree § IV.J.1 shall address the following topics: determining adoptability, preparing children for adoption, recruiting adoptive families and matching children with adoptive resources.
3. The curriculum used for the training mandated by Consent Decree § IV.J.1 and any revisions thereto shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
K. Adoption Planning Conference 1. The child’s social worker and adoption worker shall attend the planning conference mandated by Consent Decree § IV.K.1. If the child’s social worker is performing adoption functions and there is no adoption worker, the social worker’s supervisor shall attend. The child’s guardian ad litem/attorney, alternative care provider (if appropriate) and services providers (if

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
appropriate) shall be invited to attend the adoption planning conference.
L. Adoption Plan 1. For purposes of the Adoption Plan, the steps to be taken to find the child an adoptive *284 home shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. A determination of whether the child’s current foster or kinship parents are interested in adoption, and if they are, a prompt determination of their appropriateness as adoptive resources and the prompt completion of a home study.
b. If the current foster home is not an available resource, prompt preparation of an adoptive profile of the child and review of currently approved adoptive studies to determine if there are appropriate resources.
c. If there are no appropriate homes among existing adoptive studies, child specific adoption recruitment, including, at a minimum, referring the child to the Adoption Exchange of Missouri and specialized adoption placing agencies and agencies under contract with DFS for child specific recruitment.
d. If referral to the exchanges set forth in (c) above does not result in an adoptive match within sixty (60) days, entering into child-specific contractual agreements with two (2) additional adoption exchanges or child placing agencies.
2. The steps to be taken once an adoptive resource has been located shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Prompt notification of the prospective adoptive parents of a match.
b. Prompt commencement of pre-placement visits between the child and the prospective adoptive parents.
c. An assessment of post-adoptive services needs.
3. If the child’s social worker is performing adoption functions and there is no adoption worker, DFS shall be considered in compliance with Consent Decree §§ IV.L.1.f and IV.L.2 if the social worker provides visits in accordance with Consent Decree §§ II.E.3 and II.E.4 and
37

has two (2) contacts per month with the child’s adoptive resource (if one has been located). One (1) contact shall be face-to-face, if possible. In addition, the child’s social worker shall be expected to maintain periodic and regular contact with the child’s guardian ad litem/attorney as required by Consent Decree §§ IV.L.1.f and IV.L.2.
4. If the child has both a social worker and an adoption worker, DFS shall be in compliance with Consent Decree § IV.L.1.f and IV.L.2 if the adoption worker visits with the child at least once each month and has two (2) contacts per month with the child’s adoptive resource (if one has been located). One (1) contact shall be face-to-face, if possible. In addition, the child’s adoption worker shall be expected to maintain periodic and regular contact with the child’s alternative care providers and guardian ad litem/attorney as required by Consent Decree § IV.L.1.f and IV.L.2.
V. PERMANENCY PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
A. Staff Caseloads, Supervision and Training 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 11 and 42, including their tasks and products.
2. A social worker will be considered to have received adequate supervision if he/she meets with his/her supervisor and unit according to Panel Recommendation 11, Task 5.
3. DFS shall submit the curriculum to be used for the training mandated by Consent Decree §§ V.A.6 and V.A.7 and any revisions thereto to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
4. DFS shall submit the curriculum to be used for the training mandated by Consent Decree § V.A.8 to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment. By January 1995, the curriculum shall be incorporated into the pre-service/orientation training provided to all new social workers. All workers receiving such training mandated by Consent Decree § V.A.8 shall be exempt from the thirty (30)–hour annual in-service training requirement for calendar year 1995.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

*285 B. Unit Structures and Managerial Personnel 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 1, 3, 13, 22, 54 and 63, including their tasks and products.
C. Management Plan 1. In formulating the Management Plan for FY 95, FY 96 and FY 97, DFS shall give special priority to those items that the Panel’s Recommendations identify as needing such attention, including, but not limited to, specialized staff training needs identified in Panel Recommendations 14, 52 and 62.
2. The Panel Recommendations attached to the Operational Guide and incorporated by reference shall function as the framework for needs assessment required by Consent Decree § V.3.a during the first, second and third years that Management Plans are developed and implemented.
3. If DFS undertakes the activities or accomplishes the tasks mandated by the Management Plan within a reasonable time after the time frames set forth in the Management Plan, it shall be deemed to be in compliance with Consent Decree § V.C.5.
Staff Recruitment and Retention Component 4. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 8, 9 and 10, including their tasks and products.
Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention Component 5. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 19, 20, 21, 22, 58, 63 and 65, including their tasks and products.
38

6. The needs assessment conducted pursuant to the Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention component of the Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. A determination of the number of emergency foster homes that are needed.
b. A determination of the number of professional-level foster homes and adoptive homes that are needed to accommodate children with medical, emotional or behavioral problems.
c. An identification of the reasons foster parents are leaving the system.
Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training Component 7. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 13, 14, 16, 24, 28, 36, 52 and 62, including their tasks and products.
8. Training provided by vendors shall be consistent with DFS policy and procedures.
Resource Development Component 9. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 60, including its tasks and products.
10. At a minimum, the Resource Development component of the Management Plan shall address the following issues as they relate to class members, their families, their alternative care providers and their service providers:
a. The Jackson County Office’s systemic resource needs.
b. The development of sufficient evaluative resources (including, but not limited to medical, developmental, emotional and psychological resources) so that comprehensive assessments of a child’s service needs can be obtained as soon as possible after that child has

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
entered DFS custody. c. Resources needed to implement each child’s Preliminary Permanency Plans and Comprehensive Permanency Plans and to accomplish each child’s permanency planning goal, including, but not limited to, adoption and educational advocacy resources. d. The development of a sufficient number of service providers and supports, including, but not limited to, alternative care providers other than foster and adoptive parents. Initial targets for the first Resource Development component of the Management Plan shall include the recruitment *286 of fifty (50) additional professional-level foster homes by September 1995; the recruitment of fifteen (15) additional emergency foster homes by September 1995; and the development of wraparound service capacity for twenty-five (25) class members by September 1996. e. Resources and administrative supports needed by licensing, placement and adoption staff to operate in accordance with reasonable professional standards.
Manual and Automated Management Information Systems Component 11. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 5, 21, 30, 31, and 67, including their tasks and products.
Quality Assurance Component 12. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 34, 36 and 37, including their tasks and products.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
B. Remedial Actions 1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent
39

Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 59 and 61, including their tasks and products. 2. The plan for intensive adoptive recruitment efforts mandated by Consent Decree § VI.B.2 shall include a review of current adoptive profiles for accuracy and completeness and, with assistance from the children’s guardians ad litem/attorneys, a revision of adoptive profiles that are more than six (6) months old.
C. Monitoring 1. DFS shall provide to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee periodic reports on progress it has made in implementing the Panel Recommendations attached to the Operational Guide and incorporated by reference.
Dated: October 18, 1994 /s/ Gary Stangler
Gary Stangler Director
Department of Social Services State of Missouri
/s/ Carmen K. Schulze
Carmen K. Schulze Director Division of Family Services Department of Social Services
State of Missouri /s/ Mary Browning
Mary Browning
Deputy Director Division of Legal Services

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

Department of Social Services

/s/ Robin L. Dahlberg

221 West High Street

Robin L. Dahlberg

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Senior Staff Counsel

Missouri Bar No. 34633

Children’s Rights Project

/s/ Richard L. Matt

American Civil Liberties Union

Richard L. Matt

132 West 43rd Street

Deputy Director

New York, New York 10036

Children’s Services

*287 /s/ Fred Rich

Division of Family Services

Fred Rich

Department of Social Services

Legal Aid of Western Missouri

State of Missouri

1005 Grand Street

/s/ Kathleen Dowd

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Kathleen Dowd

Missouri Bar No. 28152

Program Administrator

SO ORDERED:

Children’s Services

/s/ Dean Whipple

Division of Family Services, Jackson County Office
Department of Social Services

Dean Whipple, Judge United States District Court

State of Missouri

/s/ Robert Presson Robert Presson

ATTACHMENT TO MODIFY CONSENT DECREE OPERATIONAL GUIDE:

Assistant Attorney General 221 West High Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS INDEX

Missouri Bar No. 23256

Panel Recommendation # 1 ...............................................................................................................

287

40

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

Panel Recommendation # 3 ...............................................................................................................

288

Panel Recommendation # 5 ...............................................................................................................

288

Panel Recommendation # 8 ...............................................................................................................

289

Panel Recommendation # 9 ...............................................................................................................

289

Panel Recommendation # 10 .............................................................................................................

290

Panel Recommendation # 11 .............................................................................................................

290

Panel Recommendation # 13 .............................................................................................................

291

Panel Recommendation # 14 .............................................................................................................

291

Panel Recommendation # 16 .............................................................................................................

292

Panel Recommendation # 19 .............................................................................................................

292

Panel Recommendation # 20 .............................................................................................................

293

Panel Recommendation # 21 .............................................................................................................

294

Panel Recommendation # 22 .............................................................................................................

295

Panel Recommendation # 24 .............................................................................................................

296

41

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

Panel Recommendation # 25 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 26 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 28 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 30 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 31 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 34 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 36 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 37 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 41 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 42 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 43 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 52 ............................................................................................................. Panel Recommendation # 53 .............................................................................................................
42

297 * 298 299 300 300 300 301 * 301 * 301 302 302 303 303

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

Panel Recommendation # 54 .............................................................................................................

304

Panel Recommendation # 55 .............................................................................................................

304

Panel Recommendation # 56 .............................................................................................................

304

Panel Recommendation # 58 .............................................................................................................

304

Panel Recommendation # 59 .............................................................................................................

305

Panel Recommendation # 60 .............................................................................................................

305

Panel Recommendation # 61 .............................................................................................................

305

Panel Recommendation # 62 .............................................................................................................

305

Panel Recommendation # 63 .............................................................................................................

306

Panel Recommendation # 64 .............................................................................................................

306

Panel Recommendation # 65 .............................................................................................................

306

Panel Recommendation # 67 .............................................................................................................

307

43

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

* No changes made to this panel recommendation.

—————
Recommendation # 1: Recruit and hire a full-time Program Administrator (complete) and hire a Deputy Program Administrator for Children’s Services in Jackson County by September, 1994.
*288 Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Missouri Department of Social Services (hereinafter, DSS) management has used an executive search firm to recruit candidates for the Program Administrator’s (hereinafter, PACS) position and has hired a person for this position as of December 1, 1993. (Completed)
2. Arrange a structured orientation of the new Administrator to all the components of the Jackson County Division of Family Services (hereinafter, DFS), system: to local office and state agency responsibilities; to the need for broader community partnerships and the role of The Local Investment Commission (hereinafter, LINC); to the standards of care and services expected for all DFS clients; and to the plans for a high quality system of care spelled out by the National Panel. (Completed)
3. Recruit, select, and hire a Deputy Program Administrator for Children’s Services, (hereinafter, Deputy PACS), for the Jackson County Office of the Division of Family Services (hereinafter, JCDFS). (December, 1994) (Note that this requires creating a position for the Deputy PACS, which the State DSS office has agreed to do.) (December, 1994)
Recommendation # 3: By September, 1995, establish a
44

streamlined, more efficient organizational structure that provides consolidated management oversight and promotes continuity of care, thereby ensuring better communication among staff, clearer program direction, and more uniform accountability.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Under the new PACS, establish specifications for an organizational plan that accomplishes several major goals:
(1) Establishes closer functional relationships (i.e., referral arrangements, joint training, and use of common intake and assessment protocols) among the Intake and Investigations staff, the IFPS staff, and the Family–Based Services staff;
(2) Assures consistent management direction to alternative care staff;
(3) Clearly assigns responsibility for resource development and foster parent and adoptive parent recruitment and training activity;
(4) Promotes effective linkages between alternative care and adoption staff; and
(5) Provides for key administrative supports such as training and staff development, quality assurance and MIS. (March, 1995)
2. Use a small internal workgroup to review past organizational plans and the National Panel’s recommendations and develop recommendations for the new PACS and State DFS. (March, 1995)
3. Develop a plan. (June, 1995)

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
4. Implement reorganization plan. (September, 1995)
5. One year after consolidation and reorganization of the JCDFS office is completed, conduct a performance audit of the new system to determine if desired results are being achieved and how better results can be achieved. (September, 1996)
Recommendation # 5: By December, 1995, implement recordkeeping processes and procedures which provide a basic standard of information about families and children served by JCDFS (including foster families).
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. The Quality Assurance Unit, with mentor assistance, shall conduct a quick-turn around study of the quality of current recordkeeping practices.
(1) A case record review protocol should be developed by December, 1994, to assess:
• Organization and completeness of case record
• Timeliness of information in record
• Quality of documentation in case record
• Ease of access to information
*289 • Compliance with state recordkeeping requirements
(2) A statistically valid sample of records should be reviewed by June, 1995, using the protocol.
(3) Based on the review, the QA unit should recommend changes in recordkeeping practice to
• Eliminate duplication
• Ensure completeness of information according to the court order
• Ensure timeliness of recordkeeping
• Improve accessibility of information in the 45

record that is needed for critical decision making
2. Changes in recordkeeping based on the review and prior to full MIS implementation shall occur by December, 1995.
3. Based on the review, the QA unit, in concert with the training unit, shall develop appropriate training modules on recordkeeping to address deficiencies in recordkeeping practice. Training on revised recordkeeping practices shall be incorporated into the pre-service training curricula and provided to all current workers by December, 1995.
Recommendation # 8: By December, 1994, institute an aggressive recruitment program to attract qualified candidates to fill vacant positions.

Description of Tasks and Products:

1. Develop and carry out an active and comprehensive recruitment plan to fill all existing vacancies at DFS and to ensure that all new vacancies are promptly filled with qualified workers.

a. Identify/assign a staff person with overall

responsibility

for

coordinating

recruitment/retention activities. This function

should take 25 percent of a senior staff person’s

time. The coordinator will be responsible for

planning and implementing the

recruitment/retention campaign, identifying

obstacles and tracking progress toward

achieving a stable workforce. (December, 1994)

b. DFS shall develop and implement a recruitment plan which will contain but not be limited to the following actions:

• The development of a recruitment brochure by December, 1994, which describes the job of a social service worker in Jackson County DFS and the requirements and skills necessary to perform the job;

• Participation by DFS staff in local and regional job fairs;

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

• Outreach to schools of social work in the surrounding areas and direct recruitment using alumni who are current staff members;

• Outreach to organizations such as the National

Association

of

Social

Workers

(Missouri–Kansas unit);

• A recruitment media campaign that includes newspaper announcements;

• Partnerships with social work schools to sponsor internships and special training stipends for BSW candidates in their last year of school in return for agreements to work at DFS; and

• Special efforts to attract workers who ethnically and culturally reflect the population served (e.g., outreach to the Association of Black Social Workers; targeted advertisements in community newspapers and professional newsletters).

The recruitment plan shall be fully operationalized by March, 1995.

Recommendation # 9: DFS shall take all steps within its control, in cooperation with accredited universities in Missouri and Kansas, to develop an MSW program that is operational by September, 1995, and is designed specifically around the needs of JCDFS staff.

1. An implementation plan shall be developed by December, 1995, which allows for:
• Stipends for existing supervisors and workers to obtain their MSWs, tied to a commitment to remain an employee of the agency.
*290 • Consideration of entrance requirements to provide opportunities for long term workers as well as new workers, and to allow entrance based in part on job experience and performance and not solely on past academic records.

• A plan to offer a significant portion of the core curriculum on-site at DFS or at a convenient location in Jackson County.

• A financing plan for the program which fully utilizes Title IV–E training opportunities.

2. After preliminary planning has occurred and the

46

feasibility established, existing staff should be surveyed to determine the numbers of persons interested. The program should be geared to accommodate as large a portion of that interest as is feasible, recognizing that the program may be small during its first year and that the number of new enrollees may be increased after the first year’s experience.
3. Work shall proceed so that initial coursework leading toward the full degree program can begin in the Fall of 1995. (September, 1995)
Recommendation # 10: By December, 1994, institute other practices to attract and retain a qualified staff by providing administrative supports to workers.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. To provide administrative supports and resources to social workers and supervisors in DFS covered by Consent Decree Section V.A.:
a. DFS shall determine the number and level of resources needed for:
• Adequate office space for all staff;
• Private interview areas for workers and families;
• Office equipment and supplies (e.g., copy machines, fax, etc.);
• Car seats for transporting children;
• Personal computers and training for workers in how to use them; and
• Worker security.
b. Based on the review, DFS shall develop and implement an annual plan with resource projections for improving the numbers and kinds of available administrative supports. This plan should be developed by June, 1994, and annually thereafter so that funds necessary to implement it can be budgeted in the annual budget cycle.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
c. DFS shall work with LINC to determine the extent to which these needs can be met with resources available from the community and to access community resources. (December, 1994)
Recommendation # 11: By December, 1994, improve supervisory and other supports available to social service workers. This recommendation applies to social service workers and supervisors covered by the Consent Decree Section V.A.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. DFS shall provide opportunities for workers to have regular case staffing and consultation on individual cases that are complex. This includes meetings with “master workers”1 within DFS as well as professional consultation from skilled practitioners in the community. To implement this, in the short term, DFS shall identify a number of qualified local clinicians who are willing to be available a half day a month to provide clinical consultation. A multidisciplinary team composed of a mental health professional, an educational specialist, and a clinical social worker should be put together and a master schedule developed so that all supervisory units (consisting of a Supervisor I and social service workers) have opportunities on a rotating basis to staff difficult cases with the consultants.
Over the next year, DFS should formalize consultant contracts as needed, for the services of a multidisciplinary team who can be made available to workers *291 and supervisors on a regular basis for individual and group consultation. (December, 1994)
2. DFS shall establish a “partner workers” program for new supervisors so that they are paired with experienced supervisors for assistance and support. (December, 1994)
3. No supervisors shall carry caseloads except on an emergency basis or for short time periods as necessary for their own professional development. (December, 1994)
4. DFS management shall monitor the caseloads of supervisors on a quarterly basis to assure that supervisors are only carrying caseloads on a
47

temporary basis when a worker leaves, or as part of a professional development plan, approved in writing by the appropriate Supervisor III. (December, 1994)
5. Supervisors shall schedule regular group meetings with all of their staff no less frequently than once every two weeks. Regularly scheduled supervisory meetings with individual workers shall be held weekly for all workers in their first year of employment, and at least once every two weeks thereafter. (December, 1994)
6. DFS shall arrange for or contract for the provision of management training for all supervisors in order to improve their management and supervisory skills (see Training Section).
Recommendation # 13: By December, 1994, redefine the role and functions of the Jackson County Training and Staff Development Unit so that it has greater capacity to develop and implement a comprehensive training plan through the direct provision of training and/or accessing/purchasing of external training resources.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Redefine the role, functions and authority of the Training Unit by December, 1994, in accordance with this recommendation. This will involve negotiating a changed relationship with the state office of DFS. The role of the Jackson County Training and Staff Development Unit should be to implement training in accordance with a local plan which incorporates staff requirements but is geared to local needs.
2. Staff the unit, initially with a Coordinator of Training and Staff Development and two training specialists. The staff should have the capacity and responsibility to develop the training plan and coordinate, purchase and/or directly provide training. Additional staff may be needed in the future in light of the emphasis on training throughout this plan. However, the Panel also emphasizes that most training can be done successfully under contract, rather than by hiring additional staff. (December, 1994)

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
3. Renegotiate the state/local relationship by December, 1994, so that the Training and Staff Development Unit has greater responsibility to pursue a local training agenda, subject to an approved plan.
4. The State DFS shall allocate an annual training budget to Jackson County to be spent in accordance with an annually approved training plan. The first allotment shall be made for FY ‘95, based on a plan to be developed by December, 1994 (see recommendation # 14 below). Thereafter, the County shall receive an annual fiscal year budget allocation for training.
Recommendation # 14: By December, 1994, begin implementation of a comprehensive Annual Training Plan which incorporates a plan for meeting minimal training requirements for all staff. The plan shall address in detail the scope of the training and the curricula, methods, and/or providers to be used to ensure:
• Pre-service training for all new staff and supervisors (a minimum of three weeks)
• Mandatory annual training for all frontline staff, supervisors, and management staff (a minimum of 30 hours) and clerical staff (a minimum of eight hours).
*292 • Required pre-service training for foster and adoptive parents
• Mandatory training for foster parent on prevention of abuse and neglect of foster children and proper placement practices
• Provisions for specialized joint training between social service workers and Family Court workers; social workers and Family Court GAL units; social service workers and foster parents; and social service workers and medical care case managers
• Training on new policies and procedures as they are developed and implemented
• Specialized training in program areas such as risk assessment, decision making for permanency, adoption and independent living
• Specialized training in response to problems identified in QA reviews.
48

During this first year, the plan should give priority to frontline supervisors.
Description of Tasks & Products:
1. By December, 1994, develop the first training plan and budget. Thereafter, the plan should be revised annually to coordinate with the annual budget cycle.
Recommendation # 16: By March, 1995, develop and maintain a resource library for staff.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Assign lead responsibility for creation and maintenance of the resource library. (December, 1994)
2. Secure a first year budget of $10,000 from State DFS (to be supplemented with community resources). (December, 1994)
3. Catalogue currently available materials and purchase additional materials. (March, 1995)
4. Prepare quarterly listings for staff of new materials available in resource library and how to access them. (March, 1995, and on-going)
Recommendation # 19: By December, 1994, develop the internal capacity to plan and manage a comprehensive recruitment strategy for foster and adoptive parents, including maintaining a six worker/one supervisor recruitment and retention team.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. A recruitment and retention team. DFS shall hire/assign a team of a minimum of six full-time persons and one supervisor in one supervisory unit with responsibility for developing and managing a comprehensive strategy and plan of action for recruiting foster and adoptive parents and for

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
retaining foster parents. This represents an additional three full time positions for these responsibilities from the staff available in January, 1993 (two workers and one supervisor). (Complete)
These staff should have diverse skills as well as racial and ethnic backgrounds. They must be able to communicate effectively with many community groups, have a strong understanding of the nature and philosophy of foster care in Jackson County, and be able to manage an overall recruitment campaign with many different elements.
This team’s responsibilities shall include:
• Designing and implementing a multi-year recruitment plan with specified annual goals and resource commitments, as described below;
• Developing necessary written materials for recruitment;
• Tracking progress of recruitment activities, monitoring rates of securing new foster and adoptive parents, and reducing turnover of foster parents;
• Working in partnership with all foster and adoptive parent groups (as well as individual foster and adoptive parents) in the implementation of these activities to ensure that their ideas and perspectives are incorporated;
• Coordinating foster and adoptive parent home studies, including overseeing any contract agencies performing these studies;
*293 • Managing support resources for foster and adoptive parents, including overseeing funds for respite care;
• Organizing other supportive activities for foster parents, including community support groups, networks among foster parents, etc.;
• Reducing the turnover rate among foster parents, as described below;
• Reducing disruption in adoptive homes.
Staffing for this team shall be identified and assigned by December, 1994.
49

(Complete)
2. A recruitment budget. DFS shall allocate an annual budget to support recruitment activities, covering at a minimum the following activities: a media recruitment strategy; costs required to respond to prospective foster and adoptive parents; costs of materials development; costs associated with a grass roots strategy for outreach to foster and adoptive parents; and consultation regarding marketing.
This amount for FY 1994 is estimated at $100,000. The first year costs will be awarded by LINC’s Children’s Services Committee. Additional years’ budgets should be developed as part of DFS annual budget.
Recommendation # 20: Develop and implement a multi-year recruitment strategy and plan for adoptive and foster families with annual goals, tasks, and resource commitments.
Description of Tasks and Products
1. Recruitment Goals. As an essential first step in developing the recruitment plan, DFS must determine the numbers and kinds of foster and adoptive care resources it will need over the next year, and annually thereafter. This assessment will be based on the numbers and needs of children currently in care, a projection of the numbers and needs of children who will be entering care, and an assessment of the numbers of children currently freed for adoption and the numbers who can be annually expected to need adoption services. The numbers of new providers needed should be based on the Division’s coming into compliance during the next year with licensing standards and requirements for limiting the number of young children (under 2 and preschool age) in individual foster homes.
The needs assessment shall establish a numerical target for recruitment of:
• family foster homes
• career foster homes, to meet the special medical, therapeutic, or behavioral needs of foster children

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
• permanent foster homes; and
• adoptive homes.
These assessments shall be done annually starting with September, 1994 and be used as input into the development of the annual recruitment work plan and the DFS annual budget.
2. Comprehensive Plan. By December, 1994, DFS, in conjunction with a community Task Force and LINC (see below) shall complete a comprehensive recruitment plan for foster and adoptive parents with quarterly numerical targets for the numbers and kinds of foster care resources to be developed.
The plan shall have the following elements:
–– A media strategy to reach prospective adoptive and foster parents;
–– Provision for use of master foster parents and others to do one-to-one and other personalized and grass roots recruitment strategies;
–– Effective, brief written materials to communicate clearly why people should become foster and adoptive parents; the nature of children’s needs; the rewards and satisfactions of foster and adoptive parenting; the steps to becoming a foster or adoptive parent; etc. (See Step 3, below).
–– Targeted strategies for particular audiences, including churches, businesses, military personnel, federal employees, and civic associations;
*294 –– A neighborhood based intensive recruitment campaign assisted by a contracted community worker focusing on one or several targeted neighborhoods.
–– Capacity to staff “events”—fairs, meetings, other large gatherings—where large numbers of people could learn about foster/adoptive parenting opportunities.
In future years, an annual plan will be developed by June 1 of each year, to coincide with the annual
50

budget cycle.
3. “User-friendly” materials. DFS shall develop attractive and informative recruitment materials that can be used in the outreach and recruitment campaigns. These will include:
–– Two brochures (one for prospective foster parents and one for prospective adoptive parents) explaining the need for foster/adoptive parents; the requirements and steps to becoming adoptive or foster parents; some human interest stories that will communicate the satisfactions of foster/adoptive parenting; etc. These materials should be culturally sensitive and clearly communicate the role and responsibilities of foster care providers;
–– Materials to be given by one foster parent to other prospective foster parents, using the general theme of “I’m a Foster Parent; Why Don’t You Consider Joining Me?”
–– A one page handout explaining step-by-step how to become a foster/adoptive parent;
–– Additional materials developed for specific audiences, specifically churches, the business community, and military personnel.
These materials will be developed, with review by community advisors, by December, 1994.
4. Church-targeted recruitment. DFS shall support the development and operation of a church-targeted recruitment program in Jackson County. Responsibility for this should be assigned to the recruitment unit, with an advisory group drawn from participating churches and the community. Agreement about how this recruitment strategy will proceed should be obtained by December, 1994.
Recommendation # 21: By March, 1995, DFS shall conduct orientation, pre-service training, and home studies of potential foster/adoptive families in a timely way in order to respond well to community interest and to meet established recruitment targets and court-ordered timelines for completion of foster and adoptive family studies.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Orientation and pre-service training. DFS will organize its orientation efforts to provide orientation every 30 days. This schedule will go into effect as of December, 1994.
Pre-service training will continue to be offered in a variety of formats, adapted to prospective foster parents’ differing needs. These will include at least: (1) a provision for completion of required pre-service training through intensive weekend sessions; and (2) weekly evening sessions over a short period of time.
A monthly calendar for orientation and training should be developed and published, and made available to all prospective foster/adoptive parents, beginning December, 1994.
2. Home studies and licensing. DFS will consider contracting out some or all of its home studies and licensing for foster and adoptive parents, particularly relicensing assessments. This decision will be made after an assessment of the resources available to do this task; consideration of the possibility of contracting with JCDFS staff for overtime work; a phase-in schedule for shifting this responsibility to contract individual agencies; the impact on current DFS staff, and the new responsibilities for managing contract performance. A decision on this issue shall be made by Jackson County and central office DFS management by December, 1994.
Under any contract arrangement or using in-house staff, foster and/or adoptive *295 home studies must be completed within 90 days of foster parent application.
3. Monitoring progress. DFS shall track the progress of its recruitment activities monthly in terms of numbers and kinds of outreach activities conducted; numbers of persons participating in orientation; numbers of persons participating in pre-service training and numbers of families licensed and ready to receive children. DFS shall acquire and allocate a personal computer for purposes of tracking these activities, and shall secure the necessary software and design assistance to develop the
51

tracking capability. This system shall be in place by December, 1995.
Recommendation # 22: Develop sufficient and appropriate supports in order to reduce the turnover among foster parents by 25 percent by June, 1995, and 50 percent by June, 1996.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Establish a baseline of the turnover rate, based on analysis of the turnover rate for the past 18 months by December, 1994.
2. Identifying reasons for turnover. DFS shall institute an ongoing process of exit interviews with foster parents who are leaving the system in order to determine the reasons for their leaving and the factors that may have contributed to unwanted turnover. Master foster parents should be engaged to help with these interviews. This information should be made available and taken into consideration in developing the annual recruitment plan and plans for supporting and sustaining foster parents. This interview process will begin by December, 1994.
3. Materials useful to foster parents. DFS shall prepare and disseminate annually a Foster Parents Handbook which specifies rights and responsibilities of foster parents, birth parents, provider agencies and DFS workers. The Handbook shall also specify the placement process; the rate and process for payment; the services to which children are entitled; the support services available for foster parents; expectations for worker, parental and sibling visitations; and the names and telephone numbers of key persons in DFS. Additionally, the Handbook shall outline a grievance procedure for foster parents. Foster parents should be involved in preparing this handbook. The first edition of this Handbook shall be issued by March, 1995.
4. Needed supports. To better support current foster care providers and minimize the need for replacements, the Division will establish and implement improved placement support

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
services.
a. Respite care. A sufficient number of respite care providers and slots shall be funded and established so that foster parents can access respite care for crisis situations and for a minimum of 15 hours per quarter for routine respite care.
b. Day care. Day care services shall be made available for all working foster care providers, for providers who need day care as a respite, and for all children who can benefit from day care services.
c. Foster parent networks. DFS shall develop and distribute a directory of foster care providers so that informal contacts can be established among foster care providers in the same neighborhoods.
d. Foster parent ombudsman. Establish a more formalized foster parent/adoptive parent ombudsman function either by contracting with foster/adoptive parents and/or designating a JCDFS staff person to assume this function. (December, 1994)
These supports shall be in place by December, 1994.
5. Joint training between workers and foster parents. DFS will ensure joint training opportunities for workers and foster parents, including pre-service training as well as required on-going training. All foster care workers will be *296 required to participate in 6 hours of joint training per year.
6. Report to foster parents. Each year, DFS administrators shall issue a brief written report to foster parents, indicating progress in accomplishing the goals listed here, in addressing other foster parent concerns, and in creating a climate of teamwork and mutual respect between foster parents and workers. The report shall be provided in advance and discussed at a meeting of all foster parents, as well as at meetings of the Jackson County Chapter of the Missouri Foster Care and Adoption Association. The first such report should be completed by May, 1995.
52

7. Continuation of Ad Hoc Recruitment and Retention Committee. DFS shall continue to hold meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee to discuss issues of concern to DFS staff, foster parents and the community and to advise DFS on ideas for resolution of those issues.
8. Assessment of Progress in Meeting Goals, of reducing turnover by 25% (June, 1995) and by 50% (June, 1996) from baseline established as above.
Recommendation # 24: Provide initial and ongoing training to all foster and kinship parents to assure that no child shall be placed in a person’s home until that person has completed the necessary training and demonstrated a satisfactory mastery of the training curriculum, except as provided in Consent Decree Section II.B.1 and II.C.1.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Training manager. DFS shall appoint one person as the coordinator of all training developed and provided to all foster parents. This person will be responsible for ensuring that a core curriculum is developed and provided according to quality standards by all trainers under contract, and for ensuring that foster parents participate in the required number of training hours per year. Clarification of this staff assignment will be done by December, 1994.
2. Training plan and contracts. DFS shall develop and publish a plan (including written curriculum and necessary materials) to ensure that any person who seeks to become a foster parent will receive a minimum of 12 hours of training prior to having a child placed in his/her home; an additional 40 hours in the first two years of licensure, including training on prevention of abuse and neglect and inappropriate discipline; and 20 hours of training every two years thereafter. (This standard can be adjusted if DFS expands its pre-service training to include some of the material that would otherwise be provided in the first two years of licensure. In any case, each foster parent would have a minimum of 52 hours of training by the end of their second year

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
of licensure.)
This plan will identify core content that must be provided by all trainers under contract to DFS. Contracts with trainers will specify the required adherence to this core training content. Development of the core content will be identified by June, 1995.
The panel further recommends that a competitive RFP be developed to solicit proposals for delivering the core training. If possible, one contractor should be selected with the capacity to deliver all of the required core training. Other contractors can be used for supplemental and/or specialized training.
a. The recommended content of the foster parent training shall include but not be limited to:
• The roles, responsibilities, and legal rights of foster parents
• The role of foster parents vis-à-vis birth parents
• The rights and responsibilities of birth parents
• The impact of foster care on children, especially the meaning that loss and separation have for children in foster care and their parents
• The fundamentals of child development, especially developmental targets and the impact of abuse and neglect on development
*297 • The concepts and practice of permanency planning
• Care of foster children
–– Emergency medical procedures
–– Appropriate discipline and child behavior and management
–– Management of children with HIV, AIDS, and drug exposure
–– Meeting the special medical, educational, and psychological needs of children with disabilities;
53

–– Advocating with the school and other agencies on behalf of children;
–– Resources available to foster children (i.e., child care, independent living); special resources for high need populations such as the deaf
• The functioning and adjustment of the foster family
• Placement and payment procedures
• Prevention of abuse and neglect in foster homes
• The legal processes of the Family Court
• Adoption—what it is and how it fits into permanency planning for a child
• Transracial placements and cultural competency
b. Where appropriate, specialized individual and/or group training should be provided to permit prospective foster parents to care for children with special needs, be they medical, behavioral, developmental, or emotional needs.
3. Training calendar. Develop a written schedule for all foster and kinship parent training no less frequently than quarterly.
a. The schedule should be developed by the Director of Training in conjunction with the staff responsible for recruiting foster parents and should provide sufficient training opportunities so that training is offered no less frequently than every 30 days.
4. Supports for foster and kinship parents in training. DFS shall promote attendance of foster and kinship parents at training sessions through such activities as provision of baby-sitting for foster and kinship parents, reimbursements for monies paid to baby-sitters and transportation expenses, scheduling of training in locations that are accessible to foster and kinship parents and at convenient times, and recognition certificates for successful completion of training. These supports shall be

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
available by December, 1994.
5. Foster and Kinship parents’ assessment of training. DFS shall develop and disseminate a consumer evaluation of training offerings in which foster and kinship parents can rate the quality and usefulness of training offerings. Comments from these assessments shall be evaluated by the JCDFS, PACS and training manager, and appropriate suggestions thereafter shall be incorporated into future training. These procedures will be developed by December, 1994.
6. Assessing foster and kinship parents’ skill acquisition. DFS shall ask the training contractor(s) to provide information on the extent to which individual foster and kinship parents have acquired the competencies and skills covered in the training. This statement by trainers will also identify areas in which the foster and kinship parent could benefit from further information, support, or mentoring from other foster and kinship parents. This statement shall be based on foster and kinship parents’ activities during the course of training. Procedures for enabling trainers to provide such assessment will be developed by June, 1995.
Recommendation # 25: Until an alternative, revised approach is adopted, review and clarify the functions of all the major parties to the Alternative Medical Care Plan, including the Jackson County Medical Care Coordinator and staff, social workers, foster parents and the contracted medical care case management providers.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Establish a permanent Medical Care Oversight Committee comprised of Jackson County DFS management, the Division *298 of Medical Services, the Plaintiffs, LINC, the G.L. committee, and selected medical consultants. This committee will review the roles and responsibilities of the Medical Care Coordinator and the case management providers and propose changes/clarifications in the roles and functions of the respective parties. This work should culminate in written memoranda of understanding on the roles and responsibilities that
54

are agreed to and signed by all parties. This process should be completed by December, 1994.
Recommendation # 26: Redesign, with recommendations and assistance from the Oversight Committee, the program model for medical care planning and case management that is incorporated into the Alternative Medical Care Plan (dated June 28, 1991).
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Develop a program model to assure adequate development and review of medical plans for children in JCDFS custody, ensuring that medical case managers are an integral part of the planning and service delivery team for a child in alternative care. The recommended approach has the following elements:
• All parties would agree that the current arrangement is ineffective, and that a new plan is needed.
• A standing Oversight Committee would be established, with representatives from DFS management, the State Division of Medical Services, the Medical Care Coordinator, the Plaintiffs, LINC, the G.L. Committee, and one or two medical care experts not directly involved in these provider arrangements. Their first charge is to redesign the program model for assuring that children’s medical needs are met to ensure that this function is (1) more closely integrated with the overall case planning done by JCDFS alternative care workers, and with the care provided by foster parents, and (2) more effective in producing improved care and care plans for each child in JCDFS custody.
After this redesign is complete, the committee should continue to exist for the purpose of reviewing and assessing the provision of medical care to children in JCDFS custody, and recommending changes if the proposed strategy does not produce the intended results.
• The Oversight Committee would consider the following revised program model. One

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
medical care specialist would be assigned to each alternative care supervisory unit, to work as a team with the workers in that unit. The specialist’s role would be to assure that medical care needs of all children in JCDFS custody were met by (1) assisting the workers in that unit to develop a medical/health care plan for each child which is an identifiable component of each child’s case plan, (2) work with foster parents, as necessary, to ensure that children with special medical needs had those needs met, and that the foster parent knew how to meet those needs and obtain necessary care, (3) provide more direct case management of a child’s case, when medical conditions warranted it and when this responsibility was negotiated with the child’s worker and the supervisor of that unit, and (4) work with birth parents around meeting medical needs when reunification is the plan. In effect, the medical specialists will be acting as consultants to each supervisory unit, and assuming more direct case management responsibility as necessary on an individual case basis. In addition, standards for adequate medical care for children in custody would be set (incorporating current standards as these are useful), and it would be the medical specialist’s responsibility, with the unit supervisor, to ensure that these standards were met by each worker and each unit.
A medical specialist would also be assigned to the recruitment and retention *299 unit, to ensure that the medical/health aspects of foster parenting were well-represented in recruitment, retention, and training activities.
This approach has several potential benefits. It would integrate the medical specialists’ work more closely with alternative care workers’; it would promote better communication on every case, because medical specialists would be working side by side with JCDFS workers; it should promote a more consistent message to foster parents (because medical care specialists and JCDFS staff would be working together); and over time it should provide JCDFS workers with more awareness of health care needs and resources.
55

The Oversight Committee’s recommended approach, or some other alternative design, should be piloted.

An on-site capacity to provide each child with a complete medical examination written 24 hours of entering care (or in other emergency situations) would be developed at JCDFS, with appropriate medical personnel.

• Contracts with existing providers would be renegotiated, revised, or cancelled, to reflect the revised program model, no later than June, 1995.

Under no condition should the current contracts be renewed without having a complete redesign of the service model.

• The approximately 300 children in

alternative care who are identified as being

seriously ill and/or have chronic physical

and/or mental health problems should be

enrolled

in

a

comprehensive

managed/coordinated health care plan. This

aim is to ensure intense medical oversight for

these children’s needs, when that cannot be

provided by the basic care planning for

children. (If the Oversight Committee can

develop an option for these children that

assures the same type of guaranteed coverage

as a managed care option, that could be

considered rather than this recommendation.)

• For the remainder of this year, while the program model is being redesigned, there should be mandatory joint training of social service workers and medical care case managers. In the future, if the above approach is adopted, there would be joint training of alternative care workers and the medical specialists.

The Oversight Committee identified in Recommendation # 25 should be charged with the responsibility for recommending changes in the Alternative Medical Care Plan to the program model suggested above or another comprehensive approach to hands-on medical care case management. A new approach to the Alternative Medical Care Plan should be ratified by June, 1995, so that it can be pilot

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
tested and then reflected in contracting arrangements for the next contract year.
2. Develop any contract arrangements necessary to implement the new approach for all children in JCDFS custody. (no later than January, 1996)
Recommendation # 28: Assure that the pre-service and on-going training includes mandatory joint training for alternative care social service workers and medical care case managers.
Training in this area shall focus on:
• the role and functions of medical care case managers (or medical specialists);
• the responsibilities of social service workers in arranging for and transporting children to medical appointments;
• the responsibilities of foster parents in identifying medical care needs, carrying our medical plans of care, and arranging for and transporting children to medical care appointments;
• how to identify health and mental health needs of children;
• accessing medical care resources in the community; and
• how to advocate for children in the worker’s caseload.
*300 Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Identify a small workgroup composed of the DFS Medical Care Coordinator, a representative from the Training and Staff Development Unit, and representative foster care staff and medical care case management staff to develop a training outline and materials.
2. Schedule the joint training beginning in June, 1995 so that all current staff are trained by
56

December, 1995.
3. Thereafter, include the training as part of the pre-service and on-going curriculum for all newly hired workers and supervisors.
4. Medical Care Case Managers should be required to participate in this training and other parts of the DFS pre-service training curricula.
Recommendation # 30: By December, 1995, automate selected JCDFS management functions in order to increase productivity immediately and begin building a base for a more completely automated office.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Agree among JCDFS management and staff, and with state DFS, on the priority areas for automation in the short-run. (Completed) The Panel suggests: placement, licensing, and foster parent training.
2. Engage a design consultant (possibly the MIS Mentor) who can assist in the design and development of all three activities. (December, 1994)
3. Establish small working groups to advise the design consultant, and establish general timelines for completion of the work. (December, 1994)
4. Develop system design for each of these three applications. (June, 1995)
5. Develop computer training for all staff, and particularly for staff most directly affected by the priority areas for automation (June, 1995)
6. Implement and revise applications, with the end product being trouble free operation of each. (December, 1995)
Recommendation # 31: By January, 1995, begin development of a system of full automation (an “automated office”) in Jackson County as a model for the state.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Obtain State DFS and DSS commitment to proceed with Jackson County as prototype of automated office. (Completed)
2. Prepare and advance budget request for design and initial pilot operation of model automated system in Jackson County, building on Governor’s theme of reinventing government. (December, 1994)
3. Select design consultant for work with JCDFS. If possible, begin this work in FY’94, even though the bulk of the design work will be completed in FY’96. (December, 1994)
4. When funds are secured for design of the larger system, develop a design process involving local and state staff (management and frontline) as well as required consultants and the mentor in this area. (June, 1995)
5. Conduct the design process, and implement early phases of automated system as feasible. (December, 1995)
Recommendation # 34: By June, 1995, develop a framework and workplan for a comprehensive quality assurance program which can be incrementally implemented over the next two years.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. By December, 1994, identify and begin working with a Mentor who can provide consultation during the period from December, 1994—June, 1995, on the framework, organizational structure, staffing, qualifications, training, and functions of the Quality Assurance Unit in JCDFS. In addition, the Mentor will be available to assist Jackson County DFS staff in preparing protocols for program specific quality reviews (see recommendation below).
*301 2. By June, 1995, prepare a report describing the conceptual framework and operational plan for a comprehensive Quality Assurance system in the Office of the JCDFS.
3. The framework and workplan shall be
57

developed in conjunction with the monitoring methodology for the Consent Decree and Operational Guide. The Quality Assurance Unit shall develop the capacity to assume the monitoring function.
4. Feedback reports shall be prepared for workers and supervisors within 30 days of the completion of any quality review.
5. Semi-annual reports shall be prepared which aggregate information from reviews conducted by the Quality Assurance Unit, independent from those conducted by the G.L. Monitoring Committee, to identify systemic problems and make recommendations on training and other strategies to correct those problems.
Recommendation # 36: By September, 1995, ensure that information from Quality Assurance Reviews is reflected in JCDFS training.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Develop procedures so that individual workers or supervisors for whom a quality review identifies problems are referred for specialized training and supports.
2. The Training Unit should keep data on those workers and supervisors referred for specialized training and follow-up to ensure that the requisite training has been provided and completed within three months of referral.
3. Assemble aggregate information from quality reviews and transmit it on a quarterly basis to the Training Unit for the development of training initiatives to remedy problems identified thorough quality reviews.
Recommendation # 37: By December, 1995, conduct specialized studies and/or reviews to focus on emerging needs or problems. The Quality Assurance Unit should have the capacity to carry out several specialized reviews during the course of a year, targeted to identified problem areas or emerging needs. For example, a specialized review of children with multiple placements could be conducted to identify the specific reasons for continued replacement and

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
recommend plans of corrective action. Another area in which specialized reviews might be helpful the cases of children who have had a goal of return home for more than 18 months without progress. The QA Unit might do a series of in-depth case studies of some of these children and families to identify systemic barriers to reunification and propose remedies.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. By July 1 of each year, JCDFS management and QA staff shall reach agreement on special studies to be carried out during the next fiscal year. During the next two years, the studies should focus on areas of particular importance for implementing DFS priorities.
2. QA staff shall develop the methodology and workplan for conducting agreed upon studies.
3. The studies shall be carried out in accordance with the methodology and workplan, utilizing outside contract resources as necessary. Findings and recommendations should be made available to all management staff. Plans of action for implementing changes based on the recommendations should be developed.
Recommendation # 41: By June, 1995, implement an effective risk assessment/decision-making framework to guide and support workers’ decisions. This shall be part of a process to develop a common family-based assessment and case planning approach for use by all JCDFS units.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Establish an internal working group with State DFS and community participants, to develop a risk assessment methodology. (December, 1994)
2. Contract with a consultant to advise on risk assessment tools and decision making *302 support systems. (The mentor selected for Intake and Investigations may be able to provide the necessary expertise.) (December,
58

1994)
3. Review at least three alternative risk assessment procedures and select an approach. (March, 1995)
4. Conduct training on the selected model for all DFS children services units and appropriate community agencies. The training shall include family-based service methodologies. This task will be incorporated into the overall pre-service and in-service training plan for DFS. This section applies to those workers and supervisors covered by Consent Decree Section V.A. (June, 1995)
5. Institute a process to begin developing a common family-based assessment and case planning approach across all JCDFS units. This section applies to those workers and supervisors covered by Consent Decree Section V.A. (June, 1995 and on-going)
Recommendation # 42: By December, 1994, strengthen and support workers’ decisionmaking through improved supervisory practice and expanded use of multidisciplinary teams. This section applies to workers and supervisors covered by Consent Decree Section V.A.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Supervisors shall hold regular unit meetings, no less frequently than once every two weeks. (On-going)
2. Staff shall participate in multidisciplinary teams, in order to ensure more comprehensive decisions informed by multiple professional perspectives. (On-going)
3. Secure clinical (psychosocial) consultation through one or more contracts with local professionals. (December, 1994)
Recommendation # 43: By December, 1994, establish new procedures for impartial review and prompt follow-up to reports of abuse and neglect or inappropriate discipline in alternative care settings.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. State DFS has established a central, state-office-supervised Out–of–Home Investigation Unit to conduct investigations in alternative care settings. (Complete)
2. Establish a team which ensures a multi-disciplinary approach to issues of licensing and service needs of the child and family. Team should include representatives from the investigation, alternative care and licensing units. Foster parents, CASA, Family Court and Legal Aid shall also be on the team. (December, 1994)
3. The team shall review the results of the investigation and make recommendations regarding the following: service needs of the child victim, including a review and evaluation of the current placement; and services for the foster family, including a review and evaluation of existing and future placements in this home. Team decisions/recommendations shall be made in writing and forwarded to the Program Administrator for Children’s Services who has final authority. (December, 1994)
4. The team shall develop written policies and procedures regarding process, criteria for decision-making, time frames, and recordkeeping. (December, 1994). Policies will include the following items:
• Reports determined as “probable cause” (substantiated) or “unsubstantiated but preventive services indicated” will be reviewed by the team.
• Facts surrounding the incident and the team’s report and recommendations (with disagreements and as modified by PACS) shall be sent to the child’s worker, child’s GAL, placement unit, members of the team, Family Court, and copies placed into the child’s record and the foster parent record.
5. DFS shall establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure follow-through on decisions made by the PACS. (December, 1994)
6. Conduct training. Jackson County DFS shall ensure that intensive training is provided to
59

staff, foster parents and *303 community agencies (including the Jackson County Family Court and its GAL units) on the above-cited policies and procedures. This task will be incorporated into the overall DFS pre-service and in-service training plan. (March, 1995)
Recommendation # 52: By September, 1995, complete provision of a greatly expanded training program for all alternative care workers to increase their skills in all aspects of permanency planning, as well as their ability to match children’s needs to appropriate resources.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Small workgroup of JCDFS staff and state staff (using National Panel list of recommended content) develop specifications for training to provide more comprehensive and concrete skills in permanency planning, including integration of this training with core training expectations. (December, 1994)
2. Agreement on method for providing training. (December, 1994)
3. Training completed. (December, 1995, and on-going)
Recommendation # 53: By December, 1994, and concurrently with design of the training, strengthen JCDFS’ approach to permanency planning, ensuring that it incorporates a family centered planning, service delivery and decision making process which begins at the point of placement and attempts to resolve family problems through the provision of intensive service.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Develop a practice guide and standards for the provision of permanency planning services which articulates the values and principles that guide service delivery and specifies the following:
• a case planning process that is developed collaboratively between birth families, foster families, and the worker;

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
• a case planning process that is based on prompt and comprehensive assessments of the child’s and birth family’s service needs.
• a focus on family strengths and family empowerment;
• immediate initiation of the case planning process at the point of a child’s entry into foster care;
• a placement review conference to determine if placement is necessary and/or what immediate steps can be taken to reunify the family;
• an intensive need based intervention strategy;
• provision of information to parents about permanency planning and the importance of resolve the problems that brought the child into care;
• an accountability mechanism to assure the implementation of the policies;
• criteria for the establishment of various permanency goals;
• clear definition of the minimal services that must be provided to birth parents as it relates to reasonable efforts to prevent placement and to reunify families; and
• guidelines for expedited permanency planning for children with little likelihood of returning home; e.g., abandoned infants, children whose parents have killed other children, parent with severe mental and/or developmental delays. (December, 1994)
In addition, specific standards governing case planning written service agreements and permanency planning activities should be developed so that supervisory reviews and quality assurance activities can make use of these standards.
2. On an interim basis, develop a policy memorandum which clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the caseworker, professional evaluation team (PET) and the permanency planning review team (PPRT) in the development and implementation of the case
60

plan so that the primary responsibility for the development of the case plan rests with the worker and the family, with review authority vested in the PET and PPRT. (December, 1994)
*304 Recommendation # 54: By June, 1995, establish a placement unit with a minimum of two staff, and with adequate computerized information, as well as methods for maintaining current information about available placement resources.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Develop a plan for staffing the placement unit (December, 1994) which defines the roles and functions of the unit and provides initially for a minimum of:
• 2 staff for placement selection; and
• 1 clerk.
2. Get authorization for additional positions. (December, 1994)
3. Recruit, train, and hire staff for Placement Unit. (March, 1995)
4. Ensure that unit has access to automated information support system. (June, 1995)
5. Redesign placement process, in light of automation, and reassess staffing needs. (On-going)
Recommendation # 55: By March, 1995, JCDFS shall arrange greater worker access to evaluative resources at the time of placement so that a more comprehensive assessment of the child’s characteristics and needs can be obtained more rapidly.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Assess the quality and quantity of resources for evaluating needs of children entering care. (December, 1994)
2. Set priorities for contracting for needed

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
resources and create small pool of available dollars for use by workers to purchase needed services. Workers shall be given written procedures and training how to easily access Medicaid funded diagnostic and evaluative services and why such access is important. (March, 1995)
3. Contact local Coalition for Positive Family Relationships for access to its resources and its computerized resource directory. (Complete)
4. Provide each direct service worker with a directory of public and private community resources and current Medicaid providers who will serve children and families which can be used in behalf of foster children and their families. Update the resource directory annually. (March, 1995)
Recommendation # 56: By June, 1995, to provide greater order, consistency, and accountability for the placement process, JCDFS shall develop and implement policies, procedures, and practice standards to guide workers’ decisions related to placement (consistent with the G.L. v. Stangler Order).
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Identify areas where practice guides and standards are needed, including, but not limited to the following areas (December, 1994):
a. Placement in conformity with the licensing process and the foster parents’ expressed preferences;
b. Placement in conformity with the requirements of the Consent Decree and the Court’s December, 1992, Order, particularly those standards requiring pre-placement visits;
c. Placement in compliance with the Consent Decree’s requirements on preventing overcrowding in the foster home; and
d. Social services worker supervision of the placement according to the Consent Decree’s requirements, particularly with regard to his/her making in-person visits to the child in the foster
61

home.
2. Complete practice guides and standards, issue to workers and train workers on their use. (June, 1995)
Recommendation # 58: Over three years, dramatically expand professional-level foster home resources for children with emotional and behavioral problems with the goal by the end of FY ‘96 to have approximately one-quarter of the system’s placement resources in this category and 40 percent (40%) by the end of the following fiscal year.
*305 Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Communicate clear policies related to behavioral foster homes and career foster homes, so that workers understand differences between them and criteria for placement (December, 1994)
2. Consider issuing RFP’s for private agencies to recruit, develop, train, and supervise career foster parents. (December, 1994)
3. Recruit and train the additional homes that will be supervised directly by JCDFS staff. (December, 1994—December, 1995)
4. Based on an assessment of the needs of children coming into care, reassess the Panel’s goal (related to 40% of slots above) and set program and budget goals for FY’96 and FY’97. (June, 1995)
5. Have all 50 additional professional-level foster homes developed, trained, and accepting children. (December, 1995)
Recommendation # 59: DFS shall continue implementation of a special reunification effort designed to move children out of alternative care and return them to their homes.
Recommendation # 60: Develop and implement a “wraparound” service program to address the needs of seriously emotionally disturbed children, including children who are returning to their communities from residential treatment. Service capacity for 25 children shall be developed by September, 1996, with on-going

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
assessment of the additional number of children who require this service as an alternative to residential treatment.
Description of Tasks and Products:
Recommendation 60 relates to new priority services to be developed in order to provide an appropriate range of out-of-home care. The process of resource development involves:
1. Developing a workgroup (made up of internal staff and representatives from community agencies) to identify the needed volume of service and recommend a service model. In some instances, the workgroup will have some local practice on which to build. However, the workgroup will also need to develop program design using best examples available from other jurisdictions.
2. The workgroup will establish multiple year goals for service volume in each service area because all of these services should reach substantial parts of the child/family population. The Panel has made initial recommendations for service volume; these should be regarded as minimums.
3. The workgroups, with consultation, will develop detailed service designs for each service, for review and approval by DFS management staff at the county and state levels.
Recommendation # 61: By December, 1994, implement special, intensive recruitment and placement efforts for the over 300 children whose goal is adoption, with a goal of having Petitions for Adoption filed for 150 class members between July 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Contract with one or more adoption exchanges or adoption placement agencies to assure more comprehensive recruitment of adoptive homes. (Complete)
2. Review foster homes now caring for these children and determine if foster parents are
62

suitable adoptive parents and are interested in adopting. Review should be expeditiously completed for all waiting children, approximately 300. (December, 1994)
3. When appropriate, explore adoption with foster parents of these children. (December, 1994, and on-going).
4. Continue individualized recruitment for each child, using exchanges as well as local and regional child-specific recruitment. (On-going)
Recommendation # 62: Conduct special training immediately related to determining who is adoptable and on the techniques and skills needed to discuss these issues with children. Ongoing training on these topics *306 also shall be incorporated into JCDFS’ regular staff training program.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. For training of adoption staff and alternative care staff in the next three months, contract with a specialist in adoption (with extensive public sector experience) who will provide staff with intensive training in the decisions surrounding effective adoptions. A key issue in training will be to identify all children who can be successfully adopted as well as other decisions involved in preparing children for adoption, deciding when to change the child’s goal to adoption, etc. The training should be open to the Family Court staff and GAL units. (Training to begin by December, 1994)
2. For longer term training, JCDFS adoption and training staff shall jointly review pre-service and in-service training and add new materials related to the issues identified during the Panel’s review. The mentor who works with the adoption staff should play a lead role in this task. (New material shall be incorporated into the pre-service and in-service training by June, 1995)
Recommendation # 63: Improve the foster parent adoption program in many ways, including increasing community and foster parent understanding of the program, with the goal of achieving more adoptions through foster parents.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Write policy and guidelines and conduct training for both staff and foster parents regarding criteria and procedures for foster parent adoptions (who is eligible and how to handle this issue during foster parent recruitment and training). (June, 1995)
a. These policies and guidelines should include direction and guidance in making transracial foster and adoption placements.
2. Guidelines shall include consideration of every foster care placement as a potential adoptive home. (December, 1994)
3. Train staff to provide separation counseling for foster families whose foster children are placed in adoptive families. (June, 1995)
4. Issue policies that clarify for staff and community that recruitment of an adoptive home for a child can and will begin before TPR is finalized. (A formal directive ending the current prohibition against doing specific recruitment for a “legal risk” child shall be issued.) (December, 1994)
Recommendation # 64: By March, 1995, improve the preparation of children for adoption.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. JCDFS will define the expectations for alternative care workers (with the assistance of foster parents) to collect and write up needed information on children to be placed and develop practice guidelines on working with children and dealing with questions about circumstances of adoptive placement and future plans/issues. (December, 1994)
2. Amend the handbook for parents with children in out-of-home care to include the joint agency/parent responsibility to do permanency planning. (December, 1994)
63

3. All cases of foster children with a high probability for adoption will be tracked by the management information system and targeted for quick decision by the PPRT (March, 1995)
Recommendation # 65: By December, 1994, the screening and application process for prospective adoptive parents shall communicate information about the children available for adoption, so that parents who are not interested do not continue into the process.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Contract with an adoption exchange to teach staff how to make a recruitment plan for every waiting child and help develop the yearly calendar. (Underway)
*307 2. Contract for adoptive parent recruitment for specific children.
3. Develop recruitment methods. Staff need to develop, on a regular basis, materials describing the children waiting to be adopted and marketing them to prospective adoptive parents. This publication needs to be updated and disseminated on a regular basis to a mailing list of prospective adoptive parents and people who are likely to come into contact with potential parents. In addition, staff may wish to recruit a group of adoptive parents who would volunteer to answer questions from adoptive applicants. (December, 1994)
4. Develop a screening and application process geared to separate out quickly those parents uninterested in and unsuited to DFS children. All staff, up to and including administration, must be clear that the central adoption mission of the agency is to provide families for its waiting children and not to do home studies for all applicants who want home studies. Written materials for adoptive parents shall state this clearly. Orientation and preparation of parents should include situations where the prospective parents can meet and interact with the types of children available for adoption and experienced adoptive parents. Preference for home studies should only be given to those families that express an interest in waiting DFS children.

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994)

DFS may also wish to consider charging a fee for anyone who, after the fact, wants to use the home study for an inter-county adoption. (December, 1994)
Recommendation # 67: By December, 1995, implement the administrative supports necessary for the effective operation of the adoption program, including increased training and staff development, adequate staffing levels, automated case tracking, and development of needed policy and manual materials.
Description of Tasks and Products:
1. Develop and implement short-term and long-term training. Develop a short-term training plan to familiarize staff with the essentials of adoption practice. A long range training plan which incorporates essential adoption training into the ongoing training of the agency should also be developed based on a yearly individualized development plan for each adoption staff member outlining the areas of skill and knowledge to be expanded and specifying how this will be accomplished. (March, 1995)
The Panel has identified several possible consultants who can train on speeding up permanency planning decisions as well as on the topic of who is adoptable and how one makes those decision. A contracted adoption exchange can train staff on recruitment techniques and recruitment planning. The state office should also consider having an Adoption Leadership Institute in Missouri for its key staff. Jackson County may wish to develop with LINC a scholarship program to pay for staff to attend the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) conference and/or Family Builders Conferences. (Title IV–E funding should be available to help pay for these costs.)
2. Explore divesting JCDFS of the

responsibility to do court-ordered investigations and use the staff time gained to place its own children. The first step is to determine if this action is within state policy guidelines and secure amendments if necessary. Next, the County must determine if private agencies are willing to undertake this service. If so, it should work out a written agreement with the Court. (December, 1994)
3. Develop a case tracking system for children and adoptive families as well as a data keeping system for the adoption program to ensure and monitor that the Court–Ordered timelines for adoption recruitment and matching are done leading to timely placement with an adoptive family. To do so, JCDFS should review case tracking and review systems used by comparable jurisdictions (e.g., Louisville, Kentucky) and select one that fits local needs. The tracking and data collection system should become part of the overall one being developed by the agency. *308 (December, 1995, for development of specifications for what is required in an adoption tracking system)
4. Improve the policy manual and keep it up to date by hiring a consultant to work with one new staff member and one experienced staff member to determine the problems with the existing manual and design and create a new one. The team should identify gaps in policies (e.g., transracial adoptions; legal risk recruitment and placement) that need to be filled in by senior officials, and request that they do so where feasible. It should also solicit ideas from staff members on how to design the manual to make it user-friendly. It should then reformat the manual. Jackson County needs also to institute a process to ensure that the manual is kept up-to-date. (December, 1994)
All Citations
873 F.Supp. 252 (Mem)

Footnotes

1

Master workers are defined as workers meeting the requirements to be a Social Service Worker III as set forth in the 1994

proposed job classification.

64

G.L. v. Stangler, 873 F.Supp. 252 (1994) 65

 
 ·-·:.
.·, !;·r"-.·
"'

IN" THE UNITED S'I'l\TES DIST\UC'f' COURT FOl{ 'l'!lE

· ~" ·

~'iES'l'ERN DISTR WESTERN

I

C'l' 0~' DIVISI

O1N1I.SSOURI--:--)~-,_-.

-i->.-''-,"1\..~{"

\

. '. ..

.

' ..

. \ . _,'(' ' ... ·,\''t :

. Gl~ .. . . .>t·'>>~--~~:,, an infant, by )

and throughhis n_ext friend,·

)

\v

·_. s :__~ ;_., .

)

)

and

}

)

D.,.;::: ...<·· T~b;),. an infant, by

)

and through her next friend,

)

C ~.~ :.L ... c..~.:""·--·- :_:,

)

)

and.

)

R'.ho-"',c;_,;~)r.r:,~:;j:;;:;-~ >jR. , an infant

)
)

by and.thtough,his next friend, )

{It ~:t\.-:.:. :~~s·~- ~ A~(;b:W;:;_ ...::~:..;__.',

)

)

and

)

}
1C. _ ~' w:;.<.. ·, an infant, by )

and through her next friend,

)

)

'~~ic" wcLft: ·-·

}

)

)

an infant, by and }

through his~ncxt friend, J.

)

tv.>:,>.), on their own behalf rtnd )

on b~half of. all others

)

simil.arly sitlt.:ttcd,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

J _.. · Z·.>·.~'<-~:;;}7 in h.in official

)

capacity as State Director of )

the 11issouci Division of Family )

Serivccs,

)

)

"and

)

)
E' -~-- C .·~--~--":' individually and )' as Stu.b~ Director of the ~tissouri )

Division of Family Services,

)

)

and

)

)

J. J .

~

, individually

)

<~nd as Coun·tv Director of the

)

Jacks0n'Cou!1ty Office of: the

)

Missouri Division of Family

. )

Serivccs,

)

)

and

)

. )

:s.·

-D' .:,·., ind.i.viduully

)

:j,n:J us County :)!.r-<~Ct:J~ of the

o·: ".:.:!.<\y Cou---:t-::· ~)fficc

the

: :_ :.:~ ::· ,:t: ~ :!:" i. . S i 'I : --; i_ 0: ·. (.· :: ? ,:;:·~ ~ ..~ ~;:'

. : _···./ J. .•·. r

·---- ~

____ .. ........

•. '

Civil i\c l: i.on r-Jo. 7 7-2 ,12-CV--rrl- 3

.... ._.. ........ ~..·""'·"""'"""'-·..i-··

S\{E~~~U:: HUm, individually an.d )

as Social Service Supervisor of )

the Ja6kso~County Office of the)

Missou~i bivision of Family .

)

Services,

)

)

and

)

)

GAU. HCA:SE':L individually and · )

as Socia~ Service Supervisor of )

the Jackson ~oun~y Office of the )

Missouri Division of Family

)

Serivces,

)

)

De fendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURISDIC'l'ION
1'
1. 'l'he jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant t:o I clnd in. accordance with, the provisions. of ·28 U.S.C. _§§1331, 2201 :mel 2202.
The jurisdl~ti6~ 6f this Court is also invoked pursuant to the yrovi-
sions of 28 U.S.C. §1343 (3) and (4). This acti011 arises UI1l"!,~r ·12 U.S.c. §1983, and i~ brought to redress the deprivation, uncl0r color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities ~>ecurcd by the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in ti"~ Eig'1t::1 l\mcrH\ment to the United States Constitution, and thq provision~ o~ the Fourtee~th Amendment to the United States Constitution "ind 42 u.s.c. §601 ct seq. and 42 U.S.C. ~1302 and the regulation~.; prorl\ul•Fttecl thereunder. The amount in controversy exceeds $1.0,000, oxclu::i.vc of inter~st and costs~ The pendent jurisdiction of this Court is invoked. over state causes of action which are based upon Llw Ltcts v1hich give rise to the federal causes of action.
TYPE OF P.ROCEEDING
..
. 2. '!his is a proceeding brougi:t by children who have bc!en fll:lccd in, ~nd who continue to reside in, Missouri Division o!: Farni.J.y Services foster homes pursuant to Court orders of commitment or pre-hearing protective custody. The children have bee;n r)J.accd in Division· of Family Services fost(.)r homes as a rco;ul t of tlt~d.r ll,d n0 abus~d or.neglected by their natural parents or gu,n·dinns. Plaintiff's and the rncmbers of their class have been abused .:md m.'']lccted by their Division of Family Services foster parents; and have b(.)cn
- 2-

subjected to deplorable conditions in violation .of federal re<Julations and state statutes and regulations.
3. The pla~n tiffs, on their own behal.f, and on behalf of the class which.they seek to represent, seek permanent injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy the conditions of their foster homes. Plaintiffs individually seek actual and punitive monetary damages for physical and psychological harms suffered while in Division of Family.Servic~s foster homes. Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorney's
fees ]:Jursuant to. the provisions of 42 u.s.c. §1938. Plaintiffs hring this cause alf:'a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Pederul Rules
of Civil Procedure.

PARTIES

. Plaintiffs

t

\)

4.

is a child o~ four years of aqe, his d~te

of birth being February 17, 1973. G

through his ~ext friend, W

S:

brings this cause by and ~vho has been duly ~1ppoi.nted

by this C9urt to serve in that capacity.

5. On August 22, 1973, G

L.

. \vas commit tea to the

!Hssouri -Division of Family Services for foster home placen:cnt 'Jy

Order of the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Court of J~ckson County,

Missouri. A copy of said Order, identified as ."Plaintiffs' Ext1ibit

1", is attached and incorporated herein by reference.

·L

continues to reside in a Divi~3.Lon of Fami.ly

Services foster horre pursuant to the Order of Commi tmcn t.

7. D

T.. is a child of 17 years of age, her date of

birth being October 10, 1959. D

through her next friend, C

C

brings this cause by and , who has been duly .:I~J:)ointed

by this Court to serve in that capacity.

8. On January 6, 1975, D

T · was committed to the

Missouri Division of Family Services for foster home placement by

Order of the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Court of Juckson County,

Missouri. A copy of said Order, identified ns "Plaintiffs' ~xhibit

2", is attached and incorporated herein by reference.

9. D· .

T

continues to reside in a DiviSion of Family

Services foster home .pursuant to the Order of Committmcnt.
····-~·-···

, Jr., is a child of three an<~ one ho.l f years

of age, his date of birth being April 21, 1973. R

brings this

caus.e by and through his next friend, H

, who has been

duly appointed.by this·Court to serve in that·capacity.

11. On ·!-1ay 11, 1976, R

. . !-! ·:.., Jr. , was committed to the

Ilissouri Division·ofFamily Services for foster home placel:lent by

Order of the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Court of Jackson County,

1-lissouri. A copy of said Order, identified as "Plaintiffs' Exh.i.bit 3" ./

is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
. 12. R;~t$.?:L~~ .M .~•: ... ;., Jr., continues to reside in a Division of
•.: ..
Family Services foster home pursuant to the Order of Coml:litment.

13. ·K.

N' - .. and T.

t·r ·

arc sibling;, of six yeo.rs

and four and one-halfyears of age, respectively, their dates of

birth being Januacy 2, 1971, and May 13, 1972. K

~.ll:d 'l' .

'br:'fng this~ ~Jt~:~"q;y and through their next friend 1 J - ;;~.' .:

., •.vho

has been duly appointed by this Cou~t to serve in that capacity.

14. On .January 14, 1976, K~· ...

vl.:lS coimlli t ted to t!1e

Missouri. Division of. Family Services for foster home pLtccnk:nt Lly

'Order of the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Court of Ja~·:.:.son County,

Missouri. A copy of said Order, identified as "Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4",

ls attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

15. On January 14, 1976, T

was committed to the

.Missouri Division of Family Services for fostor l\omc placeml!nt by

Order of the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Cour:t of Jackson County,

1'-iissouri. A copy of said Order, identified as "PlaL.tiffs' ExhiLit 4",

is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

. 16. K

and T

reside together in a ··ivision

of Fami:ly Services foster home pursuant to the Orders of Comnd. tlacn t.

Defendants

17. John ZunMalt is sued in his official capacity as State 'Di.rcctor of the Hissouri Division of ramily SL!rvices. John zu:n•.v,1l t has administrative and supervisory responsibility and control over the activities and operations of ·the Missouri Division of Farni.ly S.ervices.

... ...__ ,_;,·· ,

, ~-·····-·-'---~ :.·

- 4-

18. Ewing Gourley is sued individually and in his capac.:ity as State Director of the Missouri Division of Family Services. Ewing ·Gourley has administrative and supervisory responsibility and control over the activities and operations of the Missouri Division of Family Services.
·· --19. J'. Joseph ·Lewis- is sued individually and in his capacity as County Director of the Jackson County Office of the :Hssouri Division of Family Services. J. Joseph Lewis has auministr.Jtive and supervisory' control over the activities and operations of t!Je Jackson
Ccninty Offf'~ii:':of:-the · Hissouri Division of Family services.
20. ~~~dra Brooks is sued individually and in her cc~pacity as.
County Director of the Clay County Offic'? of the Hisso_u.ri Division of Family Services. Sandra Brooks has administrative ilnd supervisory responsibilj,ty and control over the activities und O["-~rations of .. the
Clay Count~>o:eii'6e of the Missouri Division of Family Services.
21. Sherrell Hunt is sued individually and as Social Service Superviso_r of the t-1issouri Division of F.:unily Services. Shc:uell Hunt has administrative and supervisory control over the plucements of childrt;!n in D.F.S. foster homes in Jackson County, '-lissouri.
22. Gail Horsey is sued individudlly and as Social Service Supervisor of the Missouri Division of Family Services. Gail Horsey· approves the applications of prospective D.F.s; foster po.rents in Jackson County. Gail Horzey posscsses_and exercises the authority to select the foster homes into which plaintiffs and the member,.; of their class are placed.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
2'3. Plaintiffs bring this actionpursuant to Hulc 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on their·own bchnlf ~nd on behalf of all persons constituting the cl<1ss dc!;cci.bed !Jclo•"' 1·ilto <trc similarly situated. Plaintiffs rcprosen t .::1 cl.::~ss of chi ldr,~n P luccd in foster homes by the Missouri Division of Family Services ~ntro,uant to Court Orders of commi tmcn t or pre-hc.:J.ring protccti vc cu~; toC:y ~!Jsuccl .by the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Court of J.lct~~;on ·cou;tt:y, :-:i~;~'''llri.
24. The class is so numerous .that joinder o[ ;tll !l!C!!!h(~t-:. i.~> ]a.apr<tct·ical in ·that, '<t~: of thi:: <!.tu•,, t:llere &re. O':er 1011 chjl.-lren
:;G::·~;~!-~.&:i:E:;·ihe c l~s~.
'• -

25. There are questions of law and fact conunon to the class in tha'::
(a) The Missouri Division of Family Services has legal and physical custody' of· all members of the class.
(b) · All members of the class seek to vindica tc rights, privileges and immunities whic~ have been violated by defendants and •,.,rhich are secured by the prohibition against cruel and u~usmil punis.hment in the Eighth Amendment
·to the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the pnited Statcs:~onsti­
ttition, Article I SlO of the Missouri Consli-
tution, 42 u.s.c. §601 et seq. and· 42 u.s.c .
. ..-;~. t:·: ....
thereunder. ·~
(c) .. All members of the class chalJ.engc similar concli tions of their' foster homes.
· 26. · 'l'he claims of the representative parties <J.rc typic<J..l of' tile claims of the class in that the same <J.cts and omissions of defendants fo:rm the basis for the claims of all members of the class.
27. The represen tati ve parties '"'ill f<J.irly and adequately represent and protect the right~ and interests of the class.
"'~. L>efendants have acted and failed to act, and continue to do so, on grounds generally applic.ab~e to the class, the n:;by rcqu iring appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
General Allegations Regarding Divisio~ of Family Services
Division of Familv Ser~ices Resoonsibilities
· 29. Plaintiffs and the members ·of their cl.as·~; !hi vc !Jocn placed in the legal ccistody of the Missouri Division of Family s~rvicrs pursuant to orders of commitment or prchcaring !)rotectiv0. cusl:ody
- 6-

,>'·'.'
'
,I . which have been issued by the Juvenile Court of the Circuit Court

·of Jackson County, Missouri, pursuant to the provisions of §§211.151
• and 211.181, R.S.Mo. (1969).

30. Plaintiffs and the members of their class have been pl.aced·

in the legal custody .of the Missouri Division of Family Services as
a result of saidchildren·being abused. and/or neglected by their

natural parerits or guardians.

31. Plaintffs and the meinbers of their class reside in t-lissouri

Division of Family Services foster homes in Clay County and Jackson

. County, Z.1.is$buii.
32. ·pl~iritiffs and the members of their class nre in the

physical custody of the Missouri Division of Family Services and its

agents and'ernployees •

..• { ,33. Tha.rUssouri Division of Family Services and its agents

~ :":~' ~-··.·

• 1 ..

·" ... •

•'' ~ ~.·,:,_.;_:~~:~~-~.:·'<;'.~. , ,:··.

:. , •

•

\

· and{e'mployees:-~are·_"U:nder a duty to investigate and license the foster

•.;·-

-r

·!;

···;

homes \,.rithin which plaintiffs and the members of their class u-rc

placed, as set out in §210.221, R·.s.Mo. (1969) .
. . 34. The Missouri Division of Family.Services and its a<Jcnts

.

.

.

and employees are under a duty to revoke the licenses of foster

homes which fail to: comply with §§2lO.iOl to 210.245 R.S.i'lo. (1969),

or the rules and regulation~ promulgated by the Division of Family

Services, as set out in §210.221, R.S.Mo. (1969).

35. 'l'he Hissouri Division of Family Services and its agents

and employees are unde·r a duty to provide plaintiffs and the me!!lbers
of their class with services designed to reunite saiu children. \lith

thier natural families, as set out in §210.145(5}, R.S . .t-1o. (supp.

1977).

36. The Missouri Division of Family Services has promulCJuted

mandatory rules arid regulations regarding licensing and supervision

of D.I~.s. foster homes pursuant to §210.221, R.S.l1o. (1969). Said
rules and regulations [hereinafter called "Rules" l arc contai1wd
..... within the "REGULATIONS Atm STAlWARDS For the Licensed Boarding.

Homes for Children (Foster Family)", which are attnched hereto as

"Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5", and incorporated herein by reference.

37. Plaintiffs and the members of their cla;.~; cH·e ·~ntillt'd to

the protections and safegu.-lrds of t-.he Hul<!S. ·

... ~
_,,··

38. · Plaintiffs and the members of their class are enti •;led to foster placement~:
(a)· with foster parents of good moral character, as set out in Rule 22.4'3 and §210.221, R.S.~1o., (1969);
(b) ~ith foster parents in good physical and m~ntal ·~ealth and free from contagious diseases or mental disorders, as set out in Rule 224.5;
(c} wherein they receive necessar·y medic.:1l care, a• set ~ut ih Rule 224.6; 'in foster homes which are in adequate repair
and conducive to health and decency, as set
l '
out in Rule 224.7(1); (e) wherein they are provided with clothing con-
t
· . :;e~:t!;<··:;;;,:,,sistent with community standards, as set out · •(, in Rule 224.7(8).
39. The foster home placements of plai!ltiffs ilnrl the mem~1cr.s of their class \vho are committed to the Division of F.::tmily Services, and who arc not detained in protective custody ~ending juvcnilu court hearings, ·are financed _in part by money reccivQd dlrectly or indirectly from the Department of Health, Educntion and ~Jelfo.re of the United States, pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§601 ct seq.
40. The Missouri Division of Family Services has consented and agreed to comply with the statutes and regulations of the United States rqgarding foster placements which are funded ctircctly or
indirectly by money which is authorized by 42 u.s.c. §5601 ct ~~:I· 41. The requirements ot 42 u;s.c. §601 et seq., 45 C.F.R.
§220 et ~£S.·, and ·45 C.F.R. §223 et ~3.· apply to foster placements funded directly or indirectly by funds authorized hy 42 U.S.C. §601 ~~ seq.
42. The Missouri Division of Family Services and its agents
and employees are subject to the requirements of 42 u.s.c. §601
et seq., 45 C.F.R. §220 ct seq. and 45 C.F.R. §233 ~~seq. 43. Plaintiffs and the members of their class \vho arc not
detained in protective custody pending Juvenile Court hc<1rings .:1rc

- 8-

entitled to fost~+ horr.e placements which comply with the requirements
Of 45 C~F.R. 220 et seq •.
44. Plaintiffs and the members of their class who are not detained in protective custody pending Juvenile Court hearings are
I
·entitled to foster home placements:. (a} wherein said children receive care appropriate ~to their indiv'idual needs, as required by 42 U.S.C. §601 et ~., 45 C,F,R, §220 ct ~:?'1· ·and 45 C.F.R. §223 ~sea.; (b) wherein said children receive proper care,
. as required by 42 u..s.c. · §601 et seq., 45.
C.F.R. §220 et ~· and 45 C.P.R. §233 ct seq.
(,-
Division of Family Services Actions and Onissions

45. Plaintiffs and the members of their class have been and continue tcf'be subjected to violent -und debilitating conditions and
r.i practices as enumerated in this complaint.
46. ':!'he acts, policies and omissions of the defcnd.:mts h.:tve subjected plaintiffs and/or have caused plaintiffs to be St1bjectcd to the concli tions mentioned in this complaint.
47. At all times pertinent to this complaint, dofcndonts' Rcts, policies and omissions which are referred to in this complaint occurred, and continue 1;:0 occur, under color of ~tate. l.::n-r, ·statute, ord{nance, regulation, custom and practice.
48. The Missouri Division of Family Services and its agents and employees license and maintain D.F.S. foster homes 1vithout ~\dequately investigating the moral character of the foster p'-ll.·en ts, in contravention o!: ?.:..:!,;; 22~. 5 .=;::.d 52i·~. 221, R. S .l~o. ( l9G9).
49. The Missouri Division of Family Services and its ~g~nts and employees license and maintain D.F.S. foster homes wi.thout obtaining physician's statements that the foster parents arc in 900<.1 mental health'artd free from mental disorder, in contravention of Rule 224.5.
"
50. The r-tissouri D'ivision of I>amily Service~; and its aycnts and employees license and maintain D.F.S. foster. homes 'dithout obtaining physician's statements that the foster parents aJ-•2 in

_ · - - ,. _..,. ......-~....

.... :

- 9-

..
good physical heaith and frde from contagious diseases, in contraven-
. tion of Rule .224.5 •
.Sl. The Missouri Division of Family Services and its agents and employees license anc;!. maintain D.F.S. foster homes wherein D.F.S.
foster parents fail .. to provide necessary r.1cdical and psychiatric care, in contravention of 'Rule 224.6.
si·. The Missouri Division of Family Services <Jnd its ugents and
employees license and maintain D.F.S. foster homes which are not sanitary-or conducive to the health of foster children, in contraven·tion of Rule 224. 7'(1).
·-· ., .·. -~. ;.
53. · The nissoU:ri Division of Far.1ily Services and its <~gents and
employees license and ma...;ntain D.F.'S. foster homes wh~' f·h are over-
crowded and are wlt.~out adequate sleeping space, in contr<tvcntion of
Rule 224.7(2}. , ·::~,54 . . The ll!isspuri Division of Family Services and its u<Jcnts
·arld'emplo·9~~~s malni:~lin D.F.S. foster homes wherein D.F.S. foster
children are not clothed properly and in accordance ',vi l:l1 com.mm i ty standqrds, in contravention of Rule 224.7(6) .
. 55. The Missouri Division of F<tmily Services and its employees license and I:laintain D.F.S. foster home-s wherein D.F.S. fostc•rchildren fail to receive the care and services muncL1 tcL1 by -12 tJ. S.C. · §60~ et seq., 45 C,F,R,· §220'£! ~., 45 C.F.R. §233 et .~..t''l!· c1nd §210 .. 145(5). R.S.Mo. (Supp. 1977).
56. -The t1issouri Division of rami 1y Servic~s and its ar_rcn ts and employees license. and maintain D.F.S. foster homes without psycholo~ically screening or evaluating foster parents in order to determine their mental health and ability to provide proper care for foster children.
57. The Missouri Division of Family Serv.iccs and .its ac:wnts wnd. employees fail to train or prepare foster parcnV; fm:: their dtt~· LL~~; as foster parents.
58. The Missouri Division of Family Services ~nd its agents and employees fail to supervise D.F.S. foster homes.
59. The rHssouri Division of F<tmily Services C1ss.i.<Jns cxc,~~~si vc cascloads to D.F.S. Social Service wcirkcrs and Protective Service vrorkers, thereby preventing the adequwte supervision of foster l10mcs by Social Service workers ~nd Protective Service workers.
; ................. ;..... .

~ ...

, ~0,. The r,!issouri Division of Family S.ervices and its agents

and employees fail to p.r;otect D.r.s. foster children from physically

and psychologically harmful foster parents.
61. Divisi~n 6f Family Services ipster children are regularly

trnasferred between foster homes by p.F.S. and its agents and employee:
of thereby placing each plaintiff and each member 'the class in danger

of suffering each and every harm identified in the succeeding para-

grap~1s of this complaint.

62. At all times pertinent to this complaint, defendants knew,

or should h,ave known, of the actions and omissions referred to in

this complaint and the effects of those actions and omissions upon

plaintiffs and the members of tl:leir class.

1'

63. At all t~mes pertinent to this complaint, defendants had

the ability and authority to remedy the >'lrongful acts. anu or.tlssions

referred to in this complaint.

Suecific Allegations Regarding ~laintiffs

C.

· L

64. Pursuant to the Order identi :(ied as "Plaintiffs' Exhibit

1", G:

L:

was .Placed in a D.F.S .. foster .home_• in'.·Jackson ·;·.:.

County, 11issouri.

65. The Missouri Division of Family Services transferred

G:

to a foster placement with J

- and iv·

E. H

., Jr.,

in Clay County, Hissouri, on a date unknmvn to plaintiffs.

~6. G

's foster p~acemcnt with J

E.

H. . ·., Jr., was arranged and approved by the ~1issouri Division of

Family Services and its agents and employees in Clay County and

Jac!~son County, I-1iss.ouri.

67. J

and W

, E. H

Jr., were not capable of

providing safe and proper care for G

.·, which defendants knew

or should have known if G

's foster home had bccn·adcquatcly

licensed and supervised.

63. G

· had. behavioral problems which the u:

were

not capable of dealifig with.

69. Prior to October 30, 1976, thc.ll ;"'~;..o~•··'·'"'"'''·Pns:u.cccssfuily

requested help from D.F.S. for G:

·-·.

Jr., intcnti?nqlly and/or

negligently inflicted upon G

~

certain injuries on or

about October 30, 1976, to wit:

(a) · first and second degree burns on both hands;

(b) massive bruises on both buttocks; and,

{c) numerous smaller bruises on G

·' s legs

and arms.

71. As a resul:t of the injuries identified in Para·graph 70,

G.·

. L.

experienced pain, emotional suffering and severe

mentai angcllsh. ':
72. G ···.......... ,, continues to live in a D.F.S. foster home pursuant
·to the Order of Commitment. 73. The injuries and sufferi~g and inadequute care described

above was and is the proximate result of defendants' violation of
~:. ·. _.. -- ·:t·h~:tr· dutieS. ·under·. the· MissOuri and United sta tcs c·ons ti tu tions and

federal and state statutes and regulations .

. • 74. Pursuant to the Order identi[icd as "Plaintiffs' Exhibit

2" I D· ...

T

was placed in a D.F.S. foster horne in Jackson County,

Missouri.

75. D·

was placed by the Division of Family Services in

the D.F.S. foster home of C·

H.

76. c M·

was not capab~e of providing proper care for

D

T~ .. , which the defer.dants knew, or should huve known, if

the foster home had been adequately licensed and supervised.

77. Nhile in the foster home of C . K

., D

fainting.spells, dizziness, recurring headaches ~nd menstrual

probler.1s.

78. D·

informed c

of the medic~l problon~ referred

to in Paragraph 77.
79. c

_dismissed o

's complaints as boin~ unim-

portant, and failed to obtain moc1icul help for t:llo !n·ol>l.l'IIlc; i<k-ntLfied

in Paragra?h 77.
80. c

deliberately and falsely informed the Division

- 12 -

· of Family Services that D

had received medical attention for

·the diziiness, fainting spells, headaches and menstrual proble~s.

81. c. :~. N:· ..-.

deliberately· persuaded D

and C

's

other f6~ter children to tell D

's Social Service worker that

D :..• '" had received a complete medical examination for the problems

-'-identified in Paragraph 77.

82. The defendants negligently relied upon the statements of

c .. M. L... · and her foster children regarding D

's receipt of

medical care, and fai;ted to 'verify the statements made by c

!-1.

and the foster children.

never obtained medical help for D

's medical

problems identified in Paragraph 77.

84. As a result of D

· 's failure to receive medical· care

for the problems identified in Paragraph 77, D··

suffered a *

· ...

f'u\?tured ovarian cyst .which inflamed D . :'s appendix and caused

;. ~ ...

.a'~ ·appendicitis attack.

!3 5 • As a result of D ·• ' s failure.to receive medical care

for the problems identified in Paragraph 77, D

requin~d

emergency medical care in the form of an appendectomy, the partial

removal of her right ovary, and other medical services attendant

uhereto.

86. 1\s a rcsul.t of. the facts alleged in Paragraphs 79 through

and including 85, D

experienced severe paf'n, prolonged physical

discomfort and emotional grief.

87. The facts alleged in Paragraphs 79 through and i~cluding

86, were the proximate result of defendants' failure to properly.

license, supervise and train C M.

88. c

l't. , , who is Caucasian, repeatedly and deliberately,

and in the presence of other foster children; told D

.. ,

w\,1o

.
J.S

Caucasian, that D· ...... 's natural mother is a "tramp" and a "~;horc"

because o ..

's niltural mother ·gave birth to a child villose father

is a Hegro.
89. c M.

deliberately, and in the presence of other

foster children, told D

that c

's natural mother h<1d

abandoneu D•

in favor of D·

's bi-racial sibling and the

bi-racial sibling's father.

·.·

90. As a res~lt of the facts alleged in Paragraphs 88 and 89:.

{a) D ·,.

perceives her natural mother as a

"tramp" and a "whore";
:(b) · o··:.:.., _ no longer feels :).ove and affection for
her natural-mother;

{c) D ' _ .'s relationship with her mother is

. permanently damaged and D· .

has no desire

to ever .'resume living with her natural mother; (d) D- -~-~- :.o does not feel love and affection for
~e~hi-racial sibling;

(e) o·.:._,.~,~~';'s relationship with her bi-racial

sibling is permanently damaged.

1 \

91. The facts alleged in Paragraphs 88 through a.nd including

90/ were the proximate result of defendants' fuilure 'to pr-operly

lic~nse, train and supervise c . rL

and dcfendunts' violation

of their duties under the Missouri and United States Constitutions

·and federal and state statutes and regulations.

92. D. _-continues· to reside in a D •.F.S. foster home

pursuant to the Order-of Commitment.

R·

;... t-1-

. , Jr.

.. ·

93 ~ Pursuant to the Order identified as "Plaintiffs' Exhibit

3" 1 R.

M:

, Jr. , was placed in a D. F. S. foster home in

Jackson County, ?Hssouri.

94 •. R

.H

Jr., suffers from psychological and cmo-

tional problems which his foster parents· •.<~ere not prepar.cd for and

were not capable of dealing with.

95. As a result of the facts allegcrl in Paragraph 94, R

is presently in his fifth foster home .

.

96. Each time R

was trans fer red from il :!:os ter !10me, he

\·las summarily removed by D. F. S. without prcpnring him emotionally

or ~sychologically.

97. R

was transferred from his foster homes bccatwc his

foster parents were unable to properly care for children with cmo-

tional and psychological problems.

•• ,.,.,;, .. u

,, ....... .

- 14 -

.. -: . . .

98. R.:

,'~ foster parents were unable to properly care for

him and deal with his problems as a result of the failure of defcn-

dahts to train or prepare said foster parents. 99. R. ·"·~-'~~,_:~;_, 1 s emotional and psychological problems worsened as
a result of his numerous foster home transfers and the methods by
which he ~.,as transferred.

100 •. Defendants knew, or should have known, had the foster homes

been properly li·censed, that R

's foster purents were incapable

of dealing _with R< :~,..~---···>·~· 1 s problems and properly caring for R·

i;ff: 101. R;}>'

s pre~~n~. foster parents have not bt.:en trained to

care for children with problems such as those exhibited by R

102. The injuries, suffering and inadequate care::Jescribed

above was and is the proximate result of defendants' violation of·

their duties under the ~1issouri and" United States Constitutions and
.. ·.. ~:fede.ral and :state statutes and regulations.

103. R._ .-_ .~continues to reside in a D.F.S. foster home pur,~
suant to the Order of Commitment.

K.

and T .. __ .· i~-

104. Pursuant to the Orders identEfied as "Plaintiffs' Exhi-

b i t 4"; K: -L---

and T

.\~

. were placed in a D.F.S. foster

. home in Jackson County I r-1issouri ~

105. K

and T

t·lcre placed i•n the foster home

of N.< . A:·

106. T

w

. suffers from Severe speech and language

disabilities and he is possibly afflicted with aphasia associated

with motor and concentration problems.

107. T ·

requires spbcialized educational care,

in6luding parental participalion,·as a result of the problems identified in P~ra~r~ph 106.

108. T

is enrolled in a specialized educational

program which requires the weekly participation of the students'

parents or guardians.

109. !~

.·A:

_ has refused to participate in, or coo~cratc

with, the spccfalized cduc<ltional program in which T

is enrolled.

110. As a result of the failure of w -. I\:

to !Jurticipate

- 15 -

,_,
in; or cooperate with T

.'s specialized school, T

has failed

to progress at a normal rate and has not reached the developmental

·levels which he would have attained with the participation of his

foste.r mother.

"!11. Staff members of T

's specialized school informed the

Division of ·pamily.Services and its agents and employees of tv.

Ai.:·. · ' failure to participate in, or cooperate with, the educational

. program for T ·

112: . Defendants have failed to either remove T

from the

W' . A~.~,~~~> home or assure that T

~eceives proper care.

1!3);:; The 'Division of Family Services and its agents and

employees, including Defendant Sherrell Hunt, obtaine,.d, information

which gave them reason to believe that tv - ll.. ~

physically

.

abused some or all of her foster children, l.ncluding T

t
school

with

115. D.F.S. social workers assigned to T ·. tv

and

other children have requested that T·

and K.

and

other foster children be removed from the H

!1.:

foster home~

116. Pursuant to demands by W

ll.

, Defend~nt Sherrell

refused to close the W.

ll.

foster home or remove T

;:~nd

K ..

from said home.

. --" 117. Sherrell Hunt's decision to kec:,> T

and I<.

·.

in

the w-

A..

foster home was based on a desire to placate

lil:

A·

and was not founded upon a des ire to serve the best

interests of the children.

118. The Division of Fbmily Setvices and its agents and em-

ployees have never attcinpted to.detcrmine, through psychological

examinations or other appropriate methods, w.hethor N

A

is a physical threat to K.

<md T

119. K.

and T

continue to reside with N

ll.

pursuant to the Order of Commitment.

120. The Missouri Dcvision of Family Services and its

age~ts and employees have not provided K

and T

t.;it!-1 services designed to reunite said children with th,.=ir naturul

family.

- 16 -

..·
' '

w·· . 121~

... A ... ;_,--.~

fails to maintain a clean and tidy horne and

· .. fails to provide I<

and T· ·· with a proper parental role model.

122.'· As· a result of defendants' failure to remove K.'

and T · · ~;. w- ~-~:~·-~: from the foster horne of W.

A·

have' suffered emotional and physical harm.

both children

.·-f-.

123.

The ·•injuries,

suffering

and

inadeauate ~

care

described

above was and· is the proximate re'sult of defendants' violation of

·their duties under the-Missouri and United States Constitutions and

federal and state statutes and regulations.

Gen~ral Allegations Regarding Plaintiffs and Their Class
1 \
124. Plaintiffs and the members of their class have been, and continue to be, subjected to physical abuse inflicted by_ Division of Family __Services foster parents who are psychologically and
. ~·.
emotionally''incapable of providing safe and proper care for said children.
125. The physical abuse which has been inflicted upon members of plaintiffs' class includes, but is not limited to, sexual abuse by D.F.S •. foster parents.
126.- Plaintiffs and the members of their-class have been, and continue .to be, placed in unsanitary foster homes contaminated with contagious diseases, bedbugs, lice, ringworm and.scabies.
· 127. As a result of the facts alleg.ed in Paragraph 126, plaintiffs and the members of their .class:
(a) have become infested with, and bitten extensively by, bedbugs in their foster homes,
{b) have become infecf::.ed with ringworm in their foster homes, and
(c} have become infected with.scabics in their foster homes.

128. Plaintiffs and the members of their class have been, and continue to be, placed with D.F.S. foster parents who are unuble, due to lack of transportaticn, and who are unwilling, to provide necessary and timely-medical and psychological care for said children.

·----- -.... .. ~··

- 17 -

.. - ..~ ...; ".c. . •

·.·' ·.

.....,•-... ·,,

129:. As a result of the facts alleged in Paragraph·l28, plain-

')'·
tiffs and the members of their class have not received necessary and

.timely medical,and psychological care.

130. Plaintiffs and the members of their class have been, and

continue

·t~

be,.pla~ed .

\·dth

D. .F.S.·foster

parents '

who:

ancf 'the .. ' ·r~r~.,,hav~ provided plaintiff's:'

meinbers of

. their class with little or no love and parental

affection;

(b) _.have provided plaintiffs and the members of

, . ~,their class with improper role models and
;::0;'~~f~~t~i e~~rnples;· and,

(c} · ha.ve intentlon~lly subje-cted plaintiffs and

the'rnenibers'of·their.class to emotion~l abuse

in.

. .' ;• the

fo~m<of.:

derogatory

comments

about

t

;.

-~i :!J~f-'~(;~h~J'o~~; ¥nd their natural families .

131. Plaintiffs and the. members of their class have been, and

continue to be, placed in D.F.S·. foster homes regarding which the

Division of Famiiy Services .;and its agents and employees have reason

.

.

to believ~ that foster chlldren.: have .JJaen Mglected, physically

abused,, sexually abused and 'r~ceived improper care.
... ~ . '
1-32: The Missouri' .Divi·sion of :!:'amily Services and its agents ·:.:···. · ~-.."~···:~rj:::; . ~/~:~~~\i~i·:~~·</' ·'
and.employees transferiplaintiffs arid·the members of their class
~-,.·J •. : •. :,_~,~-~~··;~--~ .r\·~:.·:~;'~,·.X\:~·- ·j·: • ....
between foster homes summa.t~ly:·:and without·. preparing the children
. emotionally or psych~logid~11i,.for the change. .
133. Th~. ftis.souri Divis'io~ of ~amily Services and its agents

and employees fail to p-rovide·, plaintiffs and the members of their

.

.

-class with services designed to reunite said children •.vi th their

.natural families.

..•·.
. ... ;·;·.~..

134. The Missouri .·ri~visi6n 'of .Family Services and its agents

. .·

·;:. . .. ~. :.. ..:.;-;.);·~:.

. ..

.and employees place plaintiffs';,anq the members of their class in

overcrowded foster hornas N.ithour adequate sleeping S!Jacc •

135. 136.

. ,·'
There exists betwee~'; the parties a C<l.se and controversy

.,:.. •

.. ·.:~ "

····.
~-: ~.: :· •'

Plaintiffs have suffered harm, as set out in this com-

p1Laint, as a result of the ~~ti'bh'~;:,:a_nd omissions of defendants.

> . i;:_ :~~~:··~~

! .:.: ::., lB.

... .~

: ..

'.C:• 1"
'.

FIRST CLAUi

Plaintiffs reincorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 136

above.

'l.'he acts and ·omissions of defendants have denied plaintiffs and

.

.

.

the members of their class their right to be free from cruel and

in unusual punishment,· contravention of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I §§10 and 21 of the Constitution of ~he State of Missouri as a result of defen-

dants:
(a) :'i~n:ic~iO'n .·of ha'rsh and brutal punishment and con-

ditions upon plaintiffs and the ~embers of their

class;

(b) failure to adequately investigate and evaluate

.. foster.pa:r:~nts; ~+t~~-. ·:. :..

.·,;.;. ~

.......:..:. . :.; ·./.~~--~'!,. ,::·:·:·,:~,:· .:·.~·: · . ::.iF; .

.. (c') · f2lilure·.'to· supervise foster parents; and

(d) failure to clos~ and de-license unsafe and unhcalty foster hom'es.

SECOND CLAIM

Plaintiffs reinc~rpor'ate by reference paragraph 1 through 136

.. ;,· ... ·

·~~··.h~~~~f~~:~,~JE£endants above. The acts

l ~:.;

.

•

••

have denied.plaintiffs and

the members of theix<·class due ;:process of law in contravention of

. the Fourteenth Amemdrnent ';to: the Un.ited States Constitution and Article
I §10 of the Constit.ution ·of th. e Stat~ of !-1issouri as a result of
defendants' failure toke~p plaintiffs and the members of their
class free from harm by placing_plaintiffs and the members of their

class in· fostel." homes wherein! ·

(a) said childrenhave.suffered physical and emotional

·. harm;

and

·:

..... .;: :'•

i

<· >,'');\:~:·.:
• .~:\i.(.~;\

·

. .

(b) said children are 'subjected to a high risk of

suffe~ing further'physicai and emotiof)al harm .

... .. . :,
.·. . ;

;:,:~·:-:".::
'. ;~.-:·:;: ~;.·::· ~

.... ·. Tli:fR:o cLAIH

..

:.~ .~.·. .

:"'\·~·.

Plaintiffs reincorpor~te\by. _r~ference Paragraphs 1 through 136

'

.

,.1.·

aboye.

·:·· ~·
··'. ~:....-~~~.:.,:.:.o(~~~ ~·.·:...:~...;..~ ':.~·~· ~i ....~., Q .· -

... ........-

8

." ' ' '

•~ ., ... • t:.. ~

'

. i
t"he acts and omissions'of defenc;lants have denied plaintiffs and

,the members of their class of property and liberty without due process

of law, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

State.s Constitution.and Article I §10 of the Constitution of the State

a as.: of Missouri

result of defendants placing said children. in foster

homes which did ~~t ~~mply with §§210.221 and ~10.145, R.S.Mo., and

·f

j.

of _the mandatory provi~ions

the "REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS For The

· Licensed Boarding' Home~ For ·Cl1ildren (Foster Family) • "

·.... :

.. ·;;, :· ·..· . FOURTH CLAIM

,. ..

. ~

. .,:·.:· •. ;- ; ..:.

. ·, ·.:·····. . :_ ~.-·.·h_jr~·~\/:~i~~; :.: .~::;·.:\:::·.}!.~> .

Plaintiffs :re'iricorporate by· reference Paragraph 1 through 136

above.

·i .· ..... ··.···.··

I

' ,

, .• , ;.; .:

Defendants have •denied· plaint.iffs and· the class they represent
.. . .
their rights as guaranteed by 45 C.F.R. 5220 ~seq. 45 C.P.R. §233
.·t};..g..•~~;·; :~':'ifltitrsGOj'~~ti, ~·~;;. ·

."•':-·

•• J

.FIFTa CLAIH

P.laintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 136

above.

DafEm'dants have den'ied plaintiffs and the. class they represent

their right to appropriate .:care as guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment.

. ·~·''f.' . ' .. .•.~.·.''·'·~.:.!......~.' ·., .
.,.;::;~y:t\¥1;::f.i·;~l~~~k;;FO~ ~LIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs on::,their own behalf and on behalf of all
~-
others similarly situated, respectfully pray this Honorable Court:
·(1) To assume jurisdiction of this action. and to declare
this a class action under Rule.23(b) {2) as soon as practicable <~s
set out ~n Rule 23(c)(l)~
··i
(2) 'l'o enter a f:inal:.judrirn<•nt pur·::tJ.ant t.o :>11 II.S.t'. ·:;:;:~;·ot O.\'\d27.07., ~cla.rinq -th~t cle-Ferlld..G\.nts' po1icias< ~nd_ prQc-ti<:es have krde&:
pl.<tinLi.ff:..; and the m0mbcrs of their class d'Je process of la\-l a£
guaranteed by the Constituti6ns 0f the Uni~ed States and ~he St~tc
(:f' Missouri... and have subje;::ted :; :.~.:.:-. '-if::s -:>.nd the membc:·s of tl1ei::

.
said poliCies-and practices violate 45 C.F.R. §220 et seq. and 45
. c._F.R.--§233 et seq.; 42 u.s.c. §601 ~ ~·i §210.221 and §210.145(5.
R.S.Ho,~: and Rules 224.3; 224.5, 224.6, 224.7(1) and 224.7(8) •

.(3f To· enter permanent injunctions pursuant to Rule 65 of the

Federal.Rulesof civil Procedure, enjoining defendants, their success

in offi~~, ag~~ts·, employees and all persons in active concert with

'

-

them, ffom:'

' ...
···.·';.

.·., ,·

(a) .. licensi~~~ ~aintaining, and placing plaintiffs and

'.the members of their class in foster homes without

... .. ·.· :._ .-~ ·.: ) : : ·.. ~ . :; ; .· : : / .

.determfning;that>;the present or prospective ·foster

•: w..'.,._;..,;

•:

, ··~:.~'. •~ (1;Lh; ~-~·..~~~:::,

'

o

'! :: ~\•

'

0 ::'~,, •

0 •

parents':·are;n6t likely to abuse or neglect foster

ch_ildre:n;.. ·
.. ... I'• -
(b) licensing; maintaining, and placing plaintiffs and

:!;~~;;i~~i~~~~~::::•t:nm:::t::eh:::v:::::u:e:::-

..<>df';' ~-~h. ~h'·i:~:J.l~'\J.~~' ed_ in their homei

' ·. .

. . -~

(c) licen'sing~ ;maintaining, and placing plaintiffs and

the momb~rs of thei~· class in foster homes tvhich

.

. ..

.

have not met ali:requirements and recommendations

..

•

!f; .··(

. established in NissO'uri 1 s "P.EGULATIOt'>lS lu'iD STANDARDS -.,.·.

For The Licensed;.: Boarding· Homes For Children (Foster

Family> •:;,:~l,:i:~~;r~~;~;~~~F~~~·;:t~::;~:;4n, .: . .

(d) failing· to~··.closefo·r}de~license all inadequate,

. i ... ;·:., ·~. "·.. ,: ·.. : \· ~;· ... .:':) .: ~·,·~- ' _·.

dangerous·and.unhealthy,foster homes;

·. . :.

;_

(e) failing to _supervise' fo'ster homes;

(f) assignin-g D.F.S. ~aseworkers who are assigned to

,plaintiffs and.the members of their class excessive

case loads;

. ::-:

· (g) failing to prepare plaii1tiffs and the members of

their class' emotionally and psychologically for

foster home transfers;

· (h) failirig to provide !_)laintiffs and the members of

t.heir clas~ the ser;ices and· care mandated by

45 C.P.R. ;)220 -::t ?.~s_., 45 C.F.R. §233 et ~~·and

_ ; . . . _ ..... . - .

' '·. _.l
6
their'· class the services and care mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
coristitut:i·on. ·

'(4) Award plaintiff G _

•· the sum of $50,000 in actual

damages and $501000 in punitive damages against the Hissouri Division

.of Family Serv,ices ,· Ewing _Gourl:ey, J. Joseph Lewis, Sandra Brooks,

.

. .

Sherrell Hunt and Gail Horsey.

(S) ~o award' plaintiff D·
:/

the sum of $50,000 in actual

damages, and $50,000 in •!;unitive damages against the Missouri Division

·of FamilY~. Ser~iC:~s:,,:£wi~g Gourley 1 J. Joseph Lewis, Sherrell Hunt,

.

.

(6) To .award plaintiff R.

·. M·

, .

. .

.

Jr.,

1, the sum of

$50,000

in actual damages and $50,000 in punitive damages against the ·

Missouri

Division of Family

Services,

.
Ewing

Gourley,

J.

Joseph

t

.

Lewis,

'- . .

. <·:<Y; \;-.·(=:-~·_,:..:. :~-\:~-. __:-_ ~- ···:··: .....·~~-~!':. ~ .' ·.::·

. Sherrell. Hunt<and:'Ga:r.l Horsey •.

(7) · To a~ard pl~i.'ntiff K_

the sum of $50,000 in

.

. .

.

actual damages and $50 ,ooo·_. in _punitive damages against the Missouri

Division of Family· Services·, ·Ewing. Gourley, J. Jospeh Lewis, Sherrell Hunt and·Gail Uorsey~

( 8) : To award plaintiff •T

the sum of $50,000 in

actual damages and _$50 ;000 .{,in punitive damages against the Missouri

.·. ;f· ..... :_,._.:....:}..~·.;}/!~;}~:.L·· -~, :-:·-

.

· · Di'vision of Famil~/'servi'ccs··~'(Ewing: Gourley 1 J. Joseph Lewis, Sherrell
· · . . ):t·::i_{·;) ~: j:,_~;j~.w;~~J~~-.:~--~.~_._..::

Hunt

and

Gail ?

. H. .o.rs:'e;.' y.·-:·-_~,_",.,.\..'",:(·~·?··'·<'\~1r;):':'':":":·">i"~"J,''_·};

..

(9) To award ·reasonable·.·atto.rney's fees to plaintiffs'_. attorneys,

.~nder 4~ u.s.~. §19~8;

(10) To award plaintiffs.· and the members of their class any

and all other relie,f·· as may be deemed appropriate by this Court

'' · Respectfully submitted,

12,__ '·.·

-· ::-·

<~0/J~~~~

_, .. · . THOMJ\S p • 0 I DONNELL

Em\lARD F. FORD, I II

.Legal 1\id'of Hcstern Hissouri

1103 Grand Avenue

...

, :.

·Kansas City, Missouri 64106 ·.:Phone: (816) 474-6_750

"f

.•. ·.

·.;:' ·.< ~~CIA ROBINSON LOl-.JRY

. ' :;><\~. DAVID Ill\SW1ALL

. '· .-<::':f~'.i<,-:Children 's !Uqhts Project . :~:;·,;.~~::·:,.:· Arnerican Civii Li~lcrtics Union

·• .,_-: '22 East 40th Street

Hew York, New York 10016

.-......~ o,J ..•

'

1 ,~ •

. -··

' . _,· ·r

....·..

•. _s::ERTIFICATE . OF SERVICE

.

.

.

.:!: hereby"icertify that a true

. 'and. correct .copy of .the above

· and foregoing document was

mailed postage prepa~d, this

:J( 14 day of October, 1979, to:.

Mr. Weldon ~'l. Perry, Jr. Assistant Attorney-General Supreme .•. Cou.rt Building . Jefferson City, Hissouri 65102
Attorney for Defendants

· TH0!-1AS P • 0 ' DONNELL
.··.. ,

~ ·..: . '!

..

. ,.

····;'.:

., .

. ····: .

. .. :·;.,;.:

.:·.····'

23

 
 Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

G. L., An Infant, by and through his

)

NEXT FRIEND, et al., on their own behalf )

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

-against-

)

)

GARY STANGLER, et at,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 77-0242-CV-W-l

AMENDED MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF PURPOSE DEFINITIONS CORE REQUIREMENTS 1. THECLASS . II. PREVENTING ABUSE, NEGLECT & INAPPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE.
A. Licensing and Certification of Foster Homes.
B. Renewal of Foster Home Licenses and Certifications.
c. Mandatory Training of Foster and Kinship Parents .
D. Proper Matching of Children with Appropriate Placements E. Pre-Placement Process and Supervision of Children..

Page
.4 .4 .4 . 9
9 9 9 9 .10 .10 .11

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

F. Prohibition on the Use ofInappropriate Discipline of

Children and Investigation of and Responses to Suspected

Incidents of Abuse, Neglect and Inappropriate Discipline

.13

G. Providing Adequate Support

· 14

III. HEALTH CARE SERVICES.

· 15

A. Health Care Services

· 15

B. Health Care Plan

· 15

C. Health Care History and Health Care Records

· 15

D. Medical Case Management

.16

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENCY PLANS MiD PERMANENCY

PLANNING GOALS.

· 16

A. Permanency Planning Practice Guide.

· 16

B. Preliminary Service Needs Determination

· 16

C. Preliminary Planning Conference

· 17

D. Preliminary Permanency Plan .

· 17

E.

Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference

· 18

F.

Comprehensive Permanency Plan

· 19

G. Written Service Agreements .

.20

H. Six-Month Permanency Planning Review

.20

1.

Permanency Planning Goals

.21

J.

Adoption Training and Information Systems.

.22

K. Adoption Planning Conference

.22

L.

Adoption Plan

.22

V. PERMANENCY PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION

.23

2

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,200]

A. Staff Caseloads, Supervision and Training

.23

B. Unit Structure and Managerial Positions

.24

C. Management Plan

.25

StaffRecruitment and Retention Component.

.26

Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and

Foster Parent Retention Component .

.27

Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training Component

.27

Resource Development Component .

.27

Manual and Automated Management Information Systems Component .27

Quality Assurance Component

.27

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

.28

A. Vendors

.28

B. Remedial Actions

.28

C. Exemptions

.29

D. Monitoring

.29

E. Compliance

.30

F. Reservation of Arguments

.30

G. Exit Plan

.31

VII. COMMUNITY QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE

.33

AMENDED EXHIBIT A

.(attached)

3

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

INTRODUCTION

At the same time that the parties negotiated the modified Consent Decree, they also negotiated a Revised Operational Guide and a Framework for a Monitoring Methodology. The Revised Operational Guide is intended to act as an implementation plan for the Consent Decree. The definitional section and the purpose statement of the Consent Decree also apply to the Revised Operational Guide. Any ambiguities in the mandates of the Consent Decree are to be interpreted by reference to the Revised Operational Guide.

The parties intend to ask the Court to incorporate this modified Consent Decree and the attached Revised Operational Guide into a court order which replaces the March 21, 1983, Consent Decree, 564 F. Supp. 1030 (W.D. Mo. 1983), and any modifications thereto, and supersedes the Court's Order, dated December 7, 1992, except to the extent the December 7, 1992 Order substitutes and add parties as defendants. After the Court incorporates the Modified Consent Decree and the Revised Operational Guide, the mandates ofthe Consent Decree may only be changed with court approval. The parties agree, however, the mandates of the Revised Operational Guide may be changed by mutual consent of the parties without Court authorization or approval. The parties also agree that in exceptional circumstances, class members may be exempted from specific requirements of the Consent Decree or Revised Operational Guide on a case-by-case basis by mutual consent of the parties.

The parties intend to submit the Framework for the Monitoring Methodology to the G.L. v. Stangler Foster Care Consent Decree Committee, representatives of the plaintiffs and defendants, and technical experts and is to be used by them to develop a comprehensive monitoring methodology. Once it is completed, the parties will ask the Court to incorporate the monitoring methodology into a court order. After the Court has signed such an order, the monitoring methodology only may be changed with approval from the Court.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The purpose of this Consent Decree is to provide all class members with the child welfare services required by the constitution and the laws ofthe United States, including, but not limited to, protection from harm while in custody of Missouri's Division of Family Services.

DEFINITIONS

Adoption Worker:

A social worker as defined herein to whom adoption functions have been assigned. References to the term" adoption worker" throughout this document do not prohibit DFS from assigning adoption functions to a child's primary social worker.

4

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

Alternative Care Placement: Alternative Care Provider: Caseload: Child: Child AbuselNeglect Central Hotline:
Child-Specific Adoption Recruitment:
Children in DFS Legal Custody:
Community Resources:

Any out-of-home placement in which a child in DFS legal custody resides.
A child's actual caregiver in hislher Alternative Care Placement.
Children assigned to a social worker where the social worker functions as the children's case manager.
An individual between the ages of zero (0) and twenty-one (21) in the legal custody ofDFS.
The state-wide, toll-free telephone number operated by the Central Registry Unit of the Missouri Division of Family Services to receive reports concerning suspected child abuse or neglect and initiate the process for investigating those reports.
The process whereby DFS, through its own program and staff, or by contracting with child placement agencies, uses child-specific information and engages in individualized recruitment activity to locate adoptive homes for designated children in the legal custody ofDFS.
Children placed in the legal custody of the Missouri Division of Family Services, Jackson County, Missouri Office, pursuant to an order of the Family Court.
Agencies, organizations, groups or individuals in and around Jackson County, Missouri that provide or assist in the provision of services to families and children, such as, but not limited to, the Local Investment Commission (LINC), the Missouri Foster Care and Adoption Association, Partnership for Children, Family Court, Metropolitan Child Abuse Network, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), National Association of Social Workers (Missouri-Kansas unit) and Coalition for Positive Family Relationships.

5

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

DFS: DMS: DSS: Family: Family Court: Foster Family Home:
Foster Family Group Home:
Foster Home: Foster Parent: G. L. Monitoring Committee: Healthy Children & Youth Program:

Missouri Division of Family Services, a division of DSS and subject to the director ofDSS.
Missouri Division of Medical Services, a division of DSS and subject to the director ofDSS.
Missouri Department of Social Services.
All individuals with whom the child lived prior to entering DFS custody, including parents/caretakers.
The Family Court Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
A private residence of one (1) or more family members licensed by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to one (1) or more but less than seven (7) children who are unattended by parent or guardian and who are unrelated to either foster parent by blood, marriage or adoption.
A private home of foster parents, including independent foster family group homes as previously defined by 13 CSR 40-72.010, licensed by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care for seven (7) to twelve (12) children who are unattended by parent or guardian and who are unrelated to either foster parent by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Foster Family Homes, Foster Family Group Homes, and Kinship Homes.
Any individual who is licensed by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to one (1) or more children in DFS custody.
The G. L. v. Stangler Consent Decree Monitoring Committee, established pursuant to court order dated July 23, 1985, or its successor.
The Missouri Early Periodic Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) Program. See Missouri Medicaid Bulletin, Vol. 14, No.2 (Jan. 10, 1992) and DSS-DFS Memorandum CS-92-26.
6

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

Kinship Home:
Kinship Parent:
Licensing Restrictions:
Panel: Panel Recommendations:
Parents/caretakers: Program Administrator: Service Providers: Social Worker:

A private home licensed or certified by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to a child in DFS legal custody where the alternative care provider is a relative of that child or a non-related adult with whom the child has a familial relationship.
Any individual who is licensed or certified by DFS to provide twenty-four (24) hour care to one (1) or more children in DFS legal custody to whom the children are related or with whom the children have a familial relationship.
Those conditions placed upon a foster home by DFS licensure personnel which limit the number, ages, or gender of children the home can accept. These conditions are independent of the personal preferences ofthe foster parents.
The National Expert Panel established to review child welfare services in Jackson County, Missouri.
Those recommendations made by the Panel as set forth and as amended by the parties in the June 1994 version ofthe document entitled "Building for the Future: A High Quality System of Care for Child Welfare Services in Jackson County, Missouri," Volume II (Work Plan).
A child's caretakers before he/she enters DFS custody, including, but not limited to, birth parents, relatives and other guardians.
The Program Administrator for Children's Services ofDFS' Jackson County, Missouri Office.
Individuals, agencies or organizations to whom DFS refers children, families and alternative care providers for the provision of services.
An individual employed by DFS, engaged in the practice of social work, who is licensed or exempt from licensure under state statute.
7

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 2001

Supervisor: Temporary Foster Care Status: Vendors:

Any individual employed by DFS to supervise/manage a unit ofDFS social workers.
An alternative care placement designated by DFS as temporary until a permanent of more appropriate placement is achieved.
Agencies, organizations or individuals with whom DFS, DMS or DSS contracts for the provision of child welfare services, including, but not limited to, foster home licensing services, case management services, training services, foster parent recruitment and retention services, and adoption recruitment services.

8

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 200 I

CORE REQUIREMENTS

1.

THE CLASS

1. The requirements of this Amended Modified Consent Decree shall apply to all children in the legal custody ofthe Missouri Division ofFami1y Services, Jackson County, Missouri Office.

II. PREVENTING ABUSE, NEGLECT & INAPPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE

A. Licensing and Certification of Foster Homes (Transfer ofmonitoringfor Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ I!.A.l- 5 to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)

1. The assessment study of each prospective foster home shall be done by a trained professional and approved by a trained supervisor.

2. All foster parents shall be licensed in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Mo. Code State Regs. Title 13, S40-60.010, et seq. They shall meet the minimum qualifications
set forth in Mo. Code State Refs. Title 13,140-60.030, and their homes shall conform to the physical standards set forth in Mo. Code State Regs. Title 13, S40-60.040.

3. All kinship parents shall be licensed or certified in compliance with Mo. Code State Regs. Title 13, Division 40, Chapter 60, or guidelines set forth in the DFS Resource Development Handbook or its successor.

4. DFS shall approve or deny an application to become a licensed or certified foster home within one hundred-twenty (120) days ofthe receipt of that application.

5. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system accessible to all social workers involved in the licensing process. The system shall contain information about foster parent recruitment and the progress and completion of licensing and relicensing studies. The system shall track compliance with Amended Modified Consent Decree S II.AA.

B. Renewal of Foster Home Licenses and Certifications (Transfer ofmonitoring for Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ I!.B.l to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)

9

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 200 I
1. Prior to or within ninety (90) days of having its license or certification renewed, each foster home must be in full compliance with all training requirements and applicable licensure or certification requirements and regulations, including, but not limited to, Mo. Code State Regs.
Title 13, S40-60.050.
C. Mandatory Training of Foster and Kinship Parents (l'ransfer ofmonitoringfor Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ 1l.C.J-4 to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. Prior to receiving a license or certificate to be a foster home, all prospective foster parents and kinship parents shall complete at least twelve (12) hours or pre-service training. Kinship parents may be granted provisional foster parent licenses or certificates without completing the foster parent pre-service training, provided they complete it within ninety (90) days after receiving a provisional license or certificate.
2. Prior to completion of their first two (2)-year licensure or certification period, all foster parents and kinship parents shall complete fifty-two (52) hours of training, of which at least
twelve (12) shall be the pre-service training specified in Amended Modified Consent Decree I
II.C.I, and twenty (20) shall be in-service training. During each subsequent two (2)-year licensure or certification period, all foster parents and kinship parents shall complete twenty (20) hours of in-service training.
3. The pre-service and in-service training requirements shall apply to adults residing in the foster homes on a permanent basis who have primary child care responsibilities.
4. The pre-service and in-service training shall utilize a core curriculum which, at a minimum, provides foster parents and kinship parents with the knowledge and skills necessary to care appropriately for the class members residing in their homes and informs them of relevant legal mandates and DFS policy. The efficacy of the core curriculum shall be reviewed every two years and the curriculum revised as necessary.
5. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system accessible to all social workers involved with the foster parent and kinship parent training, licensing and certification processes. The system shall, among other things, track compliance with
the mandatory training requirements of Amended Modified Consent Decree IS II.C.!, II.C.2, and
II.C.3.
D. Proper Matching of Children with Appropriate Placements (l'ransfer ofmonitoringfor Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ ll.D.J-3 and ll.D.5-
J0 to the DFS Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
IO

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 200 I

1. DFS shall develop and utilize a placement practice guide setting forth policies and procedures to guide social workers' decisions related to placement. DFS shall adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in the placement practice guide.

2. DFS shall maintain sufficient staff and other resources so that all children requiring placement are placed promptly and appropriately, and in accordance with their needs. Placements shall be made taking into account the child's need to be placed as close to home and community as possible, the importance ofplacing siblings together, and the need to place children in homelike settings, including into kinship homes as appropriate.

3. All social workers involved in the selection of placements for class members shall receive pre-service and annual in-service training on proper placement practices and DFS' policies and procedures relating to placement.

4. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system accessible to all social workers involved in the placement process. The system shall contain information about available placement resources and shall track placement of all class members.

5. The placement of a child in a foster home shall be in conformity with the licensing or certification restrictions of that home.

6.

At no time shall the number of children in a foster family home or kinship home

exceed (6), including the foster parents' or kinship parents' own children.

7. At no time shall the number of children in a foster family home or kinship home who are five (5) years old or younger exceed four (4). At no time shall the number of children in a foster family home or a kinship home who are two (2) years old or younger exceed two (2).

8. At no time shall the number of children in a foster family group home exceed twelve (12), including the foster parents' own children.

9. Limited exceptions may be made to the capacity restrictions set for in qq 5-7 above as set forth in Amended Revised Operational Guide SS II.D.7 and II.D.8.

10. No class member shall remain in temporary foster care status for longer than thirty (30) days, except as provided in Amended Revised Operational Guide § II.d.II.

E. Pre-Placement Process and Supervision of the Placement

I. Prior to each new placement, DFS shall prepare the class member and hislher future alternative care provider(s) for that placement by providing to each of them relevant information concerning the other.

II

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

2. Absent the circumstances described in Amended Revised Operational Guide IS
II.E.9-12, at least one (1) pre-placement visit shall occur twenty-four (24) hours prior to a class member's placement in a foster home. Ifpossible, a second pre-placement visit, preferably overnight, shall take place.

3. Except as provided in Amended Revised Operational Guide §§ II .E.13 and II .E.I4, immediately following and during a class member's placement in a foster home, the child's social worker shall supervise and monitor the child's placement as follows:

a

Within twenty-four (24) hours of each new placement, the worker shall

have one (1) face-to-face visit with the child and one (1) contact with the foster parent(s)

or kinship parent(s).

b. During the first month of each new placement, the worker shall have a minimum of one (1) face-to-face visit with the child each week and one (1) contact with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) each week. Two (2) of the face-to-face visits with the child must be with the foster parentes) or kinship parentes) in the foster home.

c. During the next five (5) months of each placement, the worker must have a minimum oftwo (2) face-to-face visits with the child each month and two (2) contacts with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) each month. One (1) ofthe face-to-face visits with the child must be with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) in the foster home.

d. During the remainder of the placement, the worker shall have a minimum oftwo (2) contacts each month with the child, one (1) of which must be a face-to-face visit with the foster parent(s) or kinship parent(s) in the foster home.

4. Except as provided in Amended Revised Operational Guide IS II.E.13-I5, DFS
shall provide class members in residential treatment facilities with the following supervision and monitoring:

a. Within twenty-four (24) hours of each new placement, the child's social worker shall have one (1) face-to-face visit with the child and one (1) contact with the alternative care provider's staff.

b. During the first month of each new placement, the worker shall have a minimum of one (1) face-to-face visit with the child each week and two (2) contacts with the alternative care provider's staff. One (1) contact with the alternative care provider's staff shall be face-to-face.

c. During the next five (5) months of each placement, the worker shall have a minimum of two (2) face-to-face visits with the child each month and two (2) contacts

12

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 2001
with the alternative care provider's staff each month. One (1) of the contacts with the alternative care provider's staffmust be face-to-face.
d. During the remainder of the placement, the worker shall have a minimum of two (2) contacts each month with the child, one (1) of which is face-to-face, and one (1) face-to-face contact each month with the alternative care provider's staff.
F. Prohibition on the Use ofInappropriate Discipline of Children and Investigation of and Responses to Suspected Incidents of Abuse, Neglect and Inappropriate Discipline. (Fransfer ofmonitoringfor Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ II.Fl-7 to the
DFS Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. DFS shall prohibit corporal punishment, inappropriate discipline, abuse, and neglect of class members.
2. Any time a social worker becomes aware that a class member may have been the subject of abuse, neglect or an inappropriate method of discipline:
a. The social worker shall notifY the Child AbuselNeglect Central Hotline immediately.
b. DFS shall promptly notifY the social worker's supervisor.
c. DFS shall promptly notifY the assigned Family Development Specialist for the home.
d. DFS shall determine whether any child in the alternative care placement is in imminent danger due to abuse, neglect, inappropriate discipline, or dangerous environmental conditions, and should be removed immediately.
e. DFS shall document the incident in writing in the child's record and the record of the alternative care placement in which the child resides.
3. If the incident occurred in a foster home, DFS shall suspend placement of additional children in the home upon receiving notification of the incident until completion of the investigation.
4. Upon receiving notification of the incident, the Child AbuselNeglect Central Hotline shall refer the case for investigation by a specialized worker who is not supervised by the Program Administrator.
13

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 2001
5. The specialized worker shall investigate the incident pursuant to nonna! Child AbuselNeglect Procedures.
6. DFS shall establish a permanent team to evaluate the results of each investigation and to make recommendations for services and corrective actions, including possible removal of children currently in the alternative care placement. Team decisions and recommendations shall be made in writing and forwarded promptly to the Program Administrator or hislher designee for hislher review and instruction regarding further agency action.
7. Team decisions, as modified or adopted by the Program Administrator, shall be implemented. Ifit is decided that the foster parents or kinship parents who are the subject of the investigation must complete a corrective action plan ifthey wish to continue as foster parents or kinship parents, DFS shall not place any additional children in their home until they have successfully completed the plan. If the foster parents or kinship parents do not agree to undertake the plan or do not complete it successfully, DFS shall decide whether to revoke their license or certification. The Program Administrator or hislher designee shall have final say on all revocation decisions.
G. Providing Adequate Supports (Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ II G. J-4 were monitored through the Amended
Modified Consent Decree requirements pertaining to the development ofan annual Management Plan and its component of "Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention". As a result, transfer ofmonitoring for Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ 11 G. J-4 to the DFS Quality Assurance Unit has occurred.)
1. DFS shall make good faith efforts to obtain an appropriation from the General Assembly for the financing necessary to increase foster care board rates towards an amount consistent with the middle level of the U.S. Department of Agriculture'S standard for the cost of raising a child in the urban Midwest and to maintain it at that rate.
2. DFS shall collaborate with foster and kinship parents as individuals and as organized foster and kinship parent groups to establish programs to better assist foster and kinship parents in caring for class members in their homes and to provide incentives for foster and kinship parents to remain as foster and kinship parents.
3. If day care services are necessary, DFS shall provide reimbursement for day care services approved by the social worker of the class member.
4. DFS shall establish and fill position(s) for foster and kinship parent ombudsperson(s) and adoptive parent ombudsperson(s) as specified in Amended Revised Operational Guide § II.G.
14

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

III. HEALTH CARE SERVICES

A. Health Care Services

1. All class members shall receive a physical examination within thirty-six (36) hours of coming into DFS custody.

2. All class members shall receive a hearing and eye examination within one (1) month after coming into DFS custody. Class members three (3) years of age or older shall receive a dental examination within one (1) month after coming into DFS custody.

3. All class members shall receive subsequent medical, dental, hearing and eye examinations at the times set forth by the Healthy Children & Youth Program (HCY).

4. All class members shall receive necessary and appropriate health care follow-up services and specialized health care services in a timely manner. DFS shall provide transportation for class members ifnecessary.

B. Health Care Plan

1. DFS shall develop a health care plan for every class member within thirty (30) days of the child's entry into DFS custody.

2. The health care plan shall describe the class member's health care needs, set forth how those needs will be addressed, when they will be addressed, and who will be responsible for addressing them.

3. Each class member's health care plan shall be revised as needed based on the child's situation.

4. care plan.

DFS shall take all steps within its control to implement each class member's health

c. Health Care History and Health Care Records

1. At the time a class member enters DFS custody, DFS shall collect all available health care information about that child.

2. As long as a class member remains in DFS custody, DFS shall maintain accurate health care records for that child that include the child's health care history and the examinations, treatments or hospitalizations that the child has while in DFS custody.

3. The class member's social worker shall have readily available access to the child's medical history and current health care plan. The social worker shall provide relevant health care

15

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 200 I
information to each and every individual who needs access to that information to provide necessary and appropriate care to the child.
D. Medical Case Management
1. Each class member shall receive the medical case planning and management services necessary to meet hislher health care needs pursuant to a medical case management system established pursuant to Amended Revised Operational Guide §§ III.D.l and III.D.2.
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENCY PLANS AND PERMANENCY PLANNING GOALS
A. Pennanency Planning Practice Guide (Fransfer ofmonitoring for Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ IV.A.1 to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. DFS shall develop and utilize a pennanency planning practice guide setting forth principles, policies and procedures for the provision of family-focused pennanency planning and child-specific adoption services, including the preparation of children for adoption. DFS shall adhere to the principles, policies and procedures set forth in the pennanency planning practice guide.
B. Preliminary Service Needs Detennination (Fransfer ofmonitoringfor Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ IV.B.1-4 to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. DFS shall establish a daily review process which evaluates all children who have entered DFS custody, as a result of a report of child abuse or neglect, within the previous twentyfour (24) hours to detennine ifplacement was, and continues to be, necessary. With the Family Court's permission, children for whom placement i:s 110t necessary shall be returned home promptly.
2. Within three (3) working days ofa class member's entry into DFS custody as a result of a report of child abuse or neglect, the social worker(s) assigned to the child's case shall . make a preliminary detennination, based on all information obtainable, of the child's service needs and the service needs of the child's family. For all other class members, DFS shall conduct a preliminary detennination of their service needs and the service needs of their families within three (3) working days ofreceipt ofnotification of the children's entry into DFS custody.
16

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

3. DFS shall establish, with Family Court, a process by which it receives immediate notification of the Family Court's placement of children in DFS custody.

4. In those situations where a class member needs emergency medical or psychological service intervention prior to the three (3)-day Preliminary Planning Conference discussed below, DFS shall take all steps within its control to provide those services.

C. Preliminary Planning Conference

1. A Preliminary Planning Conference shall be held for each class member who enters DFS custody as a result of a report of child abuse or neglect, even ifthat child is only in DFS custody temporarily, no more than three (3) working days after the child's entry into DFS custody, but in all cases prior to the child's detention hearing at the Family Court. The child's social worker shall convene the conference. For all other class members, DFS shall conduct a Preliminary Planning Conference within three (3) working days after receiving notice ofthe child's entry into DFS custody. (Fransfer ofAmended Modified Consent Decree § IV. C.l has been transferred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)

D. Preliminary Permanency Plan

1. During the Preliminary Planning Conference, a Preliminary Permanency Plan shall be developed, tailored to the individual needs and circumstances of the class member and hislher family. At a minimum, this plan shall set forth with specificity the following:

a. The reason for the child's entry into DFS custody.

b. A preliminary assessment ofthe child's immediate service needs; the steps that shall be taken to meet those immediate needs; the identity of the person(s) (by name or by title) responsible for taking those steps; and the time periods within which the steps shall be taken.

c. The child's preliminary permanency planning goal.

d. A target date for accomplishment of the permanency planning goal.

e. A preliminary assessment of the services needed by the child and the child's family to achieve the permanency planning goal.

f.

A schedule of the services that DFS will provide to the child and the child's

family to accomplish the permanency planning goal; the time periods within which they

will be provided; and the DFS employee (by name or title) responsible for their provision.

g. Diagnostic and evaluative services needed to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the services needed to implement the permanency planning goal, including,

17

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

but not limited to, the services needed by the child's family; the steps that DFS shall take to obtain diagnostic and evaluative services; and the time periods within which the steps shall be taken.

h. Unless the child's circumstances dictate otherwise, a weekly parent/child and weekly child/sibling visitation schedule that shall be followed until the Comprehensive Permanency Plan is developed and implemented.

2. DFS shall implement each class member's Preliminary Permanency Plan, taking all steps within its control to provide identified services and facilitate parent/child and child/sibling visitation.

E. Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date ofa class member's entry into DFS custody, the child's Pennanency Planning Review Team shall convene for the purpose of reviewing and making changes to the child's Preliminary Permanency Plan.

2. A class member's Permanency Planning Review Team shall include:

a. the child's social worker.

b. the child's worker's supervisor.

c. a community representative not employed by DFS.

d. the child's guardian ad litem/attorney.

e. the child unless hislher presence is waived as specified in Operational
Guide II IV.E.4 and IV.E.S.

£ the child's parents/caretakers unless their parental rights have been terminated.

g. the attorneys for the child's parents/caretakers unless the parental rights of the parents/caretakers have been terminated.

h. the child's potential guardian, if the child's permanency planning goal is guardianship.

1.
adoption.

the child's adoption worker, if the child's permanency planning goal is

]8

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

j.

the child's adoptive resource ifthe child's permanency planning goal is

adoption and a resource has been identified.

k. the child's alternative care providers.

1.

the child's medical case manager (when assigned).

m. representatives from the child's school district ifthe child is of school age.

n. representatives from the Family Court.

o. etc.)

the child's and the family's services providers (e.g., counselors, therapists,

F. Comprehensive Permanency Plan

1. Prior to the first meeting of the child's Permanency Planning Review Team, the child's social worker, with input from the child's parents/caretakers, the child's guardian ad litem/attorney and the child's and family's service providers, shall develop a Comprehensive Pennanency Plan.

2. The child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall, at a minimum, comply with the
requirements of the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.c. 55 620-629,
671-679, and Mo. Code State Reg. Title 13,540-30.010(4).

3. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan also shall set forth the following:

a. A target date for accomplishment of the child's permanency planning goal.

b. A comprehensive assessment of the services needed to achieve the permanency planning goal.

c. A schedule ofthe services that DFS shall provide to accomplish the permanency planning goal; the time periods within which they will be provided; and the DFS employees (by name or title) responsible for their provision.

d. Interim goals and measurable objectives needed to be met by the parents/caretakers, the child, the child's potential guardian, and/or the child's adoptive resource, to achieve completion of the permanency planning goal; a target date for the accomplishment of each goal and/or objective; and the individuals responsible for achieving completion of the interim goals and measurable objectives.

e. Schedules for parent/child visitation and weekly child/sibling visitation. If the child's goal is reunification, the schedule shall provide for weekly parent/child

19

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
visitation unless a therapist recommends, or the Family Court orders, otherwise. If the goal is other than reunification, frequency of visitation shall be detennined by the best interest of the child and the child's pennanency planning goal.
4. DFS shall implement each child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan, taking all steps within its control to provide identified services and facilitate parent/child and child/sibling visitation.
G. Written Service Agreements
1. Written Service Agreement(s) shall be developed contemporaneously with the child's first Comprehensive Permanency Plan. Within thirty (30) days of any change in the child's permanency planning goal, additional Written Service Agreements shall be developed, as necessary, and existing ones reviewed and renegotiated, again as necessary. All Written Service Agreements shall be renegotiated, reviewed or renewed at least every ninety (90) days.
2. Each Written Service Agreement shall, at a minimum, contain the elements set
forth in Amended Revised Operational Guide I IV.G.2.
3. DFS shall implement each Written Service Agreement, taking all steps within its control to provide the identified services.
H. Six-Month Permanency Planning Review
1. No later than six (6) after a class member has entered DFS custody and every six (6) months thereafter, the child's Permanency Planning Review Team shall meet to review and make changes to the child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
2. Prior to the meeting, the child's social worker, with input from the child's family and, ifpossible, the child's guardian ad litem/attorney, the child's service providers and the family's service providers, shall revise the child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan so that it contains the following;
a. A description of what has happened to the child and family since the last meeting of the Permanency Planning Review Team.
b. What progress, if any, has been made toward achieving the child's permanency planning goal and the interim goals and objectives set forth in the prior Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
c. A reunification plan for the child and parent/caretaker, if DFS plans to recommend, or has recommended, to the Family Court that reunification ofthe child and parent/caretaker take place. In addition, the Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall contain an aftercare plan, including information about the child's health care and
20

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 2001
specifying the services to be offered to the parent/caretaker and the child after the child returns, shall be developed.
3. DFS shall implement each Comprehensive Permanency Plan resuhing from a six (6)-month Permanency Planning Review, taking all steps within its control to provide identified services and facilitate parent/child and child/sibling visitation.
1. Permanency Planning Goals
1. Throughout the permanency planning process, each class member shall have a pennanency planning goal that reflects the current facts and circumstances of that child's case. Appropriate permanency planning goals shall be limited to reunification, adoption, guardianship or independent living. (Fransfer ofAmended Modified Consent Decree § IV.Ii has been transferred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
a. No child under the age of sixteen (16) may be assigned a permanency planning goal of independent living except as set forth in Amended Revised Operational
Guide 5IV.1.2.
2. If a child's goal is reunification, at the child's Preliminary Pennanency Planning Conference and at each meeting of the Permanency Planning Review Team, conference attendees shall consider and document the following:
a. Whether adoption may be an appropriate goal.
b. If it is not an appropriate goal, whether it might become such a goal, and if so, when and under what circumstance it may become a goal.
c. Ifit is an appropriate goal, whether voluntary relinquishment of parental rights may be obtained from the child's parents.
3. Ifit is decided that adoption might be an appropriate goal and that a voluntary relinquishment cannot be obtained, the case shall be referred to DFS' Legal Section for a determination as to whether grounds for termination of parental rights exist. IfDFS'Legal Section determines that sufficient grounds for termination exist, the child's social worker shall forward to the Family Court all documentation necessary to initiate a termination of parental rights proceeding. Such documentation shall be forwarded within thirty (30) days of the decision to refer the case to DFS' Legal Section.
4. Within five (5) days of receiving written notification from the Family Court that a termination of parental rights petition will be filed, the social worker shall change the child's pennanency planning goal to adoption and refer the child's case to the Adoption Unit or begin adoption planning immediately.
21

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 2001
1. Adoption Training and Information Systems (Transfer ofmonitoring for Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.J.l to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. All social workers involved in the adoption process shall receive pre-service and annual in-service training on adoption issues.
2. DFS shall maintain and utilize an automated management information system, accessible to all social workers involved in the adoption process. The system shall contain information about available adoption resources and efforts undertaken to find adoptive homes for children with permanency planning goals of adoption. The system also shall monitor DFS'
compliance with the adoption time lines mandated by Amended Modified Consent Decree IS
IV.I.3, IV.I.4, IV.K.1, IV.L.1 and IV.L.3, and Amended Revised Operational Guide §§ IV.L.l and IV.L.2.
K. Adoption Planning Conference
1. Within thirty (30) days of a child's permanency planning goal becoming adoption, an adoption planning conference shall be convened.
L. Adoption Plan
1. At the Adoption Planning Conference, the child's adoption worker, with input from the attendees, shall develop a plan to prepare the child for adoption and to find him/her an adoptive home as soon as possible. The plan shall set forth with specificity the following:
a. The steps to be taken to prepare the child for adoption, including the provision of counseling services.
b. The steps to be taken to find the child an adoptive home.
c. The steps to be taken once an adoptive resource has been located.
d. The individuals (designated by name or title) responsible for taking the steps set forth above.
e. Time frames within which the above steps shall be taken, which, at a minimum, provide that DFS commences the child-specific recruitment mandated by
Amended Revised Operational Guide 5IV.L.l.c. within sixty (60) days ofa child's
Adoption Planning Conference if an appropriate match has not been found before then.
22

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

£

Periodic and regular contact between the child's adoption worker, the

child, hislher alternative care providers, hislher adoptive resource (if one has been located)

and his/her guardian ad litem/attorney to keep them informed of the manner in which the

adoption process is proceeding.

g. Once an adoptive resource is identified, the resources and services necessary to make the adoption placement successful.

2. DFS shall implement each child's Adoption Plan.

3. Each class member's Adoption Plan shall be reviewed no later than every ninety (90) days and revised ifnecessary.

4. Once a termination ofparental rights petition has been filed, the fact that a child has not been legally freed for adoption shall not, by itself, be used to justify failure to engage in adoption planning or recruitment or to initiate appropriate contact with an identified resource, unless the Family Court has instructed otherwise.

v. PERMANENCY PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
A. StaffCaseloads, Supervision and Training (Trans/er o/monitoring/or Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ V.A.6-8 to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order 0/the Court and agreement by the
parties.)

1. Social workers whose caseloads contain at least one (1) class member shall have caseloads of no more than twenty-five (25) children. Social workers whose caseloads consist solely of class members shall have caseloads of no more than fifteen (15) children.
2. Social workers performing licensing or adoptive home studies shall have caseloads of no more than twenty-five (25) studies at any given time. No more than fifteeII (15) ofthese studies shall be initial studies.
3. Social workers who are doing home studies as well as serving as case managers to class members shall have caseloads ofno more than twenty-five (25) studies or children. No more than fifteen (15) of the studies may be initial studies. No more than fourteen (14) of the children may be class members.
4. With respect to units with social workers whose combined caseloads include more than six (6) class members and any units providing placement, licensing, resource development or adoption services, the following shall apply:
23

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 2001

a. DFS shall provide each social worker with adequate supervision as defined in the Amended Revised Operational Guide.

b. Supervisors may supervise seven (7) workers ifthe reason for supervising seven (7) workers is due to a caseworker being relocated to a different geographic location to balance out caseloads in the various locations, and provided that plaintiffs are notified ofthe circumstances surrounding the transfer.

c. No supervisor shall carry a caseload except on an emergency or temporary basis as defined in Amended Revised Operational Guide § V.A.l (Panel Recommendation 11).

d. DFS shall make good faith efforts to provide each unit with sufficient

clerical support. Towards that end, DFS shall increase its current clerical staffby

hiring six (6) additional full-time equivalent clerical personnel between July 1, 1994 and

June 30,

1995. These clerical personnel shall be available to social workers whose

caseloads contain class members. (Transfer ofAmended Modified Consent Decree §

V.A. 4.d has been transferredpursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the

parties.)

e. DFS shall make good faith efforts to provide every two (2) units with a paraprofessional. Towards that end, DFS shall increase its current paraprofessional staff by hiring six (6) new full-time equivalent paraprofessionals by June 30, 1995. These paraprofessionals shall be available to social workers whose caseloads contain class members. In addition, DFS shall take steps to obtain volunteer paraprofessional assistance from community groups, volunteer organizations, and local universities and schools. (Transfer ofAmended Modified Consent Decree § V.A. 4. e has been transferred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)

5. No class member shall remain without an assigned social worker for more than five (5) business days.

6. DFS shall provide all new social workers and new supervisors who shall provide services to class members with at least one hundred and five (105) hours of multi-faceted, stateof-the-art orientation training. It shall provide appropriate job-specific orientation training to paraprofessional staff.

7. DFS shall provide at least thirty (30) hours of annual in-service training to all staff providing services to class members, including managers, supervisors and social workers, and eight (8) hours of annual in-service training to clerical staff and paraprofessional staff.

24

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
8. . By January, 1996, DFS shall provide retraining, using a competency based curriculum, to all staffproviding services to class members hired before January 1995, including direct service staff, supervisors and managers.
B. Unit Structure and Managerial Personnel (Transfer ofmonitoringfor Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ V.B.1-8 to the DFS
Quality Assurance Unit has occurredpursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. DFS shall recruit, select and hire a Deputy Program Administrator for Children's Services for the DFS Jackson County, Missouri Office.
2. DFS shall establish a placement mechanism whose staffing and resource needs shall be based on an annual needs assessment.
3. DFS shall obtain or designate one (1) full-time equivalent position to provide educational advocacy services for class members.
4. DFS shall establish a recruitment/retention team consisting of a minimum of six (6) full-time persons who report to one (1) supervisor. The team shall have responsibility for the Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention component ofthe Management Plan.
5. DFS shall designate a Resource Development Coordinator, who, together with the management staff ofDFS' Jackson County, Missouri Office, shall have responsibility for developing and implementing the Resource Development component of the Management Plan. The Resource Development Coordinator shall be assisted in implementation of the Resource Development component by the management staff and one (1) full-time person, who is not also a part ofthe recruitment/retention team.
6. DFS shall establish a Quality Assurance Unit, staffed with individuals specifically trained to develop and implement the Quality Assurance component of the Management Plan.
7. DFS shall establish a Training Unit which shall be :staffed with, at minimum, a Coordinator of Training and StaffDevelopment and two (2) training specialists. The Training Unit shall be responsible for developing and implementing the staff, foster parent and kinship parent training component ofthe Management Plan.
8. DFS shall contract for or hire one (1) full-time staffperson with responsibility for programming and maint'1ining of its Jackson County, Missouri automated management information systems.
C. Management Plan
25

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001

(Transfer ofmonitoring for Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ V C. J-12 to the DFS Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)

1. DFS shall develop a Management Plan to assist it in providing child welfare services. Because it is anticipated that the Management Plan shall address the provision of child welfare services to all eligible families and children, including those families who do not have children in DFS legal custody and those children who are not class members, the parties recognize that the plan may address issues and topics outside the scope ofthe Amended Modified Consent Decree. The inclusion of such issues and topics in the Management Plan shall not be deemed to broaden DFS' responsibilities under this Amended Modified Consent Decree and the accompanying Amended Revised Operational Guide. Such issues and topics shall not be monitored and shall not be available for use against the defendants.

2. The Management Plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following components, each of which is defined in further detail in subsequent sections of this Amended Modified Consent Decree:

a. Staff Recruitment and Retention

b. Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention

c. Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training

d. Resource Development

e. Quality Assurance

f

Manual and Automated Management Information Systems

3. following:

Each component of the Management Plan shall, at a minimum, provide for the

a. standards.

An annual needs assessment conducted pursuant to reasonable professional

b. The establishment of goals based upon the needs assessment.

c. Identified activities and specific tasks designed to accomplish the goals, including strategies to obtain or develop the resources needed to accomplish the goals.

d. Timetables for accomplishing the goals set forth in subsection (b) and the activities and tasks set forth in subsection (c).

26

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
e. The designation, by title or name, ofthe individuals responsible for completion ofthe activities or tasks, including designation of the management staffperson who shall have primary responsibility for implementation of each component of the Management Plan.
4. The Management Plan and each of its components shall be revised annually.
5. DFS shall implement the Management Plan and each of its components by conducting the needs assessments mandated by Amended Modified Consent Decree § V.C.3.a,
establishing goals mandated by Amended Modified Consent Decree I V.C.3.b, and undertaking
the activities and accomplishing the specific tasks mandated by Amended Modified Consent
Decree I V.C.3.c, within the time periods mandated by Amended Modified Consent Decree S
V.C.3.d.
StaffRecruitment and Retention Component
6. The Staff Recruitment and Retention component of the Management Plan shall be developed, with input from community resources, to recruit qualified candidates for supervisor, social worker and support staff (including administrative, clerical and paraprofessional) positions, and to retain qualified supervisors, social workers and support staff (including administrative, clerical and paraprofessional personnel).
Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention Component
7. The Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention component ofthe Management Plan shall provide for the development, with input from community resources, ofa multi-year plan to recruit a sufficient number and variety of foster and adoptive parents and to retain a sufficient number and variety of foster parents in an effort to facilitate the timely and appropriate placement of each class member.
Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training Component
8. The Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training component ofthe Managment Plan shall be a Comprehensive Annual Tiaining Plan which provides for all staff, foster parent and kinship parent pre-service, orientation and in-service training required by the Amended Modified Consent Decree and the Amended Revised Operational Guide.
Resource Development Component
9. The Resource Development component of the Management Plan shall be a Jackson County Resource Development Plan, developed with input from community resources, that sets forth the resource needs of the Jackson County, Missouri Office ofDFS and strategies for meeting those needs.
27

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
Manual and Automated Management Infonnation Systems Component
10. The Manual and Automated Management Infonnation Systems component of the Management Plan shall provide for a comprehensive review of all management infonnation systems and record keeping systems utilized in DFS' Jackson County, Missouri Office and a revision of those systems, ifnecessary, to reduce duplication and the paperwork burden on social workers and supervisors, and to permit timely and complete record-keeping, and the accessibility of infonnation. In addition, it shall provide for the automation of management infonnation systems, including, but not limited to, the infonnation systems utilized by supervisors and social workers involved in the licensing, foster parent training, placement and adoption processes to aid in pro-active case management.
Quality Assurance Component
11. The Quality Assurance component of the Management Plan shall provide for the development of a comprehensive quality assurance program. At a minimum, the program shall provide for periodic systemic and specialized reviews, timely reporting mechanisms, remedial actions and such training as may be necessary.
12. DFS, in conjunction with DMS, shall establish on-going quality assurance procedures to assure implementation of health care plans and the provision to class members of medical case management and planning in accordance with reasonable professional standards.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Vendors
1. Nothing in this Amended Modified Consent Decree shall preclude DFS from contracting with qualified vendors to license, relicense and certifY foster homes; to provide foster parent recruitment, retention and training services; to provide adoption services; and to provide case management services.
a. The vendors with whom DFS contracts for the provision of licensing services; foster parent recruitment, retention and training services; adoption services; and case management services shall be bound by the requirements of the Amended Modified Consent Decree, including the training requirements.
b. Should DFS contract with any vendor for the provision of case management services, it shall develop a plan setting forth how it intends to monitor and supervise those vendors and submit it to the plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment. The plan shall be implemented within a reasonable period.
B. Remedial Actions
28

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
(Transfer ofmonitoring for Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ VI.B.1-4to the DFS Quality Assurance Unit has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
1. DFS shall develop and implement a plan to identify class members who have had a goal ofreunification for more than eighteen (18) months, and all class members who have a goal of reunification but have not had parental contract for at least six (6) months. In addition, the plan shall provide for the following:
a. An accelerated reevaluation of the permanency planning goals for each of these children, a determination of whether that goal remains appropriate, and ifnecessary, a change in goal.
b. Intensive casework designed to achieve successful implementation of each child's permanency planning goal within a reasonable period of time.
2. DFS shall develop and implement a plan designed to provide special, intensive recruitment and adoptive placement efforts for those class members who have had a goal of adoption for more than nine (9) months but who have no identified and available adoptive resource.
3. DFS shall develop and implement a plan designed to close foster homes where DFS has determined that the foster parents should no longer serve as foster parents or the foster parents have indicated that they no longer wish to care for children in DFS legal custody.
4. DFS shall develop and implement a plan designed to take appropriate corrective action with respect to reports of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline that concern class members that have been received since January 1, 1993, and that have been substantiated or determined to be "probable cause" (substantiated) or "unsubstantiated with preventive services indicated. "
C. Exemptions
1. In exceptional circumstances, class members may be exempted from specific requirements of the Amended Modified Consent Decree or Amended Revised Operational Guide on a case-by-case basis by mutual consent of the parties. Requests for such exemptions shall be made in writing by the Program Administrator or hislher designee to plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel shall respond in writing and ifthe exemption is agreed upon, correspondence pertaining thereto shall be placed in the class member's case file.
D. Monitoring
1. The G.L. v. Stangler Foster Care Consent Decree Monitoring Committee, established pursuant to Court Order dated July 23, 1985, shall continue to exist until the
29

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
Amended Modified Consent Decree expires pursuant to the tenns of the Exit Plan described below. It shall monitor defendants' compliance with the Amended Modified Consent Decree and the Amended Revised Operational Guide pursuant to a methodology agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Court for its incorporation into a court order, and shall report the results of its monitoring activities in semi-annual reports to the Court and the parties. The Committee may prepare additional reports as the parties request or the Court directs.
2. Any party may challenge the accuracy of a report issued by the G.L. Monitoring Committee by filing a motion with the Court within sixty (60) days of the Committee's issuance ofthat report.
3. Defendants shall permit the G.L. Monitoring Committee to have access to all infonnation, personnel and documents necessary to complete the specific tasks identified in the Amended Monitoring Methodology. This access may include, but is not limited to, access to class members and their families; alternative care providers; service providers; vendors; case records concerning class members, their families and their placements; and DFS staff, both at the state and local level. Any requests for access to personnel and infonnation not contemplated by the Amended Monitoring Methodology shall be made to a designated DFS employee. Such personnel and infonnation shall be made available at reasonable times and places and in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the operation ofDFS.
4. Defendants shall provide the G.L. Monitoring Committee with the office space, office equipment, compensation and funding reasonably necessary for it to perform its job, subject to Court approval.
5. By December 31, 1994, the parties shall submit to the Court for its approval a comprehensive methodology, developed with assistance from the G.L. Monitoring Committee and appropriate technical experts and based on the Framework for Amended Monitoring Methodology referred to in the Introduction to this Amended Modified Consent Decree. That methodology may include an analysis ofinfonnation collected: (a) by DFS' management and infonnation systems; (b) from a review ofrelevant case records; and (c) from interviews with class members and their families, DFS staff, alternative care providers, and service providers.
6. The monitoring methodology can be changed only with approval from the Court.
E. Compliance
1. Notwithstanding Amended Modified Consent Decree § VI.G, the parties agree that defendants shall work to achieve 100% compliance with each and every provision ofthe Amended Modified Cor.3ent Decree and Amended Revised Operational Guide.
2. Plaintiffs agree not to move to hold defendants in contempt for:
30

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
a. Failure to reach 100% compliance with respect to a particular provision of the Amended Modified Consent Decree or Amended Revised Operational Guide, provided defendants have reached the compliance level for that provision set forth in the Exit Plan.
b. Failure to comply with all of Panel Recommendation 3, Task l.c of Panel Recommendation 10, or Tasks 1 and 2 of Panel Recommendation 11.
c. Any reasons prolnbited by Amended Modified Consent Decree I V.C.l and
Framework for Monitoring Methodology § VII (Additional Measures).
d. Failure of individuals identified in Amended Modified Consent Decree IS
IV.E.2.c-o to attend any Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference.
F. Reservation of Arguments
1. Subject to Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ V.C.1 and VI.E.2, plaintiffs reserve any and all legal or factual arguments, theories or claims that may be advanced: (a) to enforce the Amended Modified Consent Decree or Amended Revised Operational Guide, including, but not limited to, any arguments, claims, theories that may be made in support of a motion for an order holding defendants in contempt; or (b) to bar expiration of the Amended Modified Consent Decree and the Amended Revised Operational Guide or the transfer of any provision of either document on the grounds specified in Amended Modified Consent Decree § VI.G.2.d.
2. Defendants reserve any and all legal or factual arguments, claims or defenses, including, but not limited to, any defenses based on the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution, that may be made to defend against a motion: (a) to enforce the Amended Modified Consent Decree or Amended Revised Operational Guide, including, but not limited to, a motion for an order holding defendants in contempt; or (b) to bar expiration of the Amended Modified Consent Decree and the Amended Revised Operational Guide or the transfer of any provision of either document on the grounds specified in Amended Modified Consent Decree § VI.G.2.d.
3. Notwithstanding Amended Modified Consent Decree I VI.E.2, but subject to Amended Modified Consent Decree I V.C.1, the parties are not precluded from using any data or
factual information gathered by the G.L. Monitoring Committee, for whatever reason, to support or to defend against a motion: (a) to enforce the Amended Modified Consent Decree and Amended Revised Operational Guide, including a motion to hold defendants in contempt for failing to comply with sections ofthe Amended Modified Consent Decree and Amended Revised
Operational Guide not listed in Amended Modified Consent Decree I VI.E.2; or (b) to bar the
expiration of the Amended Modified Consent Decree and the Amended Revised Operational Guide or the transfer of any provision of either document on the grounds specified in Amended
Modified Consent Decree I VI.G.2.d.
31

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
4. Nothing contained in the Amended Modified Consent Decree, Amended Revised Operational Guide or Amended Monitoring Methodology shall be deemed to require a level of compliance than would otherwise exist under law. The standards contained in the Exit Plan are only for purposes of exit from the Amended Modified Consent Decree and its related provisions and shall not be deemed to constitute an agreement by the parties on what constitutes substantial compliance for any other purpose.
5. All claims by plaintiffs for costs and attorneys' fees are reserved, unless otherwise resolved prior to the Court's approval of the Amended Modified Consent Decree.
G. Exit Plan
1. To exit from the Amended Modified Consent Decree, the Amended Revised Operational Guide and the Amended Monitoring Methodology, defendants are required to reach the compliance levels contained in the Exit Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, and to sustain compliance for one (1) one and one-half (1 112) year period as reflected in three (3) consecutive six (6)-month reports of the G.L. Monitoring Committee. Should defendants' level of compliance with any given standard be no more than five (5) percent below that set forth in the Exit Plan for anyone (1) ofthe six (6)-month periods defendants shall not be precluded from exiting the Amended Modified Consent Decree.
a. Defendant's are not precluded from exit based on the failure to implement and sustain implementation ofthe Community Quality Assurance Committee (Amended Modified Consent Decree § VII) for one (1) one and one-half(1 ~) year period as described in, 1 above. Rather, the defendant's are required to have the Community Quality Assurance Committee implemented at the time transfer from all other remaining exit requirements has occurred and expiration is imminent. Lack of adherence to the time frames outlined in ~ 3 - 4 of Amended Modified Consent Decree § VII.C does not constitute a lack of complete implementation and subsequently, will not preclude exit.
2. Exiting from the Amended Modified Consent Decree, Amended Revised Operational Guide and Amended Monitoring Methodology shall occur as follows:
a. The Exit Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A, as divided into ten (10) sections.
b. The G.L. Monitoring Committee shall transfer monitoring of each section to DFS' internal Quality Assurance Unit immediately after defendants reach the designated compliance level with respect to each identified standard of that section and sustain compliance at that level for the designated period of time. While defendants shall make good faith efforts to maintain the designated compliance levels, a drop in compliance levels after the transfer of a section shall not be, by itself, grounds for a motion to enforce the Amended Modified Consent Decree or Amended Revised Operational Guide, to hold defendants in contempt or to bar future expiration of the Amended Modified Consent Decree as set forth in the Exit Plan.
32

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30, 200]
Notwithstanding the above, plaintiffs may seek to enforce transferred sections or standards ifa drop in compliance levels results in a violation ofthe plaintiff children's constitutional or federal statutory rights. Nor are plaintiffs precluded from seeking to enforce transferred sections or standards as remedial measures in connection with motions to enforce sections or provisions that have not been transferred.
c. The Amended Modified Consent Decree, Amended Revised Operational Guide and Amended Monitoring Methodology shall expire, without further order of the court and will be of no further force and effect, sixty (60) days after the transfer of the last section(s) to DFS' internal Quality Assurance Unit.
d. The reports ofthe G.L. Monitoring Committee shall identifY the sections, if any, that are to be transferred to DFS' internal Quality Assurance Unit for the subsequent monitoring period. Plaintiffs reserve the right to move, after receiving the reports with such notification, to bar the transfer ofmonitoring to the Quality Assurance Unit or to bar expiration of the Amended Modified Consent Decree, Amended Revised Operational Guide and Amended Monitoring Methodology on the grounds that defendants are continuing to violate the constitutional or federal statutory rights ofplaintiff children or that defendants have not complied with the prerequisites for transfer or expiration.
e. The Exit Plan has not included target dates for meeting the compliance standard. To the extent that any provisions of the Amended Modified Consent Decree, Amended Revised Operational Guide or Panel Recommendation referenced in the Exit Plan refers to target dates, such dates are not intended to be part of the Exit Plan.
3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this lawsuit until the Amended Modified Consent Decree, Amended Revised Operational Guide and Amended Monitoring Methodology expire in their entirety pursuant to the terms of the Exit Plan.
VII. COMMUNITY QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE
A. Purpose and Responsibilities
The Community Quality Assurance Committee (CQA) is to provide permanent external advisory and advocacy feedback on the day-to-day judgements made within the Division of Family Services (DFS) concerning its functioning. The CQA is to provide this oversight through its participation . and evaluation of the Quality Assurance Program of the DFS and more specifically, to the Practice Development Review (PDR) Protocol currently utilized by DFS for on-going quality assurance. Further, the CQA's purpose is to ensure, through independent community advocacy,
that program, policy and practice improvements gained through the G. L. v. Stangler Amended
Modified Consent Decree are continued and expanded once Court jurisdiction is terminated. The monitoring function shall include both the information-gathering and the reporting functions of
33

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
DFS' quality assurance programs.
Child-specific information shall be gathered during the PDR process and presented, in written fonn, along with an initial written report of aggregate findings andlor observations compiled from the review, to the members ofthe CQA for its review. Individual evaluations, known as "writeups" , for all cases reviewed shall be provided. The CQA shall prepare a periodic report containing observations, dissent regarding PDR findings, comments, suggestions andlor recommendations for corrective action. The CQA reports shall be published semi-annually, beginning November 15, 2000. This report shall be submitted to the plaintiffs and Monitoring Committee. The findings and recommendations shall address individual cases, aggregate trends, quality of services, outcomes, and the efficiency ofthe DFS system andlor the QA system. Any written or verbal findings andlor recommendations made by the CQA shall be disseminated andlor constructed in a manner prohibiting any breach of confidentiality for class members and their families.
DFS, in its on-going implementation of the PDR process, shall recruit community child welfare professionals (or related disciplines) to form a cadre of 15-25 individuals who will be trained to observe and participate in PDR Reviews (shadows). The role of these individuals in the review of individual cases shall consist of a review of written case materials and active participation in the interview and ratings processes. The CQA is to assist DFS in the recruitment ofthese individuals. However, this does not preclude DFS from utilizing non-Jackson County DFS staff as reviewers andlor shadows in the PDR process when community participants are unavailable. The cadre shall meet with the CQA regularly, as defined by the CQA membership.
B. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE
The membership ofthe CQA shall include 7-8 professionals from child welfare or related disciplines within Jackson County. The selected membership should encompass a broad spectrum ofprofessions so as to create a multi-disciplinary perspective in carrying out the functions of the Committee. DFS shall attempt to involve medical, educational and service professionals. Terms of membership shall be for 3-5 years with terms staggered so that continuity of membership will be maximized.
Members ofthe CQA are required to attend training related to the PDR process and participate in one PDR review each year. This participation includes attendance at the group case "roll-up" session and the community presentation on the final day ofthe review. Members shall be prepared to spend two days in training at their initial appointment. Subsequent to their appointment, members must also commit to 8-10 days of activity per year during the period of their term. Members of the CQA are bound by strict rules of confidentiality for child- andlor family-specific information gathered through their advisory and advocacy functions.
34

Amended Modified Consent Decree; January 30,2001
C. IMPLEMENTATION: INITIAL AND TRANSITION POST G.L.
Jackson County PDR reviews completed prior to defendants' exit from the G.L. Amended Modified Consent Decree will consist of semi-annual reviews of a random sample of 10-12 cases, for an annual total of20-24 cases. These reviews may be conducted on cases scheduled for review under the Amended Monitoring Methodology set forth in the Amended Modified Consent Decree. After exit from the Amended Modified Consent Decree has occurred, a random sample of approximately 25 cases will be reviewed semi-annually, for an annual total of 50 cases. Selected cases for the pre-exit reviews will be sampled from the class population. Post-exit reviews may include non-class clients, at DFS' discretion. The case "write-ups" for these reviews will be submitted to CQA members and a report prepared in accordance with the Purpose and Responsibilities outlined above.
DFS will prepare and submit to the G. L. plaintiffs and the G. L. Monitoring Committee a list of agencies and/or individuals for membership and/or participation in the PDR review process. The list will be submitted by May 1, 2000. A representative ofthe Monitoring Committee and a representative ofLINC will serve as members of the CQA. Participation by the Monitoring Committee will cease at the point in which exit from the Amended Modified Consent Decree occurs. Alinda Dennis shall serve as Chair ofthe CQA at its inception and continue in that capacity following DFS' exit from the Amended Modified Consent Decree. Lori Burns-Bucklew shall be appointed as a member after exit from the Amended Modified Consent Decree has occurred.
By June 30, 2000, DFS will have provided community orientation training on the PDR for prospective members ofthe CQA and prospective participants in the on-going PDR reviews. In addition, DFS will have received a letter of commitment from various agencies for agency representation on the CQA, with focus given to ensuring that a variety of child welfare disciplines are included in the membership. By July 15, 2000, the parties will agree on individual participants.
By August 30, 2000, a two-day training session on the completion of the PDR will be conducted for CQA members and the other PDR community participants. This initial training and all subsequent training will instruct both the CQA membership and shadows on the rules of confidentiality protecting the privacy of class members and their families. The initial review will be conducted no later than September 30,2000, with a final report anticipated on or about November 15,2000.
35

AMENDED EXHIBIT A (AMENDED EXIT PLAN)
(January 30, 2001)
I. Casework Practice:
A. Licensing and Certification
95% ofthe fosterlkinship homes licensed, relicensed, certified or recertified shall have the required criminal history and child abuse/neglect history checks performed prior to the completion ofthe licensure/relicensure or certification/recertification process for two consecutive reporting periods. (Fransfer ofmonitoringfor Exhibit A § l.A has occurred pursuant to Order ofthe Court and agreement by the parties.)
B. Placement
1. 90% of class members and alternative care providers shall be provided with 80% of available relevant information as defined by Amended Revised Operational Guide §§ n.E.1 and H.E.3 prior to each new placement or at the time ofplacement as permitted by Amended Revised Operational Guide ILEA.
2. 85% ofpre-placement visits required by Amended Modified Consent Decree § H.E.2 and Amended Revised Operational Guide §§ H.E.S and H.E.9-12 shall occur.
C. Supervision of Class
90% of class members and their alternative care providers shall receive 90% of the visits and contacts required by Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ II.E.3 and ILEA and Amended Revised Operational Guide § H.E.I3-IS.
D. Planning
1. 90% of class members shall have a comprehensive permanency planning conference within the time periods specified in Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.E.1 or Amended Revised Operational Guide § IV.E.3.
2. 90% of class members shall receive a comprehensive permanency plan within the time period specified in Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.F.1 and Amended Revised Operational Guide § IV.F.2.
3. The comprehensive permanency plans of90% of class members shall be reviewed with the frequency required by Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.H.I.

E. Service Provision
1. 90% of class members shall receive 85% of child/parent visits required by a preliminary or comprehensive permanency plan shall have occurred. Child/parent visits that do not occur because of the specific circumstances of the child or the parent (and such specific circumstances are documented in the child's case record) shall not be included within the sample analyzed to determine compliance levels.
2. 90% of class members shall receive 85% of child/sibling visits required by a preliminary or comprehensive permanency plan shall have occurred. Child/sibling visits that do not occur because of the specific circumstances of the child or the sibling(s) (and such specific circumstances are documented in the child's case record) shall not be included within the sample analyzed to determine compliance levels.
F. Caseloads
1. 90% of social workers shall have caseloads in conformity with Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ V.A.1-3.
2. 90% of supervisors supervising units whose workers have combined caseloads of six (6) or more class members or that provide licensing, placement, resource development or adoption services shall be supervising no more than six (6) social workers. Exceptions may be made as set forth in Amended Modified Consent Decree § V.A.4.b.
ll. Planning and Service Provision:
A. Planning
90% of all class members reviewed through the Mix, Match and Fit Practice Development Review (PDR), in the manner set forth in the Amended Monitoring Methodology, attached hereto, for §II.A.l, shall receive a rating of6 or 5 for plan development.
B. Service Provision
90% of all class members reviewed through the Plan Implementation Practice Development Review (PDR), in the manner set forth in the Amended Monitoring Methodology attached hereto, for §II.B.l, shall receive a rating of 6 or 5 for delivery of appropriate services, as defmed in the Amended Monitoring Methodology.
llI. Medical:
A. 90% of all class members reviewed through the Medical Practice Development Review (PDR), in the manner set forth in the Amended Monitoring
2

Methodology attached hereto, for § lILA., shall receive a Preventive Health Care rating of 6 or 5, as defmed in the Amended Monitoring Methodology.
B. 90% of class members reviewed through the Medical Practice Development Review (PDR) in the manner set forth in the Amended Monitoring Methodology attached hereto, for § III.B, shall receive an Ongoing MedicallDental Intervention rating of 6 or 5, as defmed in the Amended Monitoring Methodology.
C. 90% of"medically fragile" class members (as defined by Amended Revised Operational Guide § III.B.2.c.i) shall have health care plans within thirty (30) days oftheir entry into DFS custody.
D. 90% of "medically fragile" class members (as defined by Amended Revised Operational Guide § III.B.2.c.i) shall have health care plans that include the elements set forth in Amended Revised Operational Guide § IILB.1
E. Health care plans of90% of "medically fragile" class members (as defined by Amended Revised Operational Guide § III.B.2.c.i) shall be reviewed and revised with the frequency required by Amended Revised Operational Guide § III.B.2.c.ii.
F. For 90% of all class members, DFS shall disseminate health care information in its possession pertaining to those children as required by Amended Modified Consent Decree § III.C.3 and Amended Revised Operational Guide § III.C.2.
IV. Adoption:
A. In 90% ofthe instances in which a permanency planning review team decides to refer a child's case to DFS' Legal Section for determination as to whether sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights exist, the steps mandated by Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ IV.I.3 and IV.L4 shall be taken within the time periods mandated by Amended Modified Consent Decree §§ IV.I.3 and IV.L4.
B. 90% of class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall have an adoption planning conference within thirty (30) days of the assignment ofa goal o f adoption.
C. 90% of a class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall have adoption plans that contain the elements set forth below:
1. Steps to be taken to prepare the child for adoption. 2. Steps to be taken to fmd the child an adoptive home. 3. Time frames within which steps shall be taken. 4. Steps to be taken once an adoptive resource has been located. 5. Schedule of contacts.
3

D. 90% of the class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall receive 90% of the adoptive recruitment activities set forth in their adoption plans within the time periods set forth in those plans, Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.L.l.e and Amended Revised Operational Guide § IV.L.l. Recruitment activities occurring within a 10% variance of the time specified in the adoption plans, Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.L.l.e or the Amended Revised Operational Guide shall be deemed in compliance.
E. 90% of class members with a permanency planning goal of adoption shall receive 90% of all visits and contacts required by Amended Revised Operational Guide IV.L.3, IV.LA and IV.L.6 and their adoption plans.
F. 90% of adoption plans shall be reviewed at least every ninety (90) days.
v. Information Systems:
A. Social workers engaged in licensing or certification of foster homes shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Amended Modified Consent Decree § II.A.5.
B. Social workers engaged in the placement process shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Amended Modified Consent Decree § II.DA.
C. Social workers engaged in the adoption process shall have access to an automated management information system that operates in the manner contemplated by Amended Modified Consent Decree § IV.1.2. VI. Community Quality Assurance:
When expiration from the Amended Modified Consent Decree is imminent, DFS shall have implemented the Community Quality Assurance Committee, in the manner contemplated by Amended Modified Consent Decree § VII.
4

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30, 2001

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MlSSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

G.L., An Infant, by and through his

)

NEXT FRIEND, et aI., on their own behalf )

and on behalf of all others similarly

)

situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

-against-

)

No. 77-0242-CV-W-1

)

GARY STANGLER, et aI.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

AMENDED MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE AMENDED REVISED OPERATIONAL GUIDE
(December 21,2000)
I. INTRODUCTION
When this Amended Operational Guide directs DFS to implement a Panel Recommendation, it directs DFS to implement the tasks and products ofthat Recommendation as those tasks and products have been or may be amended by the mutual consent ofplaintiffs and defendants. The parties recognize that some of the tasks and products permit administrative flexibility and the exercise ofprofessional judgment.
Copies ofthe relevant Panel Recommendations, including their tasks and products, are attached hereto in numerical order and incorporated by reference. Certain of the attached Panel Recommendations have been modified by mutual consent of the parties.
The fact that a Panel Recommendation may be referred to in a section of the Amended Operational Guide or with reference to a particular section of the Consent Decree does not mean that the Recommendation is irrelevant to other sections.
Where there is a conflict between the language of a Panel Recommendation and the text ofthe Amended Operational Guide, the Amended Operational Guide controls.
II. PREVENTING ABUSE, NEGLECT & INAPPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE
A. Licensing and Certification of Foster Homes

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 21, including its tasks and products.
2. For purposes of Consent Decree § D.A.l, a professional or supervisor shall be considered trained ifhe/she receives pre-service and annual in-service training on the licensing process, the practice issues attendant to conducting a home study, the decisions involved in assessing the suitability ofa foster home and the adequacy of foster parenting skills, and the specific psychological, emotional, physical and educational problems that children in DFS legal custody are likely to have.
3. The curriculum used for the orientation and annual in-service training mandated by Consent Decree § II.A.I, or any revisions thereto shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
4. All references to state regulations in this section shall be to regulations in effect in January 1994 or as subsequently amended. Proposed amendments to these regulations shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to publication in the Missouri Register.
B. Renewal ofFoster Home Licenses and Certifications
1. All references to state regulations in this section shall be to regulations in effect in January 1994 or as subsequently amended. Proposed amendments to these regulations shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to publication in the Missouri Register.
C. Mandatory Training of Foster and Kinship Parents
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 24, including its tasks and products.
2. The core curriculum referred to in the Consent Decree shall include those topics outlined in Panel Recommendation 24.
3. Should DFS wish to permit foster and kinship parents to obtain training credits for training that does not occur in the traditional classroom setting, it shall provide plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee with a list of out-of-classroom training options available to foster and kinship parents, the training credits afforded by each, and the mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness ofsuch training on a foster-parent-by-foster-parent basis.
4. For purposes of Consent Decree § D.C.3, adults with primary child care responsibilities shall be defmed as adults, identified by the foster and kinship parents at the time of licensure, relicensure or certification, as providing a minimum of forty (40) hours of child care per week throughout the upcoming licensure period. These adults must complete the same hours oftraining required ofthe foster and kinship parents during that licensure period.
2

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
5. DFS shall review annually with each foster and kinship parent his or her compliance with the Consent Decree's mandatory foster and kinship parent training requirements and, where appropriate, develop a plan to ensure that the foster or kinship parent receives the required number ofhours prior to the expiration ofthe licensing period.
D. Proper Matching of Children with Appropriate Placements
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 54 and 56, including their tasks and products.
2. The placement practice guide mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.1 shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to its adoption and publication.
3. The training mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.3 shall consist ofat least six (6) hours ofpre-service and six (6) hours of annual in-service training. The six (6) hour pre-service and the six (6) hour annual in-service training may count towards the social worker's annual thirty (30) hour in-service training.
4. The curriculum used for the training mandated by Consent Decree § II.D.3 and any revisions thereto, shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
5. During the first year of a foster parents' first two (2)-year licensure period, DFS shall not make any placements in the foster home that would cause a change in the foster home's licensing restrictions. During subsequent licensure periods, placement in a foster home that would cause a change in the home's licensing restrictions only may be made with prior written approval ofthe licensing supervisor.
a. Beginning July 1, 1997, during the first year ofa foster parents' fIrst two (2)-year licensure period, DFS may make changes in the foster home's licensing restrictions only after a written report of an on-site inspection ofthe foster home and approval by the licensing supervisor. This is not intended to apply to or modify the Consent Decree's restriction ofthe placement of one foster child during the fIrst six months of licensure. This provision shall become permanent, ifno objections are raised by the parties by the time for challenging the Monitoring Committee's Report of May 1998. Ifplaintiffs object within the above time frame, and the parties cannot reach agreement, this provision will lapse as ofJuly 1, 1998.
b. A child whose placement in a foster home was age appropriate when made, will not be considered out ofcompliance by the child aging past the age restriction ofthe home.
6. During the first six (6) months ofthe fIrst foster parent licensure period, DFS shall not pennit more than one (1) foster child to reside with foster parents who have had no previous foster care experience. Exceptions can be made for sibling groups oftwo (2).
3

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
Placement of children over the age of eighteen (18) and under the continuing jurisdiction of the Family Court shall be exempt from this requirement with the foster parents' consent.
7. With respect to foster family homes, DFS may exceed the capacity restrictions set forth in Consent Decree §§ II.D.5-7 only if necessary to place siblings of a child already residing in the foster family home. IfDFS wishes to make exceptions to the capacity restrictions of Consent Decree §§ II.D.5-7, the licensing unit must conduct an assessment of the foster family's ability to adequately accommodate the placements before the exception is made and document that assessment in the foster parents' record. If the licensing unit determines that the foster family home can accommodate the sibling placements only if appropriate supports and services are provided, DFS shall provide such supports and services. Under no circumstances shall the number of children in the foster family home exceed two (2) above the foster family home's license capacity. Under no circumstances shall there be more than five (5) children who are five (5) years old or younger or three (3) children who are two (2) years old or younger.
8. With respect to kinship homes, DFS may exceed the capacity restrictions set forth in Consent Decree §§ II.D.5-7, provided that the licensing unit conducts an assessment of the kinship home's ability to adequately accommodate the placements before the exception is made and documents that assessment in the kinship parents' record. If the licensing unit determines that the kinship home can accommodate the placements only if appropriate supports and services are provided, DFS shall provide such supports and services. Under no circumstances shall the number of children in the kinship home exceed two (2) above the kinship home's licensed or certified capacity. Under no circumstances shall there be more than five (5) children who are five (5) years old or younger or three (3) children who are two (2) years old or younger.
9. Each class member's social worker shall document, in writing why a particular alternative care placement has been chosen for that child.
10. Each alternative care placement must be approved, in writing, by a supervisor with knowledge of the case.
11. A child may remain in temporary foster care status for longer than thirty (30) days under the following circumstances:
a. The child will be released from DFS custody within the next thirty (30) calendar days.
b. The child will be moving to a specified, available placement within the next thirty (30) calendar days.
c. The Family Court has ordered that the child remain in a designated placement for a period oftime longer than thirty (30) days.
E. Pre-Placement Process and Supervision ofthe Placement
1. Relevant information to be provided to a class member pursuant to Consent Decree § II.E.l shall include as much information as is appropriate for the child's age about the
4

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
foster home, its composition, the location of the foster home and the school the child will be attending. Ifpossible, DFS shall provide the child with a photograph ofthe prospective foster family.
2. DFS shall help each class member with the trauma of separation from hislher family and hislher placement in DFS custody.
3. Relevant information to be provided to alternative care providers pursuant to Consent Decree § II.E.l shall include, but is not limited to, reasons for the child's placement, the child's permanency planning goal, the child's medical history, the child's school placement, a description of the child's medical, psychological, educational and behavioral problems, ifany, the child's service needs, the steps DFS shall be taking to meet those needs, and the services DFS shall provide to the alternative care providers, if any, to assist them in caring for the child.
4. If a placement is an emergency placement as defined in Amended Operational Guide II.E.II, information may be provided to the class member and the alternative care provider either prior to or at the time ofplacement.
5. The following persons shall be present at the pre-placement visit mandated by Consent Decree § II.E.2:
a. The child.
b. The child's social worker.
c. The alternative care provider(s).
6. The child's parents/caretakers shall be present at the pre-placement visit if available and if appropriate based on the child's permanency planning goal or the circumstances of the child's placement.
7. Other children and persons living or working in the home should be present at the pre-placement visit if available.
8. The child's social worker shall schedule the pre-placement visit so that all individuals list in ~ 5 above are present and the maximum number of individuals in ~~ 6 and 7 above may attend.
9. Pre-placement visits with children who are being released from a medical hospital or facility to which they were admitted for non-psychiatric reasons shall occur at least twentyfour (24) hours prior to placement but do not have to occur in the foster home.
10. Pre-placement visits for children who are being released from residential treatment facilities, psychiatric facilities or medical facilities to which they were admitted for psychiatric reasons shall take place pursuant to plans developed by DFS and the discharging facility.
5

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30, 200 I

11. Pre-placement visits do not need to occur ifthe placement is an emergency placement. For purposes of this section, an emergency placement is defined as a placement that occurs under the following circumstances:

a. the child is in imminent danger in hislher current placement and must be removed immediately, or

b. the child.

DFS receives less than seventy-two (72) hours notice of the need to place

12. Children who are already residing in a particular placement when the Family Court orders that they be placed in that placement are exempt from the pre-placement visit requirement.

13. Ifa child is placed in a new alternative care placement on a Friday night, Saturday

or holiday, DFS shall provide that child with the twenty-four (24) hour visit mandated by

Consent Decree §§ II.3.a and IL4.a on the next business day.

f

~

14. Another worker with knowledge ofthe child may be designated to make the visits

required by Consent Decree §§ II.E.3 and ILEA only ifthe child's worker is on leave and that

fact that he/she is on leave has been documented. A worker is on leave when he/she has not

reported for work because he/she is on annual leave, maternity leave, sick leave, compensatory

leave, leave without pay, military leave, or administrative leave. With respect to Consent Decree

§§ ILE.3.a and ILEA.a, the supervisor for the child's regular worker shall make the twenty-four

(24) hour visit if the regular worker cannot do so for reasons other than those set forth above. If

the foster family is unavailable due to family emergency or vacation, the child's worker shall

make the twenty-four (24) hour visit within twenty-four (24) hours ofthe family becoming

available.

15. Class members in residential treatment facilities located more than seventy-five (75) miles from the main office ofthe Jackson County DFS are exempt from the visitation requirements of Consent Decree § ILEA. Instead, the child's social worker from Jackson County shall participate personally or by telephone in the periodic reviews ofthe child's course of treatment, convened by the residential treatment facility. In addition, a DFS social worker from the child's county of residence shall physically attend said periodic reviews. Whenever possible, this worker shall be the child's assigned DFS worker.

F. Prohibition on the Use ofInappropriate Discipline of Children and Investigation of and Responses to Suspected Incidents ofInappropriate Discipline, Neglect and Abuse.

1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree section, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 43, including its tasks and products.

2. Ifthe investigation into an incident of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline results in a finding of"probable cause" (substantiation), or a finding of"unsubstantiated, but preventive services indicated," the team referred to in Consent Decree § II.F.6 shall meet within fifteen (15) business days of the conclusion of the investigation.

6

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30, 2001
3. The facts surrounding an incident of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline, including any fmdings made at the conclusion ofthe investigation, shall remain in the child's record and the record ofthe ahemative care providers even if the report is determined to be unsubstantiated.
4. For purposes of Consent Decree § II.F.5, normal Child AbuselNeglect Procedures are defmed as those set forth in the Missouri DFS Child AbuselNeglect Investigation Handbook.
5. For purposes of Consent Decree §§ II.F.4 and II.F.5, specialized workers are defmed as workers assigned to the Out of Home Investigation Unit under the supervision of the DFS Central Office.
6. If services are provided to or corrective actions taken by alternative care providers who are the subject ofreports of abuse, neglect or inappropriate discipline, documentation of those services and corrective actions shall be placed in the alternative care providers' record.
G. Providing Adequate Supports
1. To assist it in achieving implementation of the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 22, including its tasks and products.
2. Collaborative activities by DFS with foster and kinship parents shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Making efforts to develop inter-agency agreements in order to increase and streamline foster parent, kinship parent and foster child access to:
(1) Women, Infants, Children (WIC) Program
(2) Local public health services.
(3) First Steps Program
(4) Immunization programs offered by and through the Department of Health
b. Directing and supporting foster parent ombudsperson activities to enhance material support and assistance for foster parents, kinship parents and foster children from businesses, churches, civic organizations in the Jackson County, Missouri area. Furthermore, DFS actively shall seek out increased civic support for the foster parenting program in Jackson County.
c. Enhancing the availability of free andlor low-cost respite care and child care services that are available to foster and kinship parents.
d. Providing support to programs and stores operated by foster, kinship and adoptive parents which provide clothing, food, and other items for active foster parents.
7

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
3. The foster and adoptive parent ombudsperson shall be available to assist any foster, kinship and prospective adoptive parent who wishes to raise any issue with DFS, including, but not limited to, permanency planning concerns and supports and services the foster, kinship or prospective adoptive parent may need to better understand and carry out hislher role.
III. HEALTH CARE SERVICES
A. Health Care Services
1. For children two (2) years old and younger, examinations required by the Healthy Children & Youth Program (HCY) after the initial thirty (30) -day examination shall be deemed to be in compliance with Consent Decree § lILA ifreceived within fifteen (15) days of the time specified by the Program. For children over the age of two (2), examinations required by HCY's examination schedule after the initial thirty (30) -day examination shall be deemed to be in compliance if received within thirty (30) days of the times specified by the Program.
2. Specialized and follow-up health care services received within a reasonable time ofthe period specified by the health care provider shall be deemed to be in compliance with Consent Decree § IILA.4.
B. Health Care Plan
1. At a minimum, each health care plan mandated by Consent Decree § III.B.1 shall include the following:
a. Preliminary and fmal diagnoses.
b. Required medications.
c. Follow-up appointments.
d. Required medical or specialized services.
2. DFS will enter into new contracts for medical case management to provide services as described below. The parties understand, however, that the final form of such contracts depends upon the results of the bidding process required by state law and approval by the Health Care Financing Administration and may not correspond exactly with the following outline. If said contracts are substantially inconsistent with the attached outline or DFS is unable to successfully execute new contracts, then the parties agree that further negotiations regarding medical case management services will occur. Ifthe parties have exited from the medical services provisions ofthe Modified Consent Decree, then DFS will solicit the advice ofthe Community Quality Assurance Committee before any new medical case management contracts are finalized.
Each child who enters the custody ofthe Division will be assigned to a Nurse Case Manager for a minimum of30 days. During this initial30-day period, medical information
8

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001

will be collected to begin a health history for the child. Trained clerical staff who then provides the information to a Nurse Case Manager can collect this information. The Nurse Case Manager will assess the health status of the child by reviewing the information obtained at the 36 hour medical, 30 day hearing, eye, and dental screenings and health care history. After reviewing the health status ofthe child, the Nurse Case Manager will determine ifthe child is considered; 1) a healthy child or child with minimal health care needs; 2) a child who has behavioral or mental health issues; or 3) is in need of ongoing medical care due to chronic or episodic medical condition of a serious nature and is considered to be medically fragile.

a. Category 1 Definition and Services
i.) Defmition: The child has been determined to be a "well-child" and none of the circumstances or conditions described in §§ III.B.2.b-c, as follows, is present.

ii.) Services: If the child is determined to be a healthy child, the following Nurse Case Management activities are required:

•

Maintain a file ofthe child's medical care

•

Attend the 72 hour and 30 day Family Support Team (FST)

meeting

•

Maintain contact with the child's alternative care provider or the

child as age appropriate.

•

Initiate and maintain a medical passport for the child, updating as

necessary

•

Send passport to the alternative care provider at the initial

placement and at any placement changes

•

Complete the CS-l health care information and provide it to the

child's Social Worker prior to FST meetings

•

Continually assess child to determine ifthe child should be

receiving a higher level ofNurse Case Management services.

•

Send an updated medical passport and immunization record to

appropriate persons when child is discharged from the Nurse Case

Management System.

b. Category 2 Defmition and Services

i.) Definition: The following guidelines are to be used to determine

whether a child is to receive more intensive Nurse Case Management due to

behavioral or mental health issues:

•

Child is placed in a group home or residential facility due to

behavioral or mental health issues

•

Child is placed as a behavioral or career child in a home designated

as such

9

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001

•

Child is receiving anti-anxiety or antidepressant or mUltiple

medications; and, the medication(s) doees) not require monitoring

by laboratory or other clinical testing. In addition, the disorder or

disease for which the medication has been prescribed is stable.

•

Child has been hospitalized due to behavioral or mental health

issues within the last 3 months.

•

Child is receiving counseling due to threats of suicide or due to

eating disorders or other behavioral or mental health issues that

pose immediate health risks

ii.) Services: If the child is detennmed to need more intensive Nurse Case Management due to behavioral or mental health issues, the following activities are required:

•

Maintain a file ofthe child's medical care including mental health

records

•

Attend all FST's for the child.

•

Review treatment plans for a child in residential treatment centers

•

Monitor medications received by the child

•

Review lab work that is required due to medications child is

recelvmg

•

Review progress reports for child that is receiving counseling

•

Maintain contact with the child's alternative care provider at least

2 times per month. An in-person visit with the child and the

child's alternative care provider shall occur at least 1 time per

quarter. Nurse Case Managers shall be exempt from the quarterly

personal visit when the class member's placement is located more

than 75 miles from the main office ofJackson County DFS.

•

Complete and maintain a medical passport for the child, updating

as necessary

•

Send passport to the alternative care provider at the initial

placement and any placement changes

•

Complete health care plans within 30 days ofthe child entering the

custody ofthe Division and every 60 days there after. The health

care plans are to contain the following information:

./ Diagnoses

./ Required medications

./ Follow-up appointments

./ Required medical or specialized services.

•

Complete the CS-l health care information and provide it to the

child's Social Worker prior to FST meetings

•

Send an updated medical passport and immunization record to

appropriate persons when child is discharged from the Nurse Case

Management System.

10

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001

•

Follow child for 60 days after release from DFS custody. During

this time, the same level of care is to be maintained as before the

child was discharged, including 2 contacts per month and assisting

new care giver and providing assistance in obtaining needed

resources and education.

c. Category 3 Definition and Services

i.) Defmition: The following guidelines are to be used to determine whether a child is to receive more intensive Nurse Case Management due to ongoing medical care due to a chronic or episodic medical condition and is considered to be medically fragile:

•

Non-compliance with medications

../ Child non-compliant

../ Caregiver non-compliant

../ Medication not available

•

Receiving parenteral medications, or has IV access or requires

specialized medical equipment, e.g.:

../ TPN

../ IV Antibiotics

../ PIC Line

../ Central Line

•

Alcohol or drug exposed infant or suspected Fetal Alcohol

syndrome

•

High Risk Infants, e.g.

../ Small gestational age

../ Hyperbilirubinemia

../ Hospital stay of more than 3 days after birth

../ Blood incompatibility

•

Surgical procedures - nurse case manager to follow progress for 60

days after surgery. When child is released from doctor's care and

there are no other circumstances requiring more intensive nurse

case management, then child may be considered as a healthy child

•

Terminal stage ofany disease process

*

Unstable phase ofany disease process; e.g.:

(1) HIV exposure or diagnosis

(2) AIDS diagnosis

(3) Asthma

(4) Diabetes

(5) Sickle Cell Anemia

(6) Seizure disorder

*

Child is eligible for services through the Bureau of Special Health

Care Needs

II

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001

*

Child is receiving treatment or medication on a regular basis that

requires monitoring on an ongoing basis as ordered by a physician,

e.g.:

(1) Diabetes

(2) HIV

(3) Sickle cell

(4) Failure to thrive

(5) Anti-psychotic medications such as halidol, lithium or

risperdol that require frequent, regular blood level testing.

(6) Any medication or combination of medications which

require, by physician or manufacturer instruction, frequent

and regular laboratory and/or clinical testing for continued

administration.

*

Child with lead levels of 10 or above.

ii.) Services: If the child is detennined to need more intensive Nurse Case Management due to ongoing medical care or due to a chronic or episodic medical condition and is considered to be medically fragile the following activities are required:

•

Maintain a file ofthe child's medical care including mental health

records

•

Attend all FST's for the child.

•

Monitor all health care services received by the child

•

Visit child in the home within 5 working days of enrollment with a

nurse case manager.

•

Maintain contact with the child's alternative care provider at least

2 times per month. Visits may include visits in the home or by

accompanying child and AC provider to medical appointments.

Face-to-face contacts should occur at least every 2 months.

•

Complete and maintain a medical passport for the child, updating

as necessary

•

Send passport to the alternative care provider at the initial

placement and any placement changes

•

Complete the CS-1 health care information and provide it to the

child's Social Worker prior to FST meetings

•

Complete health care plans within 30 days ofthe child entering the

custody of the Division and every 60 days there after. The health

care plans are to contain the following information:

v" Diagnoses

v" Required medications

v" Follow-up appointments

v" Required medical or specialized services.

•

Assist the alternative care provider in obtaining or linking with

resources.

12

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001

•

Assist the alternative care provider by providing educational

information regarding the child's condition

•

Attend adoption staffmgs in which a potential adoptive home is

being selected for the child

•

Be available to potential care givers for the child to provide

information about the child's health history and on-going care

•

Develop a written summary of child's on-going health care needs

every 2 months. Information is to be made available to the

alternative care provider and the child's social worker.

•

Send an updated medical passport and immunization record to

appropriate persons when child is discharged from the Nurse Case

Management System.

•

Follow child for 60 days after release from DFS custody. The same

level of care is to be maintained, including 2 contacts per month

and assisting new care giver and providing assistance in obtaining

needed resources and education.

d. At the time that a child no longer meets the criteria for the intensive level ofNurse Case Management, then, ifno other circumstances exist requiring more intensive nurse case management, the child may be followed as a healthy child.

3. Each child's health care plan shall be made part ofthe child's medical record and Comprehensive Permanency Plans.
4. If a class member has run away from DFS physical custody prior to the timely development of the health care plan as required by Consent Decree § III.B.I., the health care plan will be due either 30 days from the child's entry into DFS legal custody or 10 days after his/her return to physical custody, whichever is later.

C. Health Care History and Health Care Records
1. To collect all available health care information about a child as mandated by Consent Decree § III.C.!, DFS shall obtain relevant information from the child's family and records from the child's previous health care providers, and ascertain whether the child is currently on medication and has or has had:
a. Medical problems, including chronic ailments or childhood illnesses, and dental, eye or hearing problems.
b. Inoculations and immunization.
13

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
c. Psychological problems.
d. Allergies.
2. To comply with Consent Decree § III.C.3, the child's social worker shalL at a minimum, provide a summary ofavailable health care information, including the child's health care plan, to:
a. Foster and kinship parents at the time ofplacement or one week after plan is developed.
b. To the child's family at the time the child is returned home.
c. To those service providers providing services to the child that are related to the child's health care problems. The health care plan, however, shall only be provided if appropriate.
D. Medical Case Management
1. To assist it in achieving implementation with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 25 and 26, including their tasks and products.
2. The Medical Care Oversight Committee contemplated by Panel Recommendation 25 shall include representatives from the Family Court, Missouri Foster Care and Adoption Association and the current Jackson County Medical Care Coordinator. The Committee may seek technical assistance from the community as necessary and make recommendations to DFS for the appointment ofadditional community members.
3. DFS shall take steps to reduce duplicative and overburdensome paperwork requirements associated with medical case management.
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENCY PLANS AND PERMANENCY PLANNING GOALS
A. Permanency Planning Guide
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 53,64 and 67, including their tasks and products.
2. The permanency planning practice guide mandated by Consent Decree § IV.A.l shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to its adoption and publication.
B. Preliminary Service Needs Determination
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 41 and 55, including their tasks and products.
14

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30, 2001
2. The placement of children who enter DFS' custody on Friday night, Saturday or a holiday shall be reviewed on the next business day.
3. With respect to Consent Decree § IV.B.I, DFS shall make a recommendation to the Family Court on or before the next business day that a child be returned home if it detennmes that out-of-home placement is not necessary.
4. If a class member has run away from DFS physical custody prior to the timely completion ofa child's assessment and development of the Preliminary Permanency Plan as required by Consent Decree §§ IV.B.l, IV.B.2 and IV.D., the assessment and Preliminary Permanency Plan will be due within three (3) days ofthe child's return to DFS physical custody.
C. Preliminary Planning Conference
1. The social worker assigned to the child, a supervisor with knowledge of the case and, ifthe child was the subject of a report of child abuse or neglect, the social worker assigned to investigate/assess that report, shall attend the Preliminary Planning Conference mandated by Consent Decree § IV.C.I.
2. DFS shall invite to the Preliminary Planning Conference the child's parents/caretakers and the child, ifDFS detennmes that the child's presence would be appropriate. DFS shall facilitate the attendance of the child's parents/caretakers in the conference. Ifparents/caretakers do not attend, DFS shall document reasons for non-attendance and the attempts to facilitate attendance.
3. DFS shall notify the child's guardian ad litem/attorney and the attorney for the child's parents/caretakers ofthe date, time and place of the conference ifDFS is aware that such individuals have been retained, assigned or appointed to the case.
D. Preliminary Permanency Plan
1. The service assessments required by Consent Decree §§ IV.D.1.b, IV.D.1.e and IV.D.1.g shall include, but are not limited to, assessments of the child's medical, psychological, behavioral and educational needs.
2. Ifthe preliminary plan does not provide for a weekly parent/child or child/sibling visitation schedule, the reasons for having a different schedule shall be documented in the Preliminary Permanency Plan.
3. The Preliminary Permanency Plan shall be signed by those persons in attendance· at the Preliminary Planning Conference who are in agreement with the plan. If an individual attending the conference is not in agreement with the plan, his/her dissent and the reasons therefore shall be noted on the plan. DFS shall develop a procedure for reviewing and acting upon dissents.
4. After it is completed, the Preliminary Permanency Plan shall be submitted promptly to the Family Court, the child's parents/caretakers and the child's alternative care
15

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
providers. It also shall be submitted to the child's guardian ad litem/attorney and the attorneys for the parents/caretakers if7when such individuals have been retained, assigned or appointed.
E. Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference
1. DFS shall provide each member of a child's Permanency Planning Review Team with written notice ofthe date, time and location ofthe Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference at least ten (10) working days prior to the conference. Those team members whose identity and/or location is not known to DFS ten (10) working days prior to the conference shall be given notice ofthe conference by telephone as soon as DFS becomes aware of their identity and/or location.
2. DFS shall facilitate the attendance ofthe child's parents/caretakers in the conference. If parents/caretakers do not attend, DFS shall document reasons for non-attendance and the attempts to facilitate attendance.
3. The Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference may be postponed at the discretion of the Program Administrator or hislher designee if a significant number of Permanency Planning Review Team members cannot attend. Under no circumstances, shall the Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference be held more that forty-five (45) days after a child has entered DFS custody.
4. A child age twelve (12) or over may waive hislher presence at the Preliminary Planning Conference or may have hislher presence waived by hislher guardian ad litem/attorney.
5. A child, under age twelve (12), may have hislher presence waived by mutual consent ofhislher guardian ad litem/attorney and social worker.
F. Comprehensive Permanency Plan
1. The statutes and regulation referred to in Consent Decree § IV.F.2 are those in existence in January 1994, or as subsequently amended. Proposed amendments to the state regulations shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment prior to their publication.
2. Ifa child's first Comprehensive Permanency Planning Conference is not held within thirty (30) days of the child's entry into DFS custody for the reasons set forth in Amended Operational Guide § IV.E.3, the child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall be developed no later than forty-five (45) days from the child's entry into DFS custody.
3. The comprehensive service assessment required by Consent Decree § IV.F.3.b shall include, but is not limited to, an assessment ofthe child's medical, psychological, behavioral and educational services.
4. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall be signed by each member of the child's Permanency Planning Review Team in attendance and in agreement with the plan. Ifa member ofthe team is not in agreement with the pian, hislher dissent and the reasons therefore
16

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
shall be noted on the plan. DFS shall develop a procedure for reviewing and acting upon dissents.
5. After it is completed, the Comprehensive Permanency Plan shall be submitted promptly to the Family Court, the child's parents/caretakers, the attorneys for the parents/caretakers (ifsuch attorneys have been assigned or retained), the child's guardian ad litem/attorney and the child's alternative care providers.
6. If a class member has run away from DFS physical custody prior to the timely development of the child's assessment required by the Consent Decree § IV.F.3.b and the child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan required by Consent Decree § IV.E.1, the assessment and comprehensive permanency plan shall be due either 30 days from the child's entry into DFS legal custody or 10 days after his/her return to physical custody, whichever is later.
G. Written Service Agreements
1. Written service agreements are agreements between DFS and appropriate persons based on the child's permanency planning goal. The Written Service Agreements shall set forth with particularity the roles and responsibilities ofeach person/party to the agreement with regard to implementation ofthe child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
2. Each Written Service Agreement shall, at a minimum, specify the following:
a. The steps to be taken by the parties to the agreement to meet the interim goals and objectives set forth in the child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan.
b. The individuals (designated by name or title) responsible for taking the steps set forth above.
c. Time frames within which the above steps will be taken.
d. Time frames and mechanisms for measuring progress in achieving goals and objectives and evaluating service intervention.
3. The facts and circumstances ofa child's case may require that there be more than one Written Service Agreement:
a. Ifa child's permanency planning goal is reunification, DFS shall develop a Written Service Agreement with the child's parents/caretakers and ifappropriate, the child.
b. Ifa child's permanency planning goal is independent living, DFS shall develop a Written Service Agreement with the child, and ifappropriate, the child's parents/caretakers.
I7

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
c. If a child's permanency planning goal is guardianship, DFS shall enter into a Written Service Agreement with the child's potential guardian, if identified, the child's parents/caretakers, if appropriate, and/or the child, if appropriate.
d. Ifa child's permanency planning goal is adoption, DFS shall enter into a Written Service Agreement with the child's adoptive resource, if identified, the child's parents/caretakers, if appropriate, and/or the child, if appropriate.
4. Ifthe child's goal is independent living, the Written Service Agreement shall include a specific plan for the development ofan alternative living arrangement when the child leaves alternative care and the supports necessary to make that living arrangement successful.
5. Each Written Service Agreement shall be signed by all parties to the agreement or their agent/representative. If any party refuses to sign and does not agree with the Written Service Agreement, the social worker shall document that party's disagreement and the reasons therefor.
6. A Written Service Agreement renegotiated, reviewed or renewed within three months of the previous agreement shall be deemed in compliance with the 90 day requirement contained in Consent Decree § IV.G.1.
H. Six-Month Permanency Planning Review
1. DFS shall provide each member ofa child's Permanency Planning Review Team with written notice of the date, time and location ofa six (6)-month Permanency Planning Review at least ten (10) working days prior to the conference. Those team members whose identity and/or location are not known to DFS ten (10) working days prior to the conference shall be given notice of the conference by telephone as soon as DFS becomes aware of their identity and location.
2. DFS shall facilitate the attendance of the child's parents/caretakers in the conference. Ifparents/caretakers do not attend, DFS shall document reasons for non-attendance and the attempts to facilitate attendance.
3. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan resulting from each six (6) - month Permanency Planning Review shall be signed by each team member in attendance and in agreement with the plan. If a member of the team is not in agreement with the plan, hislher dissent and the reasons therefore shall be noted on the plan. DFS shall develop a procedure for reviewing and acting upon dissents.
4. The Comprehensive Permanency Plan resulting from each six (6) - month Permanency Planning Review shall be submitted promptly to the Family Court, the child's parents/caretakers, the child's guardian ad litem/attorney, the attorneys for the parents/caretakers and the child's alternative care provider.
5. A child's social worker may change the interim goals and objectives set forth in a child's Comprehensive Permanency Plan prior to a meeting of the child's Permanency Planning
18

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
Review Team if the child's and/or family'S circumstances indicate that such a change is warranted and the worker's supervisor has approved the changes. A child's social worker may change the child's permanency planning goal prior to a meeting of the child's Permanency Planning Review Team if the worker's supervisor and the child's guardian ad litem/attorney each approve the change.
1. Permanency Planning Goals
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 64, including its tasks and products.
2. Class members who are fourteen (14) or fifteen (15) years old may be assigned a permanency planning goal of independent living if they have stated that they do not wish to be adopted or have a guardian appointed and it has been documented that adoption or guardianship is not in the child's best interest.
J. Adoption Training and Information Systems
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 62 and 67, including their tasks and products.
2. At a minimum, the adoption training mandated by Consent Decree § IV.J.l shall address the following topics: determining adoptability, preparing children for adoption, recruiting adoptive families and matching children with adoptive resources.
3. The curriculum used for the training mandated by Consent Decree § IV.J.l and any revisions thereto shall be submitted to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
K. Adoption Planning Conference
1. The child's social worker and adoption worker shall attend the planning conference mandated by Consent Decree § IV.K.l. If the child's social worker is performing adoption functions and there is no adoption worker, the social worker's supervisor shall attend. The child's guardian ad litem/attorney, alternative care provider (if appropriate) and service providers (ifappropriate) shall be invited to attend-the adoption planning conference.
L. Adoption Plan
1. For purposes ofthe Adoption Plan, the steps to be taken to find the child an adoptive home shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. A determination of whether the child's current foster or kinship parents are interested in adoption, and if they are, a prompt determination of their appropriateness as adoptive resources and the prompt completion of a home study.
19

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30, 2001
b. Ifthe current foster home is not an available resource, prompt preparation of an adoptive profile ofthe child and review of currently approved adoptive studies to determine ifthere are appropriate resources.
c. If there are no appropriate homes among existing adoptive studies, child specific recruitment shall occur with a minimum of five referrals to adoption exchanges, specialized adoption placement agencies, and/or other child specific adoption recruitment activities. These may include, but not be limited to: placement on the Internet, referrals to Wednesday's Child, Children Awaiting Parents and other multimedia recruitment activities.
d. Ifthe activities and referrals outlined in section c. above do not result in an approved adoptive resource within 60 days, ongoing and appropriate child specific adoption recruitment activities shall occur at a minimum of three referrals or activities every three months (90 days) until an adoptive resource is located, staffed and approved byDFS.
2. The steps to be taken once an adoptive resource has been located shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Prompt notification of the prospective adoptive parents ofa match.
b. Prompt commencement ofpre-placement visits between the child and the prospective adoptive parents.
c. An assessment of the post-adoptive service needs.
3. If the child's social worker is performing adoption functions and there is no adoption worker, DFS shall be considered in compliance with Consent Decree §§ IV.L.l.fand IV.L.2 if the social worker provides visits in accordance with Consent Decree §§ II.E.3 and II.E.4 and has two (2) contacts per month with the child's adoptive resource (if one has been located). One (1) contact shall be face-to-face, ifpossible. In addition, the child's social worker shall be expected to maintain periodic and regular contact with the child's guardian ad litem/attorney as required by Consent Decree §§ IV.L.1.fand IV.L.2.
4. Ifthe child has both a social worker and an adoption worker, DFS shall be in compliance with Consent Decree § IV.L.1.fand IV.L.2 if the adoption worker visits with the child at least once each month and has two (2) contacts per month with the child's adoptive resource (if one has been located). One (1) contact shall be face-to-face, ifpossible. In addition, the child's adoption worker shall be expected to maintain periodic and regular contact with the child's alternative care providers and guardian ad litem/attorney as required by Consent Decree § IV.L.5 and IV.L.2
5. An adoption plan reviewed within three months of the previous plan shall be deemed in compliance with the 90 day requirement contained in Consent Decree § IV.L.3.
20

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
6. If the class member's adoptive resource is the alternative care provider with whom the class member lives, contacts with the adoptive resource (as required by Amended Operational Guide §§ IV.L.3-4) will not be additionally monitored in this section, but will instead be monitored only according to Amended Exit Plan § I.C. Contacts with the child (as required by Amended Operational Guide §§ IV.L.3-4) will not be additionally monitored in this section, but will instead be monitored only according to Amended Exit Plan § I.C.
V. PERMANENCY PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
A. Staff Caseloads. Supervision and Training
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 11 and 42, including their tasks and products.
2. A social worker will be considered to have received adequate supervision if he/she meets with his/her supervisor and unit according to Panel Recommendation 11, Task 5.
3. DFS shall submit the curriculum to be used for the training mandated by Consent Decree §§ V.A.6 and V.A.7 and any revisions thereto to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment.
4. DFS shall submit the curriculum to be used for the training mandated by Consent Decree § V.A8 to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee for review and comment. By January 1995, the curriculum shall be incorporated into the pre-service/orientation training provided to all new social workers. AIl workers receiving such training mandated by Consent Decree § V.A8 shall be exempt from the thirty (30) -hour annual in-service training requirement for calendar year 1995.
5. When a newly hired social worker is assigned to a unit to fIll an impending vacancy, the newly hired social worker shall not be considered in determining the worker/supervisor ratio for a period of time not to exceed four (4) weeks. During that period of time, the Supervisor shall not carry a caseload.
6. In applying Consent Decree § V.A4.b. a supervisor/worker ratio of one to seven shall be deemed in compliance if two of the workers assigned to that supervisor are adoption specialists.
B. Unit Structure and Managerial Personnel
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 1,3, 13,22,54 and 63, including their tasks and products.
C. Management Plan
1. In fonnulating the Management Plan for FY 95, FY96 and FY 97, DFS shall give special priority to those items that the Panel's Recommendations identify as needing such
21

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001

attention, including, but not limited to, specialized staff training needs identified in Panel Recommendations 14, 52 and 62.

2. The Panel Recommendations attached to the Amended Operational Guide and incorporated by reference shall function as the framework for needs assessment required by Consent Decree § V.3.a during the first, second and third years that Management Plans are developed and implemented.

3. IfDFS undertakes the activities and accomplishes the tasks mandated by the Management Plan within a reasonable time after the time frames set forth in the Management Plan, it shall be deemed to be in compliance with Consent Decree § V.C.5.

Staff Recruitment and Retention Component

4. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 8, 9 and 10, including their tasks and products.

Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention Component

5. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 19,20,21,22,58,63 and 65, including their tasks and products.

6. The needs assessment conducted pursuant to the Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment and Foster Parent Retention component of the Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. needed.

A determination of the number of emergency foster homes that are

b. A determination of the number of professional level foster homes and adoptive homes that are needed to accommodate children with medical, emotional or behavioral problems.

c. An identification ofthe reasons foster parents are leaving the system.

Staff, Foster Parent and Kinship Parent Training Component

7. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 13, 14, 16,24,28,36,52 and 62, including their tasks and products.

8. Training provided by vendors shall be consistent with DFS policy and procedures.

Resource Development Component

22

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001
9. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendation 60, including its tasks and products.
10. At a minimum, the Resource Development component ofthe Management Plan shall address the following issues as they relate to class members, their families, their alternative care providers and their service providers:
a. The Jackson County Office's systemic resource needs.
b. The development of sufficient evaluative resources (including, but not limited to medical, developmental, emotional and psychological resources) so that comprehensive assessments ofa child's service needs can be obtained as soon as possible after that child has entered DFS custody.
c. Resources needed to implement each child's Preliminary Pennanency Plans and Comprehensive Permanency Plans and to accomplish each child's permanency planning goal, including, but not limited to, adoption and educational advocacy resources.
d. The development ofa sufficient number of service providers and supports, including, but not limited to, alternative care providers other than foster and adoptive parents. Initial targets for the first Resource Development component ofthe Management Plan shall include the recruitment offifty (50) additional professional-level foster homes by September 1995; the recruitment offifteen (15) additional emergency foster homes by September 1995; and the development of wraparound service capacity for twenty-five (25) class members by September 1996.
e. Resources and administrative supports needed by licensing, placement and adoption staffto operate in accordance with reasonable professional standards.
Manual and Automated Management Information Systems Component
11. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 5, 21, 30, 31 and 67, including their tasks and products.
Quality Assurance Component
12. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 34,36 and 37, including their tasks and products.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
B. Remedial Actions
1. To assist it in achieving compliance with the Consent Decree, DFS shall implement Panel Recommendations 59 and 61, including their tasks and products.
23

Amended Revised Operational Guide; January 30,2001 2. The plan for intensive adoptive recruitment efforts mandated by Consent Decree §
VI.B.2 shall include a review of current adoptive profiles for accuracy and completeness and, with assistance from the children's guardians ad litem/attorneys, a revision of adoptive profiles that are more than six (6) months old. C. Monitoring
1. DFS shall provide to plaintiffs and the G.L. Monitoring Committee periodic reports on progress it has made in implementing the Panel Recommendations attached to the Amended Operational Guide and incorporated by reference.
D. Services to Class Members Absent from DFS Custody 1. During the time that a class member is a runaway from DFS custody, DFS is not
required to provide services to the child that would otherwise be required by the Consent Decree or Amended Operational Guide.
24

 
 TERMED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:77−cv−00242−DW

Lhamon, et al v. Schulze, et al Assigned to: District Judge Dean Whipple Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Debbie Toth An infant, by and through her next friend, Cathy Connealy
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/20/1993 Date Terminated: 12/13/1996 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Christopher A. Hansen American Civil Liberties Union 132 W. 43rd St. New York, NY 10036 (212) 944−9800x762 TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Fred B. Rich Legal Aid of Western Missouri 1125 Grand Boulevard Suite 1900 Kansas City, MO 64106 816−474−6750 Fax: (816) 474−9751 Email: frich@lawmo.org TERMINATED: 07/31/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew Shook Hardy &Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108−2613 (816) 474−6550 Fax: (816) 421−5547 Email: lbucklew@shb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin L. Dahlberg American Civil Liberties Union 132 W. 43rd St. New York, NY 10036 (212) 944−9800x762 TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan Lambiase Children's Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue. South 11th Flloor New York, NY 10016 (212) 683−2210 Fax: (212) 683−4015 Email: slambiase@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Rayhugh Majors, Jr an infant, by and through his next friend Millard Aldridge
Plaintiff Kimberly Walters an infant, by and through her next friend Janeen Weiss
Plaintiff Terry Waters an infant, by and through his next friend Janeen Weiss

Christopher A. Hansen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Fred B. Rich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin L. Dahlberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan Lambiase (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher A. Hansen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Fred B. Rich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin L. Dahlberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan Lambiase (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Fred B. Rich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gregory Lhamon an infant, by and through his next friend William Shull
V. Defendant Carmen Schulze

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher A. Hansen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Fred B. Rich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin L. Dahlberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan Lambiase (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Presson Missouri Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573/751−3321 Fax: (573) 751−9456 Email: robert.presson@mail.ago.state.mo.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancie D Hawke Office of the General Counsel University of Missouri 227 University Hall Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882−3211` Fax: (573) 882−0050 Email: HawkeN@umsystem.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul T. Keller Department of Social Services Division of Legal Services

Defendant Sandra Brooks individually and as County Director of the Clay County Office of the Missouri Division of Family Services
Defendant Gary − Stangler Official Capacity, Director of Missouri Dept of Social Services
Defendant Pat Brown individually and as Social Service Supervisor of the Jackson Cuonty Office

221 W. High St., P. O. Box 1527 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751−3229 TERMINATED: 10/30/1996 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela S. Marmion Labor &Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri 3315 W. Truman Blvd. P.O. Box 599 Jefferson City, MO 65102−0599 (573) 751−2461 TERMINATED: 10/15/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Presson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancie D Hawke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul T. Keller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/1996 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela S. Marmion (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Presson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancie D Hawke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul T. Keller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/1996 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela S. Marmion (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/1996

of the Missouri Div of Family Services
Defendant Richard Matt Deputy Director of Childrens Services, Division of Family Services
Defendant Missouri Department of Socail Services, Children's Division interested party Sheila Agniel Foster Care Consent Decree Committe

LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Presson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancie D Hawke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul T. Keller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/1996 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela S. Marmion (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert Presson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancie D Hawke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul T. Keller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/30/1996 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheila Agniel Division of Family Services 615 East 13th St. Kansas City, MO 64106 PRO SE
Timothy Alan Wynes Indian Hills College 525 Grandview Ottumwa, IA 52501 (515) 683−5230 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

interested party Donald Tharp Foster Care Consent Decree Committee
interested party Marilyn Shapiro Foster Care Consent Decree Committee
interested party Harriet J Lawrence Foster Care Consent Decree Committee

Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald Tharp 204 Marshall Rd., P.O. Box 1908 Platte City, MO 64079 PRO SE
Timothy Alan Wynes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Marilyn Shapiro 1200 E. 104th St., Ste 200 Kansas City, MO 64131 PRO SE
Timothy Alan Wynes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Harriet J Lawrence K−20, R.R. #1 Lake Lotawana, MO 64063 PRO SE
Timothy Alan Wynes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/07/1992

#

Docket Text

186 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Court adds as defendants the present Dir of the Missouri Dept of SOcial Services, Gary Stangler and the Deputy Director of Children's Services for the Division of Family Services, Richard Matt; The Court substitutes as parties defendant the current Dir of the Missouri Div of Family Services, Carmen K. Schulze and the current acting Social Services Dir of Jackson County, Missouri, Pat Brown; further ORDERED that Carmen K. Schulze, Dir of Mo Div of Family Services be substituted for her predecessors−in−office, John Zumwalt and Paula Willmarth; and

12/07/1992
12/15/1992
12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/28/1992 01/02/1993 01/13/1993 02/17/1993 07/12/1993

Pat Brown, acting Social Services Dir for Jackson County be substituted for her predecessors−in−office, Sherrell Hunt and Gail Horsey (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
187 (Reappointment of Committee) ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the court reappoints Harriett Lawrence, Marilyn Shapiro, and Don Tharp as the Foster Care Consent Decree Committee for two years begining January 1, 1993 until December 31, 1994 and that defendants shall continue to provide the Committee w/compensation, clerical assistance, office space and equipment, and to pay the committee's expenses as set forth in paragraph 8 of the Supplemental Consent Decree, until and unless the amount of the Committee's compensation and/or the amount of expenses to be reimbursed by the defendants is modified by order of this Court (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
188 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that page 45 of the Order entered on 12/7/92 is hereby amended by the addition of the following line at the top of the page; ORDERED that the following individuals be added as party and that the Clerk of the Court mail an amended page 45 (a copy of wihch is attached hereto) to each parties to this action; ORDERED that the following individuals be added as party defendants in their official capacity; Gary Stangler, Dir of Mo Dept of Social Services; Richard Matt, Deputy Dir of Children's Services for the Div of Family Services; ORDERED that Carmen K. Schulze, dir of Mo Div of Family Services be substituted for her predecessors−in−office, John Zumwalt and Paul Willmarth; and Pat Brown, acting Social Services Dir for Jackson Cuonty be substituted for her predecessors−in−office, Sherrell Hunt and Gail Horsey (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
189 MOTION by defendants' to alter or amend it's Order of 12/7/92 in order to consider additional issues relevant to the plas' mot for contempt (Court Employee) Modified on 01/20/1993 (Entered: 01/20/1993)
190 Suggestions by defendant in support of motion to alter or amend it's Order of 12/7/92 in order to consider additional issues relevant to the plas' mot for contempt [189−1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
191 MOTION by plaintiffs' to extend time in which to file suggs in oppo to defendants' mot to alter or amend (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
193 Suggestions by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to alter or amend it's Order of 12/7/92 in order to consider additional issues relevant to the plas' mot for contempt [189−1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/25/1993)
192 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' motion to extend time to 1/19/93 in which to file suggs in oppo to defendants' mot to alter or amend [191−1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/20/1993)
194 Motion/Order for pro hac vice on behalf of Debbie Toth, Rayhugh Majors Jr, Kimberly Walters, Terry Waters by Christopher A. Hansen; receipt #54429 in the amount of $25.00 (Court Employee) Modified on 02/18/1993 (Entered: 02/18/1993)
195 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying dfts' motion to alter or amend it's Order of 12/7/92 in order to consider additional issues relevant to the plas' mot for contempt [189−1] ; that a hearing on the dfts' motion to modify the Consent decree is set to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 8/25/93 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/13/1993)

07/20/1993 07/20/1993 07/23/1993
07/28/1993
08/12/1993 08/19/1993 08/30/1993 09/21/1993
10/14/1993 12/21/1993 02/22/1994 02/22/1994 03/14/1994 06/27/1994 06/28/1994

196 MOTION by defendants to continue hearing on the defendants' mot to modify the consent decree currently scheudled for August 25, 1993 (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
197 MOTION by defendants to vacate its denial of the defendants' mot to alter or amend which had been filed on December 17, 192 (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
198 Suggestions by plaintiff in opposition to motion to vacate its denial of the defendants' mot to alter or amend which had been filed on December 17, 192 [197−1], motion to continue hearing on the defendants' mot to modify the consent decree currently scheudled for August 25, 1993 [196−1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
199 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting defendants motion to continue hearing on the defendants' mot to modify the consent decree currently scheudled for August 25, 1993 [196−1] setting aside Scheduling order ; that a hearing on the dfts' motion to modify the Consent decree is set to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 8/25/93 [195−1] [195−1] setting aside order [195−2] [195−2] ; status hearing reset for 9:00 10/1/93 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/28/1993)
200 MOTION by defendants to withdraw attorney Paul T. Keller (Court Employee) (Entered: 08/13/1993)
202 MOTION by plaintiffs, and defendants to continue hearing on mot to modify the conent decree (Court Employee) (Entered: 08/31/1993)
201 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Richard Matt (Court Employee) (Entered: 08/31/1993)
203 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting parties motion to continue hearing on mot to modify the conent decree [202−1] ; status hearing set for 1:30 12/14/93 , ; status hearing on mot set for 9:00 1/21/94 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 09/21/1993)
204 Third Supplemental Stipulation regarding monitoring methodology (Court Employee) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
205 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple ; status hearing that was previously set for 1/21/94 is reset for 4/25/94 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/21/1993)
206 MOTION by defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Carmen Schulze to substitute attorney Mary Browning in place of Angela S. Marmion (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
207 MOTION by defendants, and plaintiffs to continue dft's mot to modify (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/23/1994)
208 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to continue dft's mot to modify [207−1] the Consent Decree ; status hearing reset to commence 9:00 7/6/94 &continue thru 7/7/94 &7/8/94 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
209 MOTION by defendant to withdraw documents of pending mt to modify and mt to alter or amd (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
210 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion to withdraw documents of pending mt to modify and mt to alter or amd [209−1] ; status hearing cancelled 9:00 a.m. 7/6/94; and that the parties file a joint, written report with the Court w/n 30 days of

10/18/1994 11/17/1994 12/14/1994
12/22/1994
01/12/1995 01/31/1995 02/07/1995 03/01/1995 03/01/1995 03/07/1995

the date of this Order, informing the Court as to the status of their settlement negotiations (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
211 MOTION by plaintiff to modify the 3/21/83 consent decree (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
212 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple ; that in order to consider re−structuring the consent decree a status hearing is set for 10:00 11/29/94; (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/17/1994)
213 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Modified Consent Decree, signed by the parties on October 18, 1994, and Operational Guide, signed by the parties on October 18, 1994, are substituted for the Court's March 21, 1983, Order and any modifications therto, and supersede the Court's December 7, 1992, Order, except to the extent that Order s ub stitutes and adds parties (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
214 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple of Reappointment of Committee; the terms of the members of the Foster Care Consent Decree Committee expire on December 31, 1994; The Court therefore reappoints Harriet Lawrence, Marilyn Shapiro, and Don Tharp to serve at the pleasure of the Court as the Foster Care Consent Decree committee, not to exceed two years, beginning January 1, 1995, until December 31, 1996; Harriet Lawrence shall serve as Chairman of the Committee; The committee shall continue to operate in the manner prescribed by the court and pe rform the duties that have been assigned to them, together with any additional duties the court may find appropriate to assign to them in the future; For their service each committee member shall receive annual compensation of $4,200.00; THe defendants shall continue to provide the Committee with comepnsation clerical assistance, office space and equipment, and to p ay the Committee's expenses as set forth in paragraph VI.D.4 of the MOdified Consent Decree, until and unless the amt of the Committee's compensation and/or the amount of exp enses to be reimbursed by defendants is modified by order of this Court (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/22/1994)
215 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on behalf of interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro, interested party Donald Tharp, interested party Sheila Agniel by Timothy Alan Wynes (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
216 MOTION by plaintiffs and defendants, to extend time to submit the completed monitored methodology (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/01/1995)
217 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting pla's and df t's j joint motion to extend time to 3/1/95 to submit the completed monitored methodology; the parties are admonished, however, that absent extraordinary circumstancs, no further extensions of time to comply will be granted [216−1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
218 MOTION by plaintiffs and defendants, for approval of monitoring methodology (Court Employee) (Entered: 03/02/1995)
219 Notice by plaintiffs and defendant of hard bound transcript (Court Employee) (Entered: 03/02/1995)
220 Motion/Order for pro hac vice of atty Susan Lambiase on behalf of Terry Waters, Kimberly Walters, Rayhugh Majors Jr, Debbie Toth, Gregory Lhamon by Receipt #: 83242 in the amount of 25.00 (Court Employee) (Entered: 03/07/1995)

04/06/1995
04/20/1995
05/10/1995 05/11/1995 11/01/1995 11/01/1995 11/01/1995 12/08/1995 12/19/1995
12/21/1995 12/21/1995 12/29/1995 05/01/1996 06/24/1996 06/24/1996 06/24/1996

221 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple ; status hearing set for 1:00 4/28/95; to discuss proposed modifications nto the structure of the monitoring committee; The Court expects counsel for plaintiffs and defendants to be present at this conf (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
222 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple ; status hearing cancelled for 4/28/95 1:00 4/28/95; the parties are directed to file a stipulation with the Court, outlinging the nature of their agreement, within 15 days ofthe date of this order (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
224 Stipulation of plaintiffs and defendants, to reevaluate the Committee's structure (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
223 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion for approval of monitoring methodology contained in the Mnitoring Plan filed with this Court on March 1, 1995 [218−1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
225 Written status report (report of Compliance) by defendant Gary − Stangler (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
226 APPENDIX filed by defendants appendix 1−24 (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
227 APPENDIX filed by defendants appendix 1−6 (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/02/1995)
228 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple ; status hearing (Conf) set for 3:00 12/19/95 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/11/1995)
229 MINUTE ENTRY: of status conf of case; Various attorneys monitoring committee representative and Sheila (interested party) discussing matter of taking Sheila off state payrolll; Jude considering ordering foster care to begin termination of parental jrights after service agreements fail; best interest of child hasbeen seen as subjugated to family reunification in Western part of state but it hasn't been; addressing issue attorneys fees ; stipulation was filed re; audit wasn't any reason for court to sign Stipulation; terminate 3:50 pm (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
230 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/22/1995)
231 Suggestions by plaintiffs in support of motion for attorney fees [230−1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/22/1995)
232 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple ; status hearing held 3:00 12/19/95 the proposed budget of the Monitoring Committee herein for the year commencing 1/1/96 is approved by the Court (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/29/1995)
233 Notice of Report of Compliance compiled by the Monitoring Committee (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
234 STIPULATION AND MOTION by plaintiffs for order dismissing w/prej outstanding claims for attorneys' fees and costs through 1995 (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/24/1996)
235 MOTION by plaintiffs, and defendants for establishment of a procedure regarding submission of claims for attorneys' fees and expenses (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/24/1996)
241 (Motion) Suggestions by plaintiff in support of motion for order dismissing w/prej outstanding claims for attorneys' fees and costs through 1995 [234−1] (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 07/29/1996)

07/10/1996
07/15/1996 07/22/1996 07/26/1996 07/26/1996 07/31/1996 08/09/1996 08/12/1996 09/06/1996 10/04/1996 10/15/1996 10/21/1996

236 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting stipulated joint motion for order dismissing w/prej outstanding claims for attorneys' fees and costs through 1995 [234−1]; that all motions for attorneys'fees and expenses through December 31, 1995 are hereby DISMISSED W/PREJUDICE; and that the Court RETAINS JURISDICTION over the settlement agreement or agreements leading to the above−mentioned stipulation (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
237 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting parties' joint motion for establishment of a procedure regarding submission of claims for attorneys' fees and expenses [235−1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/15/1996)
238 Notice of change of employment of plas' counsel of Susan Lambiase and Marcia Robinson Lawry that they are no longer employed by the Children's Rights Project of the ACLU (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
239 MOTION by plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to withdraw attorney Fred B. Rich (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
240 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on behalf of plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon by Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
242 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas motion to withdraw attorney Fred B. Rich [239−1] attorney Fred B. Rich for Gregory Lhamon, attorney Fred B. Rich for Debbie Toth, attorney Fred B. Rich for Rayhugh Majors Jr, attorney Fred B. Rich for Kimberly Walters, attorney Fred B. Rich for Terry Waters (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/31/1996)
243 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE of atty SHelley THomas−Benke on behalf of interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro, interested party Donald Tharp, interested party Sheila Agniel, defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks by (Court Employee) (Entered: 08/09/1996)
244 MOTION by plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to withdraw attorney Robin L. Dahlberg, Robin L. Dahlberg (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 08/12/1996)
245 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' motion to withdraw attorney Robin L. Dahlberg, Robin L. Dahlberg [244−1] attorney Robin L. Dahlberg for Gregory Lhamon, attorney Robin L. Dahlberg for Debbie Toth, attorney Robin L. Dahlberg for Kimberly Walters (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
246 MOTION by defendants to withdraw attorney Angela S. Marmion (Court Employee) (Entered: 10/07/1996)
247 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting certain defendants motion to withdraw attorney Angela S. Marmion [246−1] attorney Angela S. Marmion for Sandra Brooks, attorney Angela S. Marmion for Gary − Stangler, attorney Angela S. Marmion for Pat Brown, attorney Angela S. Marmion for Richard Matt (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 10/15/1996)
248 MOTION by defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Carmen Schulze to withdraw attorney Paul T. Keller (Court

10/30/1996
12/13/1996
12/30/1996 01/03/1997
01/10/1997 01/17/1997 01/28/1997 01/29/1997 01/31/1997 04/23/1997

Employee) (Entered: 10/21/1996)
249 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft motion to withdraw attorney Paul T. Keller [248−1] attorney Paul T. Keller for Carmen Schulze, attorney Paul T. Keller for Sandra Brooks, attorney Paul T. Keller for Gary − Stangler, attorney Paul T. Keller for Pat Brown, attorney Paul T. Keller for Richard Matt (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 10/30/1996)
250 CLERK'S JUDGMENT; Decision by Court; ORDERED that all motions for attorneys' fees and expenss through December 31, 1995 are hereby DISMISSED with prej;l and that the Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreement or agreements leading to the above−mentioned stipulation; (ORDER of 7/10/96) Entered on: 12/16/96 (cc:All Counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/16/1996)
252 MOTION by plaintiffs, and defendants to extend time to file challenges to certain conclusions of the Monitorng Committee's report (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/13/1997)
251 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the proposed budget of the Monitoring Committee herein for the year commencing January 1, 1997, in the total amount of $101,168.00 is hereby approved by the Court; the defendants shall pay the initial semi−annual payment of one−half of the proposed 1997 budget by January 31, 1997; that to expedite approval of the annual budgets in the future, the Monitoring Committee shall submit the proposed budget for the upcoming year to the parties by October 1 of each year; defendants shall have 30 dys thereafter to object (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
MAIL RETURNED: order [251−1] returned as undeliverable to Marilyn Shapiro for interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/10/1997)
253 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' and defendants' joint motion to extend time to file challenges to certain conclusions of the Monitorng Committee's report [252−1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
MAIL RETURNED: order [253−1] returned as undeliverable to Marilyn Shapiro for interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
254 Motion/Order for pro hac vice of atty Rebecca Kim Kimura on behalf of Terry Waters, Kimberly Walters, Rayhugh Majors Jr, Debbie Toth, Gregory Lhamon by Receipt #: 128038 in the amount of 25.00 (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/30/1997)
255 MOTION by plaintiffs, and defendants to modify consent decree with suggs (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/03/1997)
256 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion to modify consent decree with suggs [255−1]; paragraph II.A.4 of the Modified Consent Decree shall be modified as follows: DFS shall approve or deny an application to become a licensed or certified foster home w/in 120 days of receipt of that application; paragraph I.3 of Exhibit A to the Consent Decree (Exit Plan) shall be modified as follows: 80 percent of applications to become a foster parent or kinship parent shall be acted upon w/in 120 days of the receipt of a completed, official application form by the DFS licensing unit; all changes to the Modified Consent Decree outlined in this order shall have full force and effect retroactive to 7/1/96 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/24/1997)

04/28/1997 04/29/1997 04/30/1997 05/01/1997 05/02/1997 11/03/1997 05/04/1998 06/08/1998
06/08/1998
07/08/1998 07/13/1998 07/15/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 05/06/1999 08/26/1999

257 MOTION by plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to withdraw attorney Rebecca Kim Kimura (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 04/28/1997)
MAIL RETURNED: order [256−1] returned as undeliverable to Harriet J Lawrence for interested party Harriet J Lawrence (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
MAIL RETURNED: order [256−1] returned as undeliverable to Marilyn Shapiro for interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
258 Written status report (Report of Compliance) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
259 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to withdraw attorney Rebecca Kim Kimura [257−1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
260 Notice of Report of Compliance (January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 11/03/1997)
261 Written status report by the Monitoring Committee (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
262 JOINT MOTION by defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Carmen Schulze, plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to modify consent decree by deleting exit requirement 11.8 and the time limit contained in Exit requirement V.6 to a maximum of 45 days (Georgia Kee) Modified on 06/09/1998 (Entered: 06/09/1998)
263 JOINT MOTION by defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Carmen Schulze, plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to modify consent decree by modifying section 11.F.2.a.−c. &suggs (Georgia Kee) Modified on 06/09/1998 (Entered: 06/09/1998)
264 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting parties' motion to modify consent decree by modifying section 11.F.2.a.−c. [263−1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
MAIL RETURNED: order [264−1] returned as undeliverable to Marilyn Shapiro for interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Susan Larson) (Entered: 07/13/1998)
265 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion to modify consent decree by deleting exit requirement 11.8 and the time limit contained in Exit requirement V.6 to a maximum 45 days [262−1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/16/1998)
266 Written status report by interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro, interested party Donald Tharp (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
267 Written status report (could not find name of who filed) (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
268 Written status report (Report of Compliance) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/06/1999)
270 JOINT MOTION by defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Carmen Schulze, plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff

10/20/1999 10/28/1999 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 06/20/2000
07/03/2000 07/17/2000 11/01/2000 01/31/2001
02/20/2001 05/01/2001 11/01/2001 04/23/2002 04/26/2002 05/03/2002 07/16/2002

Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to modify consent decree (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 10/22/1999)
269 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion for an order modifying the Amended Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 10/20/1999)
MAIL RETURNED: order [269−1] returned as undeliverable to Marilyn Shapiro for interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
271 Written status report by Monitoring Committee (Jan 1, 1999 through June 30, 1999) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 11/01/1999)
272 APPENDIX filed re status report [271−1] (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 11/01/1999)
273 JOINT MOTION by defendant Richard Matt, defendant Pat Brown, defendant Gary − Stangler, defendant Sandra Brooks, defendant Carmen Schulze, plaintiff Terry Waters, plaintiff Kimberly Walters, plaintiff Rayhugh Majors Jr, plaintiff Debbie Toth, plaintiff Gregory Lhamon to modify consent decree and monitoring methodology (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 06/21/2000)
274 Written status report from the Monitoring Committee's Report of Compliance for the period of 7/1/1999 through 12/31/1999 (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/05/2000)
275 ORDER by Chief Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to modify consent decree and monitoring methodology [273−1] (cc: all counsel) (Cassaundra Honeycutt) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
276 Written status report filed by the Monitoring Committee for the review period of 01/01/00−through 06/30/00 (Michelle Kendall) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
277 Notice of Amended Modified Consent Decree, the Amended Revised Operational Guide, the Amended Exhibit A (Exit Plan) and the Amended Monitoring Methodology by interested party Harriet J Lawrence (to Chambers) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
278 Notice of Modification Report by interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
279 Written status report from the Monitoring Committee's Report of Compliance (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
280 Written status report: January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001 (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
281 JOINT MOTION by defendants', plaintiffs' to modify consent decree (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
282 ORDER by Chief Judge Dean Whipple granting parties' joint motion to modify consent decree [281−1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
283 Notice of Report of Compliance (July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001) by interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
284 Notice of Amended Modified Consent Decree Amended Revised Operational Guide (Decemer 21, 2000) by interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/25/2002)

07/16/2002 11/01/2002 05/01/2003 07/30/2003
08/20/2003
11/03/2003 04/15/2004
04/28/2004 05/03/2004 05/21/2004 08/20/2004
09/16/2004
09/27/2004 10/06/2004 11/10/2004

285 Notice of Amended Modified Consent Decree by interested party Harriet J Lawrence, interested party Marilyn Shapiro (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
286 Notice of Monitoring Committee's Report of Compliance (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
287 STATUS REPORT: Report of Compliance July 1, 2002 − December 31, 2002 (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
288 Joint MOTION for order to Modify Consent Decree amd Monitoring Methodology filed by Robert Presson on behalf of Sandra Brooks, Pat Brown, Richard Matt, Carmen Schulze, Gary − Stangler Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/14/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
289 ORDER − granting parties' joint motion and ORDERS that the amended consent decree and amended monitoring methodology be modified as set forth in the pending motion. 288 . Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 8/20/2003. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
290 STATUS REPORT: Report of Compliance January 1, 2003 − June 30, 2003. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
291 MOTION FOR RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT filed by Loretta E. Burns−Bucklew, Susan Lambiase on behalf of Gregory Lhamon, Rayhugh Majors Jr, Debbie Toth, Kimberly Walters, Terry Waters Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/30/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
292 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 291 MOTION for order TO MOTION FOR RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT filed by Robert Presson. Reply Suggestions due by 5/13/2004. (Related document(s) 291 ) (Presson, Robert) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
293 STATUS REPORT: Report of Complaince − July 1, 2003 − December 31, 2003. (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
294 ORDER − denying motion for resolution of potential conflict. 291 Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 5/21/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
295 ORDER − The Court finds that the procedure established in its July 15th Order comports with Rule 23(h). See FED.R.CIV.P. 23(h) advisory committee's note (2003 Amendments). Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 8/20/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 08/20/2004)
296 ORDER − an informal meeting with the members of the monitoring committee will be held on 11/10/2004 at 1:00 P.M. at Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. All parties must attend. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 9/16/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
297 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Harriet J. Lawrence. (Related document(s) 296 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
298 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Marilyn Shapiro. (Related document(s) 296 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
299 Minute Entry − for proceedings held before Judge Dean Whipple: CONFERENCE held on 11/10/2004. (Court Reporter Denna Lamken.) (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

12/16/2004 02/25/2005
03/09/2005
03/21/2005 03/30/2005 04/06/2005 04/07/2005 04/11/2005 12/29/2005 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/20/2006
02/01/2006

300 ORDER − The honorarium for each committee member is hereby increased to $7,500 per year beginning January 1, 2005. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 12/16/2004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
301 MOTION for order for motion to modify consent decree and monitoring methodology filed byLoretta E. Burns−Bucklew, Susan Lambiase, Robert Presson on behalf of Gregory Lhamon, Gary − Stangler Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/14/2005 unless otherwise directed by the court (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
302 ORDER − granting parties 301 motion and orders that the amended consent decree and amended Monitoring Methodology be modified as set forth in the pending motion. The parties, together with the Foster Care Monitoring Committee, are directed to incorporate the modifications into the Amended Consent Decree and Amended Monitoring Methodology, and then forward to the Court updated copies of each. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 3/9/2005. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
303 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable: Returned to Sender, Addressee unknown. Mail sent to Marilyn Shaprio. (Related document(s) 302 ) (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
304 ORDER − A conference will be held on 6/17/2005 at 9:30 A.M. at Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. All parties must attend. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 3/30/2005. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
305 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Harriet J. Lawrence. (Related document(s) 304 ) (Sullivan, Tanya) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
306 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Donald Tharp. (Related document(s) 304 ) (Sullivan, Tanya) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
307 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Marilyn Shapiro. (Related document(s) 304 ) (Sullivan, Tanya) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
308 ORDER − that the proposed budget for January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2006, in the total amount of $39,750.00 is approved by the Court. The defendants shall pay the full amount by January 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 12/29/2005. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
309 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable as addressed. Unable to forward. Mail sent to Donald Tharp. (Related document(s) 308 ) (Carr, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
310 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Harriett J Lawrence. (Related document(s) 308 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
311 Joint MOTION to dismiss case filed byLoretta E. Burns−Bucklew on behalf of all parties Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/6/2006 unless otherwise directed by the court (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Conditions of Dismissal without Prejudice)(Burns−Bucklew, Loretta) Modified on 1/23/2006 to modify the description of the document (Kee, Georgia). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
312 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dean Whipple : STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/1/2006. (Court Reporter Denna Lamken.) (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

02/01/2006

313 ORDER granting 311 motion to dismiss case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 2/1/06. (Diefenbach, Tracy) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

 
 G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)

731 F.Supp. 365 United States District Court, W.D. Missouri,
Western Division.
G.L., An Infant, by and through his Next Friend, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
John ZUMWALT, et al., Defendants.
No. 77–0242–CV–W–4–JWO. | Feb. 20, 1990.
In action regarding the processing of applications for Aid to Families With Dependent Children benefits, plaintiffs moved for an order holding defendants in contempt of certain consent decrees. The District Court, John W. Oliver, Senior District Judge, held that plaintiffs failed to allege with specificity facts showing that defendants were in contempt of the consent decrees.
So ordered.
See also, D.C., 564 F.Supp. 1030.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*365 Fred Rich, Legal Aid of Western Missouri, Kansas City, Mo., and Christopher A. Hansen and Jeffrey B. Gracer, Children’s Rights Project, Amer. Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for plaintiffs.
*366 Gary Stangler, Exec. Deputy Director, Mo. Dept. of Social Services, Jefferson City, Mo., and Paul Keller and Melody A. Emmert, Children’s Services, Mo. Dept. of Social Services, Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
JOHN W. OLIVER, Senior District Judge.
I

Although this case presently pends on defendants’ February 5, 1990 motion for an extension of time to respond, it must be recognized that the extension of time is sought in regard to plaintiffs’ January 22, 1990 motion that seeks, among other things, an order holding defendants in contempt of the consent decrees entered by this Court. It is not appropriate that defendants’ pending motion for an extension be ruled at this time. Because the Court has not heretofore worked with counsel who signed the motion papers, we will state the reasons for the entry of orders directing further proceedings in greater detail than is usually the case.
A.
[1] It is appropriate to recognize at the outset that plaintiffs underlying motion seeks to invoke the power and jurisdiction conferred on this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401 which provides in its relevant part that:
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
....
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command....
Consent decrees, of course, are subject to enforcement pursuant to the power conferred by Section 401. To the uninitiated, the approval and the entry of a consent decree is a happy day for counsel for the parties and for the Court. The litigation has apparently been finally resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. Although consent decrees usually provide for the retention of jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement, the case is marked “closed” by the Clerk’s office and is removed from the active docket of the Court.
Experience, however, establishes that the implicit hopes shared by counsel and by the court that the entry of a consent decree will be the end of the litigation are frequently destroyed by subsequent proceedings that seek the enforcement of particular provisions included in the consent decree. Experience also establishes that the Supreme Court and the various courts of appeals have given the district courts but very little practical guidance
1

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)

in regard to the procedures to be followed in order to obtain compliance with the provisions of a consent decree.
In our consideration of whether the consent decree presented by the parties for approval in United States v. Associated Milk Producers, 394 F.Supp. 29 (W.D.Mo.1975), should be approved we considered and discussed the “relatively infrequent decisions relating to consent decrees” that had been decided by the Supreme Court.1 Id. at 41. Various facets relating to the enforcement of consent decrees, however, were considered in three recent opinions of the Supreme Court: *367 Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Counsel, 478 U.S. 546, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986); and Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990).

1

We further noted that although “somewhere between 70

and 80% of all civil antitrust complaints filed by the

Department of Justice are terminated by consent

decrees” very little attention “has been focused on the

question of whether and how consent decrees have been

enforced.” 394 F.Supp. at 46. We therefore entered a

supplemental order which established the procedures

under which the consent decree approved in that case

would be enforced. See Appendix C, id. at 56. The

Court of Appeals affirmed in 534 F.2d 113 (8th

Cir.1976). Certiorari was denied in 429 U.S. 940, 97

S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976). The enforcement

procedures were followed in United States v.

Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 477 F.Supp. 671

(W.D.Mo.1979). The background that led to the

promulgation of the supplemental order is fully stated

in that case.

Delaware Valley is relevant to this case only in the sense that it reflects the fact that proceedings involving the enforcement of a consent decree is no race for the short winded or those who are faint of heart. For the Court noted that the “[e]ntry of the consent decree marked only the beginning of this story, for implementation of the I/M program did not proceed smoothly.”2 It is something of an understatement to say that the same thing is true in this case.

2

Marcia Robinson Lowry, whose name is listed as one

of the members of the Children’s Rights Project of the

ACLU staff who filed plaintiffs’ suggestions in

opposition to defendants’ motion for an extension of

time, recognized the same point in her article Derring–Do in the 1980s: Child Welfare Impact Litigation After the Warren Years, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XX, No. 2 (Summer 1986) at 255. On page 274, she accurately stated: “There is a developing literature concerning the legal problems raised by the enforcement of institutional litigation. Whatever the problems, and the possibilities of judicial-legislative confrontation over the question of how far the court may go in remedying violations of court-ordered judgments, it seems clear that the obtaining of a judgment is only the first step.” She concluded that article by stating that “[w]e know little enough about what works, at this stage, particularly in a field, unlike mental retardation, special education or even prison reform, in which there is no well-developed and acceptable technology for what works.” Id. at 280.
Although Firefighters v. Cleveland presented the narrow question of whether Section 706(g) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 precluded the entry of a consent decree which provided relief that may benefit individuals who were not victims of the defendant’s discriminatory practice, the Court was nevertheless required to consider the contention that the Court had, in its past consent decree cases, “recognized as a general principle that a consent decree cannot provide greater relief than a court could have decreed after a trial.” 478 U.S. 501 at 524, 106 S.Ct. 3063 at 3076. The Court accordingly reviewed its past consent decree cases and rejected that contention. The Court concluded that “a federal court is not necessarily barred from entering a consent decree merely because the decree provides broader relief than the court could have awarded after a trial.” Id.
Spallone, the Court’s most recent consent decree enforcement case, illustrates the care and patience that a district court must utilize in exercising the power and discretion vested in it in regard to the enforcement of a consent decree. The majority opinion, over the dissenting opinion’s protest that the Court did no more than “play district court-for-a-day,” concluded that the district court had abused its discretion in regard to the contempt sanctions imposed in regard to the individual councilman of the City of Yonkers because it had failed to comply with the doctrine first stated in Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821) (later quoted in Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966)) that “ ‘a court must exercise “[t]he least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821); In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 227 [66 S.Ct. 78, 79, 90
2

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)

L.Ed. 30] (1945).’ Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S., at 371 [86 S.Ct. at 1536].” 493 U.S. at ––––, 110 S.Ct. at 632.3

3

Part III of the dissenting opinion, we believe accurately

states that the majority opinion “creates no new

principle of law.” That dissent, however, suggests that

the Court’ decision “directs a message to district judges

that, despite their repeated and close contact with the

various parties and issues, even the most delicate

remedial choices by the most conscientious and

deliberate judges are subject to being second-guessed

by this Court.” At ––––, 110 S.Ct. at 648. Justice

Brennan then added “I hope such a message will not

daunt the courage of district courts who, if ever again

faced with such protracted defiance, must carefully yet

firmly secure compliance with their remedial orders.”

Id.

This Court anticipates that it will have the cooperation and assistance of counsel for both parties in its careful consideration of the questions presented by plaintiffs’ motion that seeks defendants’ compliance with the consent decrees entered in this case. The first step that must be taken, *368 however, is the determination of whether a finding of contempt should or should not be made under the facts and the applicable law.

B.
Plaintiffs’ 73–page motion concludes with a prayer that a single order be entered that would include the following relief:
1. affirming the Committee’s Recommendations 1, 2(d), 2(e), 7, 16, 19, 20, 28, 30, 31, and 35 and enforcing each of those recommendations;
2. finding defendants in civil contempt for violating the Court’s orders dated March 21, 1983, July 29, 1985 and March 15, 1988;
3. directing that within 120 days of the date a contempt finding is entered against defendants, the Committee recommend final implementation time frames for each section or subsection of the Consent Decree;
4. requiring defendants to adhere to those time frames;

5. putting defendants on notice that further penalties will result if those time frames are not met;
6. substituting and adding the persons designated in this motion as parties defendant; and
7. granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. (Emphasis added.)
Doc. 103 at 72.
Plaintiffs’ allegations in regard to why “the court should find defendants in contempt,” made to support paragraph 2 of plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, are set forth in paragraphs 196–199, inclusive, on pages 68 and 69 of that motion. Paragraph 200 on page 70 of plaintiffs’ motion, also included under the plaintiffs’ subhead entitled “[t]he Court should find defendants in contempt,” alleges that “[a]s a remedy for contempt, plaintiffs suggest that the Court order that: (a) the formal recommendations be affirmed and enforced; (b) the Committee establish time frames for compliance with each section or subsection of the Consent Decree; (c) that defendants be required to adhere to those time frames; and (d) that defendants be placed on notice that their failure to comply with the time frames will result in penalties.”4 (Emphasis added.) Doc. 103 at 70.

4

All of the 205 paragraphs of plaintiffs’ motion,

excepting only paragraphs 196 to 199, inclusive, are for

the most part focused on the remedy that plaintiffs seek

rather than on the question of whether defendants, on

the facts and under the law, have failed to comply with

consent decrees entered by this Court.

The prayer of plaintiffs’ motion shows on its face that plaintiffs implicitly recognize that if they are not entitled to the relief prayed for in paragraph 2 of their motion (praying for a contempt finding), that plaintiffs would not be entitled to the relief prayed for in the other paragraphs of the prayer of that motion. For plaintiffs recognize that the relief prayed for in all the paragraphs of plaintiffs’ prayer other than paragraph 2 should not be directed until after “a contempt finding is entered against defendants,” as expressly alleged in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs’ prayer.
It is therefore of paramount importance that procedures be designed to put first things first in order that the Court can determine whether a contempt finding should or should not be entered. Consideration of any other question, particularly questions of remedy would be premature until
3

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990) after that threshold question is determined.

C.
The factual circumstances relied on by plaintiffs in paragraphs 196–199 of their motion are alleged in general and conclusory language. Paragraph 196 generally alleges that the Committee’s recommendations were “based on facts that establish serious noncompliance with the Consent Decree or other orders in this case.”5 *369 Doc. 103 at 68. That paragraph does not specifically allege the “facts” upon which plaintiffs rely.

5

Paragraph 196 also alleges that the facts are “more fully

discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law,

... also justify a finding of contempt.” Doc. 103 at 68.

When plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law is examined,

however, the Court is sent back to plaintiffs’ motion.

On page 11 of the Memorandum, plaintiffs state “[a]s

set forth in the accompanying motion, defendants have

failed to comply with the Consent Decree and this

Court’s subsequent orders, dated July 29, 1985 and

March 15, 1988....” (Emphasis added.) Memo. of Law

at 11. And on page 13 of their Memorandum, plaintiffs

reiterate that: “As set forth in greater detail in plaintiffs’

Motion, defendants are not in complete, or almost

complete, compliance with the Consent Decree.” Id. at

13. Paragraph 196’s incorporation of plaintiffs’

Memorandum by reference adds nothing to the

conclusory language of that paragraph.

Paragraphs 197 and 198 in the same manner, makes reference to the Committee’s recommendations and generally alleges that those recommendations were “based on defendants’ outright defiance of the Consent Decree” (id.) and were also “based on admissions by defendants, defendants’ documents, and the Joint Audits.” Id. at 69. Those two paragraphs do contain references to particular paragraphs of the Consent Decree and also contain parenthetical allegations that the Committee’s recommendations were “based on undisputed facts showing that [social worker] visits are not taking place” (id. at 68–69) (emphasis added) and were “also based on undisputed facts showing that foster parents are not receiving the mandatory training.” Id. at 69 (emphasis added). Indeed, plaintiffs allege that “contempt is clear and the facts not seriously in dispute.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

D.
The question of whether or not the facts upon which plaintiffs rely to support the entry of an order finding defendants in contempt are in dispute must be given immediate and particular attention. For if there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” within the meaning of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in regard to the question of whether plaintiffs are “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” in regard to the relief prayed for in paragraph 2 of their motion may be determined in accordance with the procedures provided in that rule.
Experience establishes that most contempt motions may be and are presented on stipulations of fact agreed to by the parties pursuant to appropriate procedures agreed to by the parties. In cases in which counsel refuse to cooperate with each other and with the Court, the remaining contempt motions are usually presented and decided under Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.
It is therefore appropriate that primary consideration be given to whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for in paragraph 2 of their motion. For until and unless plaintiffs establish that defendants are, in fact and in law in contempt, it is quite premature to consider the complex questions relating to what remedies plaintiffs may be entitled under the circumstances of this case. A detailed order will accordingly be entered but will require plaintiffs to put in more particular focus the factual data upon which they rely to support their prayer that defendants be held in contempt.
E.
The procedural problems presented in this case are quite similar to those presented in Thompson v. Walsh, 481 F.Supp. 1170 (W.D.Mo.1979). Thompson was transferred to this division of the Court after plaintiffs in that case had filed contempt motions that alleged that defendants were not in substantial compliance with the applicable 45–day time limit for processing AFDC applications as required by applicable federal law and, more particularly, by a preliminary injunction entered by then Chief Judge Becker on November 24, 1976.
4

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)

This Court’s December 19, 1979 memorandum and order granting plaintiffs’ motions for contempt in Thompson, published in 481 F.Supp. 1170, shows that those motions were decided on a stipulated record agreed to by the parties after appropriate pretrial procedures were conducted. Copies of some of the memoranda and orders entered in Thompson that will generally reflect the procedures followed in that case are attached as Appendix A for the information *370 of counsel. That appendix follows page 374 of this memorandum opinion.
The procedures reflected in Appendix A, modified to fit the circumstances of a particular case, are generally the same procedures that have been satisfactorily followed in a substantial number of other contempt cases that have pended in this division of this Court over the years. Counsel are requested to carefully review the memoranda and orders contained in Appendix A before the conference that will be convened pursuant to an order of Court for the reasons that one of the principal questions that will be discussed at that conference will be whether the parties may be able to agree that similar procedures may be followed in this case.

F.
In order to assist counsel in their study of the memoranda and orders contained in Appendix A it is appropriate that the Court fill in some of the gaps that are not apparent on the face of that data.
The Order of October 25, 1979 in Thompson was entered after a productive pretrial conference had been conducted with counsel. The parties were thus able to agree upon a full stipulation of all facts and the Court was accordingly able to enter its memorandum and orders granting plaintiffs’ motions for civil contempt on November 19, 1979. That memorandum was published in 481 F.Supp. 1170.6

6

It is important to note that we stated in our published

order that “experience teaches that most judges

recognize that the judicial task of determining whether

a particular State is in compliance with applicable

federal welfare law is an infinitely easier judicial task

than designing and selecting an appropriate remedy

which will assist and enable a State to cure its default

and to administer the welfare program in accordance

with applicable federal law.” 481 F.Supp. at 1177. Experience in this case confirms what was said in Thompson.
This Court’s January 30, 1980 order in Thompson was entered in implementation of Order (2) entered December 19, 1979 and reflects this Court’s concern as to whether the Secretary of the Department of Health and Welfare should be made a party or invited to participate as an amicus to assist the Court in designing an appropriate remedy.
The memorandum and order entered March 4, 1980 reflects the unwillingness of the Secretary to be of assistance. On page 4 of that order we stated that:
This Court cannot accept the notion, apparently held by both the Deputy Regional Attorney of HEW and by counsel for the plaintiffs, that the only remedy available to HEW under the statutes and regulations is termination of federal funding and that HEW is somehow excused from any responsibility for monitoring the State of Missouri’s compliance with federal law.
Although further efforts were made in that regard, those efforts proved to be unsuccessful.
Accordingly, and after obtaining the views of counsel, the Court entered its final judgment, order and decree in Thompson on May 2, 1980. Paragraph 11 of that decree was designed to get the Secretary involved, regardless of whether the Secretary wished to be concerned with the manner in which the State of Missouri was administering the AFDC program.
This Court’s final judgment, order and decree was appealed to the Eighth Circuit and this Court was affirmed in Thompson v. Freeman, 648 F.2d 1144 (8th Cir.1981), with directions, however, that paragraph 11 of the decree be deleted. This Court accordingly on June 26, 1981 amended the May 2, 1980 decree by deleting paragraph 11 in compliance with the mandate of the Court of Appeals.
The memorandum and orders directing further proceedings entered on January 11, 1983 will reflect that
5

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
plaintiffs thereafter filed a new motion for civil contempt in Thompson. On page 3 of that order we stated that “[o]ur memorandum opinion in Thompson v. Walsh, 481 F.Supp. 1170 (W.D.Mo.1979) shows ... that our determination of the then pending motion for contempt was processed on a stipulation of facts agree to by the parties.” We added that “[w]e will therefore enter orders directing further proceedings similar to those *371 entered and followed in 1979 in order that the merits of plaintiffs’ pending motion for contempt may be decided on a factual record agreeable to all the parties.” Id. at 3–4.
The order entered March 28, 1983 establishes that the parties’ preparation of a stipulation of fact established that there had been “a dramatic increase in defendants’ compliance rate with processing AFDC applications” and both parties requested that the new motion for civil contempt be held in abeyance for 120 days. No further action was required in regard to plaintiffs’ second motion for contempt.
The order entered October 29, 1986 establishes that plaintiffs filed still another motion for civil contempt. Essentially the same procedures were followed in connection with that motion. The order entered March 16, 1987 in Thompson reflects the agreement of the parties that they would present to the Court papers that would provide for the ultimate disposition of plaintiffs’ third motion for contempt.
We have included a copy of the final Consent Decree entered in Thompson on April 30, 1987 in Appendix A for the reason that decree reflects the exemplary cooperative manner in which the parties eventually resolved the complicated problems incident to processing applications of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in a timely manner. Paragraph 72, page 18 of the final consent decree approved in Thompson reflects the parties’ appropriate recognition that some issues in dispute may appropriately be separated for later determination of the Court. Paragraph 72 accordingly stated the parties’ specific agreement that “this Consent Decree does not encompass resolution of the appropriateness of a fine under Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt” and their further agreement that they would “submit the matter of the fine requested by plaintiffs and the attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs to the Court for a final determination.”
Detailed procedures were set forth in paragraphs 74 to 76, pages 18–19 of the Thompson consent decree under which the sole remaining issues of fines and attorney’s fees were to be resolved. It was not necessary, however, for the

Court to decide either of those disputed issues.
The stipulation of the parties filed February 23, 1988 (approved by the Court on February 26, 1988) established that defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees in the amount of $59,525.25 and that plaintiffs withdrew their request that defendants be fined or otherwise subjected to a penalty.7

7

The $59,525.25 of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees agreed to

by the parties in Thompson is in sharp contrast with the

attorney’s fees and the Special Master fees that have

already been awarded in Joseph A. by Wolfe v. New

Mexico Dept. of Human Services, No. 80–06235B, that

has long pended and still pends in the District of New

Mexico. (Judge Burciaga’s denial of a motion to

dismiss is reported in 575 F.Supp. 346 (D.N.M.1983)).

The docket sheet shows that over $1,000,000.00 in

plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and Special Master fees have

been awarded in that case.

The docket sheet shows that the cooperation parties extended to each other and to this Court in Thompson has obviated the necessity of plaintiffs filing any additional motions seeking enforcement of the various decrees entered in Thompson.
We know of no reason why the procedures followed in Thompson, which have been followed in many other contempt cases both before and after Thompson, may not, with whatever modifications that may be appropriate, be followed in this case.

II
A.
Plaintiffs’ February 8, 1990 suggestions in opposition to defendants’ motion for enlargement of time state that “[d]efendants, their counsel and DFS officials have been in negotiations with plaintiffs concerning the subject matter of the Motion for the last seven months.” Doc. 107 at 2. Defendants’ February 5, 1990 suggestions in opposition state that “defendants’ efforts at compliance are ongoing and are presently being directed by a thorough implementation *372 plan which was presented to the monitoring committee during the fall.” Doc. 106 at
6

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)

2–3.
This Court, of course, has not been advised of how the apparently lengthy negotiations between the parties were conducted or who participated in those negotiations.
It is, of course, a most helpful circumstance to learn that the parties have, in fact, been attempting to resolve their difficulties in accordance with paragraph XV–G of the 1983 Consent Decree.8 The Court, however, simply does not presently have sufficient information to determine whether the time within which the defendants should be required to file a response to plaintiffs’ January 22, 1990 motion should be extended to April 16, 1990, as defendants suggest, or until February 19, 1990, as plaintiffs suggest. Indeed, the Court does not really know whether the filing of a response to that motion would materially advance the determination of the real issues presented in this case.

8

Paragraph XV–G of the 1983 Consent Decree

provided: “This decree shall remain in full force and

effect unless specifically modified by agreement of the

parties. Prior to initiating formal enforcement

proceedings, plaintiffs shall notify defendants of any

area(s) of noncompliance and shall attempt to resolve

such issues without the assistance of the Court. In the

event that the issues are not resolved within thirty (30)

days following notice to defendants, plaintiffs may

move the Court to enforce this decree.” (Emphasis

added.)

B.
In order to obtain additional information, it is appropriate that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that shortly after the 1983 Consent Decree was approved by Judge Clark on March 25, 1983, the General Assembly of Missouri enacted H.B. 256, approved June 23, 1983. See Laws of 1983 at 504. That Act established the Missouri Children’s Service Commission. Section 2 of the Act expressly required that the Commission:
Report annually to the governor with five copies each to the House of Representatives and Senate about its activities including, but not limited to the following:
....

(c) Recommendations for statutory and appropriation initiatives to implement the integrated state plan;
....
(e) A report from the commission regarding the state of children in Missouri;
(f) A report on implementation of the consent decree in the case of G.L. v. Zumwalt. (Emphasis added).
The Commission’s annual report in regard to the Commission’s view of how “the consent decree in the case of G.L. v. Zumwalt” was being implemented is of obvious importance to the Court and the parties in this case.9 An order will be entered that will require the defendants to produce the portions of the annual reports of the Children’s Service Commission that included the Commission’s compliance with subparagraphs (8)(c), (e), and (f) of Section 2 of the Act approved June 23, 1983.

9

Section 2 of H.B. 256 was rewritten in 1989. That

section now appears as § 210.102 V.A.M.S. While

subparagraph (f) of the 1983 Act was eliminated,

subparagraph (e) requiring a report “regarding the state

of children in Missouri” was re-enacted.

C.
[2] It is also appropriate for the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that federal funding for state foster care systems is made available to the states under Title IV of the Social Security Act. See Pub.L. 96–272, 42 U.S.C. § 670, et seq. Administration of federal foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance, and child welfare services is administered in accordance with the regulations set forth in 45 C.F.R. §§ 1355.10, et seq., 1356.10, et seq., and 1357.10, et seq.10

10

The sections of the Code of Federal Regulations cited

in the text are taken from the United States Code

Annotation of 42 U.S.C. § 670.

Part 1356 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth the requirements specifically applicable to Title IV–E of the Social Security Act. Present attention need be *373 directed only to C.F.R. § 1356.20(c)(1) which states that:
7

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)

(c) The following procedures for approval of State plans and amendments apply to the title IV–E program:
(1) The State plan consists of written documents furnished by the State to cover its program under Part E of title IV. After approval of the original plan by the Commissioner, ACYF, all relevant changes, required by new statutes, rules, regulations, interpretations, and court decisions, are required to be submitted currently so that ACYF may determine whether the plan continues to meet Federal requirements and policies. (Emphasis added.)
It is appropriate to enter an order directing the defendants to produce the written documents furnished by the State to cover its program under Title IV–E of the Act that included any and all references made to the Consent Decree and the Supplemental Consent Decree entered by this Court in this case.
It is entirely possible that C.F.R. § 1356.20(c)(1)’s requirement that the impact of “court decisions” be reported so that the ACYF may determine whether the State’s plan continues to meet federal requirements is merged with the CAP submission the State is required to submit under 46 C.F.R. §§ 95.505–.507.11

11

The State’s CAP was litigated in another division of

this Court in State of Mo. v. Bowen, 638 F.Supp. 37

(W.D.1986). The district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Secretary was affirmed by the

Court of Appeals in 813 F.2d 864 (8th Cir.1987).

Footnote 6, page 866 of the Court of Appeals’ opinion

indicates that the State CAP made substantial changes

in regard to its Title IV–E funds.

Defendants will understand that their response to the order that will be entered in regard to the written documents furnished by the State under Title IV–E should include all documents that may have been submitted as a part of the State’s CAP plan.
The order relating to the production of the portions of the annual report of the Missouri Children’s Service Commission and the order concerning the States’ Title IV–E plan will require the production of that data before the date of the conference between the Court and counsel will be scheduled so that such data may be considered and discussed at the conference. The same thing is true of the order entered requiring plaintiffs to file a response concerning their factual claims.

For the reasons stated, it is
ORDERED (1) that on or before March 3, 1990, plaintiffs shall prepare, serve, and file a response to this Order (1) which will clearly identify the particular provisions of the Court’s orders dated March 21, 1983, July 29, 1985, and March 15, 1988 to which plaintiffs made reference in paragraph 2 of the prayer of their January 22, 1990 motion. In addition to that identification, plaintiffs shall clearly state in regard to each identified paragraph the factual data which plaintiffs contend would show that there is not a genuine issue as to any material fact in regard to plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to a finding that defendants are in contempt of this Court.
Plaintiffs’ response to this Order (1) shall also state (a) whether plaintiffs believe that the parties should be able to agree on appropriate stipulations under which plaintiffs’ prayer for a contempt finding, as alleged in paragraph 2 of the prayer of its January 22, 1990 motion, could be presented and decided by the Court and (b) whether counsel for the plaintiffs are willing to cooperate with counsel for the defendants and with this Court in a good faith effort to enter into such stipulations. It is further
ORDERED (2) that on or before March 3, 1990, defendants shall prepare, serve, and file a response to this Order (2) to which will be attached copies of the portions of the annual reports of Missouri Children’s Service Commissions that included the Commission’s compliance with subparagraphs (8)(c), (e), and (f) of Section 2 of the Act approved June 23, 1983 (Mo.Laws of 1983 at 504).
Defendants shall also attach to their response to this Order (2) copies of the written documents furnished by the State to *374 cover its program under Title IV–E of the Social Security Act that included any and all references made to the Consent Decree and Supplemental Consent Decree entered in this case.
Defendants’ response to this Order (2) shall also include a statement as to whether counsel for the defendants are willing to cooperate with counsel for the plaintiffs and with this Court in a good faith effort to enter into stipulations of fact under which plaintiffs’ alleged right to a contempt finding as alleged in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs’ January 22, 1990 motion could be presented and determined by the Court. It is further
ORDERED (3) that a conference is hereby scheduled to
8

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
commence on March 7, 1990, at 1:30 p.m. in this Division of the Court. It is further
ORDERED (4) that if counsel for the parties are in agreement that the dates set in Orders (1), (2), and (3) should be adjusted, they shall confer and agree upon an order modifying those dates and shall submit the same for the approval of the Court.

pretrial conference in order that further appropriate directions may be made under the circumstances. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ John W. Oliver
Chief Judge

APPENDIX A
Mabel Thompson, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
James F. Walsh, et al., Defendants.
No. 75 CV 494–W–B–1
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division
ORDER
October 25, 1979 The parties have agreed to confer, and prepare and file on or before November 15, 1979, a stipulation of facts upon which the pending motions for contempt may be considered. If the parties are able to enter a full stipulation of all the facts, said stipulation shall also include an agreed schedule of briefs. If the parties are unable to agree upon a full stipulation, they shall file the partial stipulation upon which they are able to agree and request the Court to convene a further

ORDER
January 30, 1980
On December 19, 1979, this Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for civil contempt, finding defendant in violation of the order of November 24, 1976 entered by the Honorable William H. Becker, then Chief Judge of this Court. The November 24, 1976 order required defendant to process applications for Aid to Families with Dependent Children within forty-five (45) days of the date of filing.
In paragraph (2) of the December 19, 1979 order this Court directed counsel to “convene ... to determine whether this Court should seek the views of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Welfare as either a party or as an amicus to assist it in designing an appropriate remedy consistent with the order granting plaintiffs’ motions for contempt.”
Counsel have met in accordance with paragraph (2). In a letter dated January 16, 1980 defendant states that he “believe[s] HEW should appear as an amicus.” In his “Report to the Court” mailed that same date, plaintiff states that he “do[es] not object to the participation of HEW as an amicus.” The report of plaintiffs’ counsel also states that “[t]he Court should also be aware that in both Illinois and Connecticut, the chosen remedy worked.”
The Court is not aware the remedies chosen in Illinois and Connecticut “worked.” Nor is it aware which remedy “worked” the best. Nor is it aware of whether some other remedy “worked” better than those devised in Rodriguez v. Swank, 496 F.2d 1110 (7th Cir.1974) and Class v. Norton, 376 F.Supp. 496 (D.Conn.1972). This Court is interested in entering an order, which it hopes would be agreeable to the parties in this case, that will effectively
9

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
remove any necessity for any *375 further judicial supervision. This Court suggested that counsel consider whether the Court should seek the view of the Secretary of the HEW for the purpose of having accurate information in regard to (1) whether the remedy directed in the Rodriguez case was more or less effective than that directed in the Class case and, of equal importance, (2) whether some other entirely different remedy might be more effective than any heretofore directed by any court.
The reports of counsel show that they have been in at least telephone contact with “several officials and lawyers at HEW.” The Court is satisfied that counsel should be afforded a further opportunity to conduct an across-the-table conference with each other and with representatives of HEW for the purpose of attempting to agree upon an appropriate decree which reflects the best judgment of everyone concerned in regard to the most effective remedy to be directed in this case. The Court is confident that informed persons within the Department of Health and Welfare will be happy to advise counsel of the experience that Department has had in other States and to indicate their view in regard to how the problems encountered in the State of Missouri may be solved.
Should counsel not be able to agree upon the form of an approved judgment and decree, each side should certainly present the form of judgment and decree which they believe the Court should enter under the circumstances.
Accordingly, and for the purpose stated, it is
ORDERED (1) that counsel shall promptly convene an across-the-table conference in accordance with what we have stated above for the purpose of attempting to agree upon the form of the judgment and decree to be entered in this case. It is further
ORDERED (2) that in the event that counsel fail to agree upon the form of judgment and decree to be entered they shall prepare, serve, and file not later than February 8, 1980 a notice indicating this. Also, in this event, each party shall forward to the Court a form of judgment and decree that he believes should be entered. It is further
ORDERED (3) that in the event counsel are not able to reach full agreement on the form of judgment and decree to be entered, they shall meet with this Court on February 12, 1980 at 1:30 p.m.
Counsel shall in this event request that Ms. Caroline French, Deputy Regional Attorney for Region VII of

HEW, be invited to attend the conference conditionally scheduled for February 12, 1980, together with staff persons familiar with the problems we have discussed above. /s/ John W. Oliver
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS
March 4, 1980
In accordance with directions made at the pretrial conference held February 19, 1980, the Court has received a letter from the Deputy Regional Attorney for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare dated February 26, 1980, and a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel dated February 29, 1980. Statements in both those letters, to which we will make reference, suggest that the Court is in need of additional factual information for the purpose of drafting an appropriate judgment and decree in the above entitled cause.
The letter of the Deputy Regional Attorney of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare directs attention to the applicable statutes which impose the mandatory requirement that a State plan shall include provisions requiring prompt decision on applications within 45 days, subject to particular narrow exceptions. That letter also directs attention to section 404(a) of the Social Security Act which authorizes the withholding of federal payments if a State does not substantially comply with the mandatory federal time requirements of a particular State plan.
The letter of the Deputy Regional Attorney further directs attention to the provision of section 404(a) which places the duty *376 upon the Secretary to serve notice on a state agency that further payments will not be made to the State until the Secretary is satisfied that the State is in fact in compliance.
And, finally, that letter directs attention to the Regulations designed to implement section 404(a) which contemplate that (a) informational discussions to be convened to resolve the questions involved, and that (b) compliance
10

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
hearings be conducted upon notice in the event informational discussions prove to be unsuccessful. The Regulations also provide for appropriate review in a United States Court of Appeals of any final determination made by the Secretary under the circumstances. The Deputy Regional Attorney of HEW, however, concludes that:
Federal law provides only one remedy to the Department—that is to withhold Federal financial participation from the State after there has been a hearing and a finding that the State did not substantially comply with any of the provisions of the Social Security Act or the regulations in the administration of the State plan.
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter of February 29, 1980 states that “HEW’s record in monitoring defendants’ compliance with federal processing standards has been abysmal” and that “plaintiffs understandably have little confidence in HEW’s ability to successfully monitor defendants’ compliance with federal law.” Consistent with the narrow view of the applicable statutes and regulations expressed by the Deputy Regional Attorney of HEW, counsel for the plaintiffs also adopt the notion that “the only remedy available to HEW in cases of non-compliance is termination of funding.” (Plaintiffs’ counsels’ emphasis).
This Court is familiar with the fact that the general pattern for administrative relief provided in the Social Security Act and the Regulations promulgated to implement that Act follow a pattern consistent with that used in connection with the administration of many federal programs. That well established administrative pattern, if properly implemented, provides many practical and effective remedies short of the termination of funding. Those remedies include as a first step, as do the Regulations quoted in the letter of the Deputy Regional Attorney, appropriate provision for informational discussions with State officials to provide reasonable opportunity for resolution of the questions presented. In the event these discussions fail to cure the difficulty, appropriate provision is made for further steps which include the conducting of compliance hearings.
None of those preliminary remedies involve the immediate termination of federal funding. The applicable statutes and regulations contemplate administrative

procedures under which the State is given appropriate notice that unless conditions of non-compliance are corrected, the State may lose its federal funding. Indeed, the Regulations imply that federal funding will continue until and unless the final determination of the Secretary that such funding be terminated is affirmed in an appropriate United States Court of Appeals.
This Court has heretofore requested accurate information in regard to the manner in which HEW has in fact monitored the State of Missouri’s compliance with its own plan. It has also directed that a copy of our memorandum and orders of December 19, 1980 granting plaintiffs’ motions for civil contempt be forwarded to the Secretary of HEW so that this Court could have the benefit of a national rather than a regional view of the problems presented. Specific inquiry has heretofore been made in regard to what may have happened to the investigation launched by HEW to which the Court of Appeals made specific reference in footnote 1 on page 804 of its decision in Like v. Carter, 448 F.2d 798 (8th Cir.1971). This Court stated in its memorandum opinion of December 19, 1978 that “the record in this case [does not] show why the hope expressed by the Court of Appeals in [Like v. Carter ] in regard to the 1971 HEW investigation was not realized.”
This Court cannot accept the notion, apparently held by both the Deputy Regional *377 Attorney of HEW and by counsel for the plaintiffs, that the only remedy available to HEW under the statutes and regulations is termination of federal funding and that HEW is somehow excused from any responsibility for monitoring the State of Missouri’s compliance with federal law.
We do not know whether the informational discussions required under 45 C.F.R. § 201.6(c) are open to the public but we are satisfied that if the second step of holding a compliance hearing were necessary, such a hearing undoubtedly would be a matter of public record. The whole theory of requiring such a public hearing is to force public attention and discussion upon the manner in which a State may be risking loss of future federal funding by an apparent failure to comply with its federally approved State plan.
This Court does not have any accurate information in regard to HEW’s record in monitoring defendants’ compliance with federal processing standards. The Court is confident, however, that if that record is in fact “abysmal,” as plaintiffs’ counsel suggests, that enforcement procedures similar to those provided in
11

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 394 F.Supp. 29 (W.D.Mo.1975), would certainly avoid the possibility that HEW would be able to accept “unsubstantiated statistics” or to rely upon statistics which were “clearly inaccurate,” as plaintiffs’ counsel charge in their letter of February 29, 1980.
It should be apparent from what is stated above and from what this Court stated in its memorandum opinion of December 19, 1979, that this Court must have accurate factual data in regard to how HEW has in fact attempted to monitor the State of Missouri’s compliance with federal processing standards from at least the time of the report and recommendations of the hearing examiner dated May 3, 1971, as stated in the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Like v. Carter, supra.
For the reasons stated it is
ORDERED (1) that HEW shall prepare, serve, and file a response to this order in which it shall attach the report and recommendations of the hearing examiner, dated May 3, 1971, together with a copy of all administrative steps which HEW has made since that time in purported compliance with the statutes and regulations cited in the Deputy Regional Attorney’s letter to this Court dated February 26, 1980. It is further
ORDERED (2) that HEW shall file such response on or before March 11, 1980. If all the material cannot be gathered by that time, HEW shall nevertheless file a response and at the conference presently scheduled for March 12, 1980, seek leave to file a supplemental response within such time as may be reasonable under the circumstances. It is further
ORDERED (3) that a copy of this memorandum and opinion and the orders entered be forwarded to the Honorable Patricia Harris, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare so that this Court may have the benefit of a national rather than a regional view of the problems presented. /s/ John W. Oliver
Chief Judge
Mabel Thompson, et al., Plaintiffs,

vs.
David Freeman, et al., Defendants.
No. 75 CV 494 W–B–1
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division
FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER AND DECREE
May 2, 1980
On November 24, 1976 the Court entered a preliminary injunction in this cause which required defendants to process applications for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) within forty-five (45) days as required by 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(3). On December 19, 1979 defendants were found in civil contempt for failing to comply with this preliminary injunction.
This case is now ready for entry of a final order determining whether the preliminary *378 injunction should be made permanent and providing an appropriate remedy for defendants’ contempt.
It is therefore
ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED:
1. That this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties hereto. That the Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4).
2. That the provisions of this Final Judgment, Order and Decree applicable to defendants shall also be applicable to their successors in office and, in addition, to all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment, Order and Decree by personal service or otherwise, in accordance with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. That defendants are permanently enjoined from failing 12

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
to process applications for AFDC within forty-five (45) days of the date of application in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(3).
4. That persons whose applications have not been processed within forty-five (45) days in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(3) shall be presumed eligible for AFDC and accompanying Medicaid benefits. By the end of the 45th day from the date of application, defendants shall issue these persons Medicaid cards and a check in the amount that the applicants would receive if they had been found eligible. In the event that defendants are unable to determine this sum, a check shall be issued by the end of the 45th day in the amount that the applicants would receive if they had been found eligible for the maximum grant amount.
5. That defendants shall not prematurely deny AFDC applications in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(3).
6. That defendants shall not terminate or reduce the benefits of applicants presumed eligible pursuant to this order without ten (10) days advance written notice and an opportunity for a pre-termination or pre-reduction hearing as required by 45 C.F.R. § 205.10.
7. That defendants shall not recoup any benefits paid pursuant to this order except in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a)(12).
8. That defendants shall provide to plaintiffs’ attorneys and to the Regional Commissioner of the Social Security Administration a monthly report which shall state the name and address of all AFDC applicants whose applications were filed during the month; the date each application was filed; whether the applicant was approved, denied, or presumed eligible; and the date on which each application was processed by mailing the assistance check or notification of denial of assistance. This report shall also identify by name and address all AFDC applicants whose applications were not processed within forty-five (45) days due to applicant delay in which instances the case record shows the cause for the delay. The monthly report shall be used solely for the purpose of enforcing this Final Judgment, Order and Decree. Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall not communicate any individually identifiable information contained in this report to anyone other than defendants, appropriate officials in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare or its successor agency, and this Court.
9. That this Final Judgment, Order, and Decree, with the

exception of paragraph No. 8, shall be fully implemented for all AFDC applications received on or after May 1, 1980. Paragraph No. 8 shall be fully implemented by August 1, 1980.
10. That attorneys’ fees are hereby awarded to plaintiffs in an amount to be determined later.
11. That if any plaintiff or other person or counsel who represents such plaintiff or other person believes that defendants are not complying with the provisions of this Final Judgment, Order and Decree, such person shall, before making or filing any application for this Court to exercise its independent power and jurisdiction to enforce the Final Judgment, Order and Decree, take the following action:
*379 (a) Such plaintiff(s) or other person(s) or their counsel shall prepare and serve on the Regional Commissioner of the Social Security Administration an appropriate written request that HEW or its successor agency take appropriate action to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, Order and Decree.
(b) Such request shall state with particularity the circumstances concerning defendants’ alleged noncompliance including exhibits and affidavits of persons with personal knowledge as to the alleged noncompliance. A copy of the request and supporting data shall be forwarded to this Court and to defendants. Noncompliance shall be as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 604(a)(2) and 45 C.F.R. § 201.6(a).
(c) The Regional Commissioner of the Social Security Administration shall, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a request, reply to such request in writing. Such reply shall state with particularity what action, if any, will be taken by HEW or its successor agency; when such action, if any, will be taken; and the reasons supporting the decision of HEW or its successor agency. A copy of that reply shall be forwarded to the Court and to defendants.
(d) In the event HEW or its successor agency, as a result of the request, takes action deemed appropriate by the complaining party, no further proceedings will be necessary.
(e) In the event that HEW or its successor agency does not reply within the fifteen (15) day period, or replies within the fifteen (15) day period that it intends to take action considered to be inadequate by the complaining party, or subsequently fails to take action deemed to be
13

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
appropriate by the complaining party, then in those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, such person may promptly advise the Court in writing and file an appropriate motion, with a copy to defendant, that the Court give appropriate consideration as to whether the Court should issue a rule to show cause and thereafter exercise its independent power and jurisdiction to take appropriate action to enforce this Final Judgment, Order and Decree as the circumstances may require under applicable law.
(f) The Court will consider the motion of the complaining party, the suggestions filed in support of and in opposition to that motion, together with the written request to HEW or its successor agency, and the reply from HEW or its successor agency and thereafter determine what further action, if any, should be taken under the circumstances.
12. Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of enabling any of the parties to this Final Judgment, Order and Decree to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the continuation or carrying out of this Final Judgment, Order and Decree, for the amendment or modification of any of the provisions hereof, for the enforcement or compliance therewith, and for the punishment for violation thereof. /s/ John W. Oliver
Chief Judge

expecting that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services will voluntarily and diligently assist the Missouri Department of Social Services in achieving substantial compliance with federal law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that this Court’s Final Judgment, Order and Decree entered May 2, 1980 in Mabel Thompson, et al. v. David Freeman, et al., No. 75 CV 494–W–1, is *380 hereby amended and paragraph eleven of that same final judgment Order and Decree is hereby deleted in compliance with the direction of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. /s/ John W. Oliver
Senior Judge
Mabel Thompson, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
Barrett Toan, Director, Missouri Department of Social Services, and James Moody, Director, Missouri Division of Family Services, Defendants.

AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT

No. 75–CV–494–W–1

June 26, 1981
On June 15, 1981 the Eighth Circuit mandate remanding this case for further proceedings consistent with the May 13, 1981 opinion of the Court of Appeals was filed in this case.
In compliance with the mandate of our Court of Appeals we hereby modify this Court’s Judgment, Order and Decree entered May 2, 1980 by deleting paragraph eleven of that order.
We join with the Court of Appeals in urging and

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
January 11, 1983 Plaintiffs’ pending motion for a judgment of civil contempt alleges that defendants have failed and/or
14

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
refused to comply with this Court’s permanent injunction entered May 2, 1980. Plaintiffs’ suggestions in support of that motion accurately state that the presumptive eligibility portion of this Court’s final judgment was designed to ensure that no eligible AFDC applicant would ever again be required to wait more than the maximum of forty-five (45) days time limit before AFDC benefits were mailed.
Plaintiffs attached two exhibits to their memorandum in support of their pending motion and summarized the data in those exhibits by stating that:
In November of 1980, the statewide timeliness rate for approved applications was only 95.7%, and in that month alone more than one hundred (100) eligible applicants were not mailed an AFDC check within forty-five (45) days. For April, May, and June of 1982, the most recent months for which statistics are available, the statewide compliance rate for approved applicants has been 94.3%, 95.2%, and 96.3%. During the same three months, the timeliness rate for Jackson County has been a deplorable 86.7%, 90.4% and 86.7%.
Plaintiffs’ suggestions added that “on a statewide basis, since presumptive eligibility was instituted in May of 1980, a total of one thousand, three hundred and fifty-eight (1,358) eligible applicants have not been mailed an AFDC check within the forty-five (45) day time limit.”
With renewed reliance upon Rodriguez v. Swank, 496 F.2d 1110 (7 Cir.1974), plaintiffs state that “the principal issue before this Court is the fashioning of an appropriate sanction which will motivate the defendants to purge themselves of contempt,” and that “plaintiffs submit that a fine must be added to the present Order to provide a back-up remedy for the hundreds of applicants who are presently ‘falling through the cracks’ of presumptive eligibility.”
Defendants’ suggestions in opposition raise procedural questions based on Sanders v. Monsanto Co., 574 F.2d 198 (5 Cir.1978), and also contend that, on the merits, and

in accordance with Shands v. Tull, 602 F.2d 1156 (3 Cir.1979), defendants are in substantial compliance with this Court’s May 2, 1980 order. Although it is apparent that the parties are not in agreement in regard to how the exhibits before the Court should be read, defendants contend that “a hearing is unnecessary since Plaintiffs’ figures show substantial compliance on the part of the Defendants.”
Defendants summarize their position on the merits by stating that:
Looking at it over the total period for the state of Missouri, Plaintiffs’ own figures show that Defendants have averaged 97.5 percent current since the Court entered its order. To call this anything but substantial would unfairly punish Defendants for a performance that is probably one of the best in the nation.
Defendants further suggest that “should this Court believe that there is a question as to Defendants’ compliance, then Defendants *381 submit that this Court must issue an order to Defendants for show cause why they should not be held in contempt and Defendants be given an opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing to submit evidence regarding the disputed facts as to the actual performance of defendants and the reasons for any delay.”
The Court received a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel dated December 1, 1982 and has considered plaintiffs’ December 17, 1982 response to defendants’ suggestions in opposition. Both filings show that figures for July, 1982 are now available. Plaintiffs’ most recent filing also states that “Governor Bond recently acted to withhold part of the funds which are appropriated to the Missouri Division of Family Services for administrative purposes, including processing AFDC applications.”
Our memorandum opinion in Thompson v. Walsh, 481 F.Supp. 1170 (W.D.Mo.1979) shows that we are familiar with Rodriguez v. Swank, and with the remedy approved by the Seventh Circuit in that case. That opinion also shows that our determination of the then pending motion for contempt was processed on a stipulation of facts agreed to by the parties. We believe it obvious that any procedural objection made by defendants would be mooted if the parties agree to enter into a similar stipulation for purposes of determining the now pending
15

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
motion for contempt.
We will therefore enter orders directing further proceedings similar to those entered and followed in 1979 in order that the merits of plaintiffs’ pending motion for contempt may be decided on a factual record agreeable to all the parties.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED (1) that this case be set for conference with the Court on Monday, January 24, 1983 for the purpose of approving a stipulation of facts and to direct any further proceedings that may be necessary under the circumstances. It is further
ORDERED (2) that counsel, prior to the January 24, 1983 conference, shall prepare and agree upon what, hopefully, will be a full stipulation of facts under which plaintiffs’ pending motion for contempt may be considered and determined. It is further
ORDERED (3) that the following procedures shall be followed in connection with the preparation and agreement on the stipulation of facts above directed:
(a) On or before Monday, January 17, 1983, counsel for the respective parties shall serve on opposing counsel a draft of a stipulation of facts which each side believes should be included in the full stipulation of facts.
(b) Counsel shall arrange an across-the-table conference on a date, time, and place convenient to counsel for both sides during the week of January 17, 1983 for the purpose of melding all of the paragraphs of the stipulations of facts theretofore proposed by counsel for each side into a single and final stipulation of fact agreeable to both sides. Should counsel object to the materiality or relevancy of a particular paragraph proposed by opposing counsel, counsel shall nevertheless agree to the factual accuracy of such a proposed paragraph but shall preserve their objection by the addition of a sentence which shall state that the parties have agreed, subject to particular counsel’s objection of relevancy or materiality.
(c) The Court will approve the parties’ stipulation and direct any further proceedings that may be necessary at the January 24, 1983 conference. It is further

ORDERED (4) that on or before noon, Friday, January 21, 1983, counsel shall prepare and file an agreed agenda for the January 24, 1983 conference with the Court.
If counsel are not able to agree on all items for discussion, the agenda submitted shall include all items which any counsel may have suggested for inclusion but to which opposing counsel refused to agree. /s/ John W. Oliver
John W. Oliver
Senior Judge
*382 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
March 28, 1983
The Court has considered the joint report to the Court filed March 25, 1983. That report, executed by counsel for both parties, reflects a dramatic increase in defendants’ compliance rate with processing AFDC applications.
The parties stated their agreement that “if defendants continue their improved compliance in AFDC applications, then there will be no need for further judicial action in this case.”
The parties therefore request that the plaintiffs’ pending motion for civil contempt be held in abeyance for a period of 120 days in order to permit review of four additional monthly processing reports to be filed within that time.
The plaintiffs state that if the improved compliance rate is established by the four additional monthly processing reports, plaintiffs will withdraw their pending motion for civil contempt. If not, plaintiffs will go forward with their pending motion at that time.
The request of counsel is reasonable. Defendants are to be commended on their improved compliance. Counsel for the parties are to be commended on their cooperation with each other and with this Court.
16

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the joint request of the parties to hold plaintiffs’ pending motion for civil contempt in abeyance for a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this order should be and the same is hereby granted. /s/ John W. Oliver
John W. Oliver
Senior Judge

be necessary for the final disposition of the pending motion. After the Court has had an opportunity to review the above-described status report, a conference will be promptly convened so that further proceedings may be ordered.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ John W. Oliver
John W. Oliver
Senior Judge

ORDER

ORDER

October 29, 1986
A conference in the above-styled case was held on October 29, 1986. The case pends on plaintiffs’ motion for order adjudicating defendants in civil contempt for violation of final judgment. In accordance with procedures routinely followed by this Court in contempt cases, modeled on Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant has been properly notified of the pending motion and will be afforded an opportunity to be heard.
Pursuant to discussion at the conference, counsel for the parties are hereby ordered to arrange a time as soon as possible at which they will jointly study the computer reports issued by the Missouri Department of Social Services. This study shall be conducted with the assistance of employees of the Missouri Department of Social Services who are knowledgeable in the manner in which those reports are prepared. The study of these reports together with that of other data in the possession of the Department is to be conducted for the purpose of entering into stipulations of fact of the type filed in 1979 in this case in conjunction with an earlier contempt motion. See Thompson v. Walsh, 481 F.Supp. 1170 (1979).
Counsel for the parties are hereby ordered to file with this Court a status report on or before November 20, 1986, which shall indicate whether any additional discovery of either documentary evidence or deposition testimony will

March 16, 1987 On March 13, 1987, a further pretrial conference was conducted in the above-styled case. At that conference, the general status of the case was fully discussed. In light of the discussion at the conference, the parties agreed to present to the Court for its approval, on or before April *383 15, 1987, papers that will expedite the ultimate disposition of this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties present to the Court for its approval papers providing for the ultimate disposition of this case on or before April 15, 1987. s /s/ John W. Oliver
John W. Oliver Senior Judge
CONSENT DECREE Upon the joint motion of the parties, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that:
17

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt on October 27, 1986. The parties have agreed to settle that motion by this consent decree.
2. Defendants admit and concede that they are in violation of the Order of this Court entered on May 2, 1980 as amended on June 26, 1981 in the Jackson County office of the Division of Family Services (DFS) for the calendar months of June, July, August and September 1986.
3. The parties agree that the applicant for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has the burden to establish eligibility for AFDC.
4. The parties agree the Division of Family Services (DFS) is responsible for providing assistance to the applicant applying for AFDC and processing the application in a timely fashion.
II. STATE–WIDE PROCEDURES
The Division of Family Services shall implement on a state-wide basis policies and procedures to ensure the timely and proper processing of AFDC applications including, but not limited to the following provisions. The provisions of this decree shall not apply to the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Determination of AFDC Eligibility for AFDC Applications: 5. At the time of the initial interview, the caseworker, with the assistance of the applicant, shall attempt to determine all information needed to process the applicant’s AFDC application.
6. The caseworker at the time of the initial application interview shall notify the applicant of the information that the caseworker believes is needed to determine eligibility in a clear, and understandable manner. The AFDC application cannot be placed on client delay on the basis of the applicant’s failure to supply the requested information unless prior notification of the information needed was made to the applicant in writing.
7. At the time of the applicant’s initial interview, the

caseworker shall give to the applicant a written notice explaining the time limits the Division will use to determine eligibility and to issue an AFDC check. This notice shall explain to the applicant in clear, understandable language the applicant’s responsibility to furnish information and the caseworker’s responsibility to assist the applicant and process the AFDC application timely. The notice to the applicant shall explain any delay determination that the DFS may make in an applicant’s AFDC case, the action the DFS may take as a result of the delay determination, and shall advise the applicant that they may request an administrative review to contest any adverse determination on a delay in processing of the application.
8. At the time of the initial interview, the caseworker shall have the applicant complete or sign forms which are determined to be needed in order to obtain information or establish eligibility for AFDC benefits.
9. During the processing of the AFDC application, the caseworker shall offer assistance to the applicant in acquiring information to determine eligibility if the applicant is experiencing difficulty in obtaining the information, and the caseworker is informed of the difficulty by the applicant or designated representative.
*384 10. The caseworker shall not request information from the applicant when the caseworker is aware of and has ready access to reliable information.
11. Forms used by the caseworker to obtain information regarding the applicant’s eligibility for AFDC shall be mailed or delivered on the date recorded on the form or the next calendar day to the proper party.
12. All forms, letters, and any correspondence to the applicant necessary to an AFDC application shall be mailed on the date noted on the document or not later than the next calendar day.
13. All documents or correspondence received by the Division of Family Services related to the AFDC application shall indicate the date received.
14. DFS shall not delay the processing of the AFDC application due to the failure of the applicant to provide information necessary for a Food Stamp application, if the information has no bearing on the AFDC application.
15. All verbal contact with the applicant and with “collaterals” or other resources shall be documented in the
18

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
case file, indicating the date of contact.
16. The caseworker shall only request from the applicant information which is needed to determine eligibility for public assistance or Food Stamp benefits.
17. The reason for a delay in processing an AFDC case must be clearly stated on forms specifically designated by DFS for this purpose.
18. The DFS will make a determination as to the reason for delay in processing an AFDC application by a date specified by the Division by regulation.
19. An application for AFDC benefits can be determined to be client delay only when the applicant is advised of the information necessary to determine eligibility by DFS under the procedures and methods described in this Decree, the applicant failed to supply information adequate to determine eligibility, and the applicant has had adequate time to supply the requested information. However, an application for AFDC can be determined client delay when the applicant has not had adequate time to supply the requested information but the reason the applicant did not have adequate time was because the applicant had: failed to advise the Division of eligibility information; withheld information from the Division which was pertinent to eligibility; failed to provide the Division with adequate documentation; failed to advise the Division of a change in circumstances affecting eligibility; or notified the Division of the change in circumstances at a time which did not allow the Division sufficient time to process the application within the time frames established by this Court Order.
20. No application can be rejected prior to the forty-fifth (45th) day solely because the applicant failed to supply information or failed to cooperate. However, if the applicant refuses to cooperate the application may be rejected prior to the forty-fifth (45th) day.
21. An application can be rejected on or before the thirtieth (30th) day only if the case is found ineligible on a specific factor of ineligibility or the applicant refuses to cooperate.
Notification to AFDC applicant of application status: 22. If a case is to be rejected because the applicant failed to provide information, the rejection letter shall state the information requested by the caseworker and not provided

by the applicant, stating the regulation or policy supporting the DFS’ action.
23. If the caseworker determines that the reason for a delay in processing the AFDC application was caused by the applicant, a written notice to the applicant shall be mailed by the Division. The notice shall advise the applicant in clear, understandable language the reason the caseworker determined client delay in the case and the right of the applicant to request an administrative review if they contest this determination within ten (10) calendar days. This notice shall advise the applicant that the caseworker determined the reason for the delay was the fault of the applicant and *385 to contest this determination, the applicant may: (1) request a personal meeting with a supervisor who will review the facts underlying the delay determination in the case; (2) respond in writing with a letter explaining the situation and the reasons they do not believe the delay was their fault; or (3) be available for a telephone call from the supervisor to discuss the reasons the applicant presents for it not being the applicant’s delay.
24. In Jackson, Clay and Platte Counties, Missouri, this notice shall contain the telephone number of Legal Aid of Western Missouri and a statement that the applicant may contact Legal Aid for assistance if the applicant believes that their application is not being properly or promptly processed or the determination of delay is incorrect.
25. The notice specified in Paragraph 23 above, shall advise the applicant that a written decision shall be made by the supervisor within fifteen (15) working days from the day of the applicant’s request if an administrative review is requested timely by the applicant. The notice shall further advise the applicant that they may request a fair hearing under the provisions and time limits prescribed in Section 208.080 RSMo, instead of and in addition to an administrative review.
26. If the caseworker determines that the reason for delay in processing the AFDC case is due to agency delay, the caseworker shall send a notice to the applicant advising the applicant of this decision and explaining in clear, understandable language that final determination on the applicant’s AFDC application has not been made by the Division. This notice shall explain to the applicant any additional information needed to process the applicant’s AFDC application and any payment that will be issued to the applicant. If subsequent to this notice, the DFS determines that the applicant is not eligible, DFS may stop processing benefits for the applicant and shall advise
19

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
the applicant of the new determination.
Administrative review of client delay determination for AFDC applications: 27. In those cases where an applicant requests an administrative review by the Division of Family Services’ supervisory personnel, the supervisor shall decide whether the client delay determination as described in the notice was correct.
28. The decision of the supervisor after the administrative review shall be made not later than fifteen (15) working days after the applicant timely requests review. The Division is not required to grant any continuances at the applicant’s request. If the Division denies a request by the applicant for a continuance of the administrative review, the supervisory personnel of the Division shall nevertheless make a written decision on the delay issue, and notice to the applicant shall be issued under the provisions set forth in this Consent Decree regarding administrative review.
29. A copy of the written decision of the supervisor shall be filed in the case record of the applicant; a copy shall be sent to the applicant, and a copy shall be forwarded to the State Office of the Division of Family Services. On a regular basis, but not less than once per month, the State Office shall forward to the attorneys for the plaintiffs, copies of written decisions of the supervisors after the administrative review.
30. In determining the issue of client delay, the supervisory personnel of the Division of Family Services shall review the specified reason for the delay, supporting documentation from the case record, and any oral explanations from the caseworker, and shall consider the applicant’s correspondence, contact, or other statement from the personal meeting with the supervisor, if any.
31. If the decision of the supervisor reverses the decision of the caseworker on the issue of client delay, the applicant shall be notified by a written explanation and decision. This notice shall explain to the applicant that this is not a final determination of the applicant’s eligibility for AFDC and shall advise the applicant of their continuing responsibility to provide verification of eligibility factors. This notice shall *386 explain to the applicant any additional information needed to process the applicant’s AFDC application and that payments may be issued to the applicant. If subsequent to this notice,

DFS determines that the applicant is not eligible, DFS may stop processing benefits for the applicant and shall advise the applicant of the new determination.
32. If the conclusion of the supervisor is that the delay in processing was caused by the applicant, the applicant will be advised in writing of the supervisor’s written explanation and decision and advised in writing of their right to pursue a full fair hearing before a hearing officer appointed by the Director of the Division of Family Services under the normal procedures set forth in § 208.080 RSMo and within the normal time frames established by that statutory provision.
33. The state-wide provisions of this Consent Decree shall be implemented within ninety (90) calendar days of the signing of this Decree by the Court unless otherwise stated.
34. The state-wide provisions of this Consent Decree shall remain in full force and effect for three (3) years from the date this Decree is signed by the Court. At the end of this three year period plaintiffs may petition the Court to continue the state-wide provisions of this Decree. Upon motion of plaintiffs and considering the response of the defendants, the Court shall determine whether the state-wide provisions of the Decree shall remain in full force and effect for any period determined by the Court, shall be modified, or shall be removed.
JACKSON COUNTY DFS OFFICE AFDC APPLICATION PROCEDURES
35. In addition to all of the portions of this decree which shall be fully enforceable on a state-wide basis, the following policies and procedures for AFDC applications shall apply to the County of Jackson, State of Missouri for a period of two years beginning ninety (90) days after the signing of this Decree by the Court, unless otherwise stated.
36. The caseworker must fully review the application form to determine that all questions have been answered and promptly request, at the completion of the interview, any identified additional information needed from the applicant at that time.
37. When relevant to AFDC eligibility, and determined to be needed, the applicant should be asked the place of the
20

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
marriage, divorce, birth of children, etc. The agency shall use any computer or other available DFS resources containing reliable information, to which it has ready access, to verify eligibility factors which can be determined through these resources.
38. Any previous case file of the applicant readily available must be reviewed to determine if verification is already contained in the file of the county office of the Division. If information is in the case file, and the caseworker has reason to believe that the applicant will exhaust resources to obtain the same information, the caseworker shall promptly notify the applicant that the information is no longer needed.
39. Training shall be conducted after April 1, 1987 or within ninety (90) days of this Decree to ensure that the interviewers are aware of all eligibility factors and the type of information the Division can properly request from the applicant, necessary forms to be obtained, and types of verification which can be requested. New hires shall be similarly trained.
40. The AFDC applications of interviewers shall be routinely sampled and reviewed to determine: (1) the interviewer has properly assisted the applicant in filling out the application; (2) the interviewer has obtained all forms which could be obtained at the time of the interview; and (3) the interviewer has requested verification items from the applicant in a clear, understandable manner, which are the applicant’s responsibility to provide the Division.
41. Training shall be provided to processing caseworkers in Jackson County after April 1, 1987 or within ninety (90) days of this Consent Decree so that verification request letters are written for information *387 needed in enough detail, legible and in a language the applicant will understand. The caseworker must be sensitive to the applicant’s level of understanding and make clear what the applicant is required to do and what assistance the caseworker will provide to the applicant. New hires will be similarly trained.
42. If documents in the case file of an AFDC applicant do not indicate a date received, it will be presumed the documents were timely received.
43. A case cannot be put on client delay when the agency has failed to make a home visit, and a home visit is the reasonable and appropriate method to resolve the eligibility factor.

44. The form used as an acknowledgement of fraud provisions should never be used to request eligibility verification from an applicant.
45. The caseworker must clearly explain the information needed to the AFDC applicant. The caseworker must request eligibility verification from the applicant in a legible, clear and understandable manner giving examples of verification that may be acceptable, if appropriate.
46. A copy of all correspondence, forms and other documentary evidence pertinent to the applicant’s current AFDC eligibility shall be retained or timely recorded by DFS in the case file or computer files of the applicant for AFDC.
47. An applicant shall not be asked to verify that their AFDC case has been closed in another state when they have indicated that they do not have correspondence verifying the closure. The caseworker shall promptly send an IM–41 or other appropriate request form with a release, if necessary, to the other state requesting the verification.
48. The applicant shall have access, throughout the DFS working day, to their caseworker or supervisor. The Jackson County office shall not have a policy establishing any “protected time” during which an applicant is denied access to their caseworker, or in the alternative, a supervisor.
49. When a caseworker requires a statement from a third party to verify an eligibility factor, it shall not be routinely required that this statement be notarized.
50. The caseworker shall call, if necessary, to verify eligibility factors when possible.
51. The caseworker shall, if possible, use the insurance policy if they are unable to obtain verification of the cash surrender value of an insurance policy through the insurance company, and the policy appears to be an accurate reflection of the actual value of the policy.
52. The applicant shall be required to cooperate in establishing paternity, obtaining support and verifying the absence of the parent from the home as mandated by federal regulations. The applicant cannot be required to give the absent parent’s social security number, his/her address, pieces of his/her mail, place of employment, date of birth, or other information, unless there are facts or
21

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
circumstances which indicate that the applicant may have this information or access to it.
53. When possible, the caseworker shall require the applicant to supply collaterals who have telephones and are available during the day. When necessary, the applicant may provide acceptable collaterals, who can only be contacted in writing.
54. An application for AFDC benefits cannot be rejected between the thirtieth and forty-fifth day on the basis of loss of contact, unless DFS correspondence has been returned to the Division by the post office.
55. The caseworker shall not ask the applicant for information which has already been received by DFS. The caseworker shall review information received from the applicant or other sources and contained in the case file and shall promptly advise the applicant of any additional information needed or questions which have arisen from review of such information.
56. Before placing an application on client delay, it is necessary that deadline letters be sent requesting needed information. The first letter shall be given or sent *388 to the applicant by the interviewer at the time of the application. At minimum, a second letter shall be sent reminding the applicant of those items still needed, while allowing the applicant adequate time to supply the information requested, prior to the date designated to make the determination of presumptive eligibility.
57. When a case has been placed on client delay, the case shall be reviewed on a continuous basis and prompt action taken to process the application as soon as the applicant provides the information which delayed the application.
58. Supervisory personnel at the Jackson County office shall review AFDC case processing on a continuing basis to ensure presumptive eligibility guidelines are properly followed and caseworkers are properly implementing the Court’s Order and this Consent Decree.
59. In Jackson County, Missouri, supervisory personnel of the Division of Family Services shall perform a preliminary review in each and every case where a determination of client or medical delay has been made. This preliminary review shall be performed by supervisory personnel at Jackson County DFS regardless of any request by the applicant for the administrative review. After this preliminary review the notice required by Paragraphs 23 through 26 shall be sent to the

applicant. The Jackson County Office of DFS shall advise plaintiffs in writing on a monthly basis each case reviewed by the name of the applicant, the type of delay (medical or client), and the supervisor’s determination as to the type of delay after the preliminary review. Plaintiffs shall upon request be allowed to review any case record included in the preliminary review within the provisions of Paragraphs 65, 66, and 68.
60. Within ninety (90) days of the signing of this Consent Decree, all AFDC caseworkers and supervisors shall be notified in writing of all official state-wide procedures of the DFS pertaining to this Consent Decree.
IV. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
61. The defendant DFS shall continue to supply to plaintiffs the reports (Thompson reports) ordered by the Court in its final judgment.
62. In addition to the Thompson reports specified above, defendants shall send to the attorneys for the plaintiffs a listing of all cases pending state-wide at the end of a Thompson reporting period. This reporting requirement shall be in effect for three years from the date the Court signs the Consent Decree. The parties acknowledge that this special list includes cases previously reported on the Thompson report with no final disposition indicated.
63. In addition to the report specified above, for three (3) years from the date the Court signs the Consent Decree, defendant shall supply to plaintiffs reports for each county in the state indicating the total number of applications per county, the total number of applications per county marked client delay with a percentage of applications thereof; the number of applications for county marked agency delay, with the percentage of applications thereof; the number of cases per county with no coding indicated, though checks were mailed or a decision reached after the forty-fifth day; and the number of cases per county coded medical delay with the percentage of applications thereof.
64. For Jackson County, Missouri for the next two years, defendants shall provide to plaintiffs on a monthly basis a report which shall describe the caseworker by name, their supervisor, the number of AFDC cases pending on the date the report is completed, new cases added since the last report, and the number of cases resolved since the last report. The report shall state the number of delay cases
22

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
and whether or not the delay is client, agency, or medical delay for each caseworker.
V. MONITORING
65. Upon reasonable notice, the Jackson County Office of DFS shall make available *389 to attorneys for plaintiffs, or their representatives, case files randomly selected by the plaintiffs or delineated by the plaintiffs for review for purposes of monitoring AFDC applications processing timeliness and the use of presumptive eligibility guidelines within a reasonable time after request.
66. If attorneys for the plaintiffs request five or less case files from the Jackson County DFS office, the files shall be made available within sixteen (16) working hours.
67. Upon reasonable notice, the State office of the DFS shall make available to the attorneys for the plaintiffs any case files selected by plaintiffs or their representatives state-wide for purposes of monitoring AFDC application processing timeliness and the use of presumptive eligibility guidelines.
68. Attorneys for plaintiffs shall only ask for a reasonable number of case files for review.
69. A management team selected by the State Office of the Division of Family Services has commenced the review and evaluation of Jackson County DFS office policies, practices, procedures and staffing related to the processing of AFDC applications and the use of presumptive eligibility guidelines.
70. With respect to the Jackson County DFS office, a statement of findings compiled by the on-site section of the management team will be reviewed by the DFS state evaluators and recommendations drafted, after the Jackson County Office of DFS is given the opportunity to rebut or accept the recommendations. The recommendations will then be presented to the plaintiffs’ attorneys for their review and recommendations. The evaluators will then meet with plaintiffs’ attorneys in order to discuss the development and drafting of directives to be issued by the State Office to the Jackson County DFS office in order to ensure the timely processing of AFDC applications and compliance with this Court’s Order and Consent Decree.

VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
71. The parties specifically agree that this Consent Decree does not replace in any manner the Court’s final order entered on May 2, 1980, as amended June 26, 1981. This Consent Decree is meant by the parties to supplement the Court’s Order and to clarify, define and establish additional processing procedures to be used by the defendants.
72. The parties specifically agree that this Consent Decree does not encompass resolution of the appropriateness of a fine under Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt. The parties agree to submit the matter of the fine requested by plaintiffs and the attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs to the Court for a final determination.
73. This Consent Decree does not bar, by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or any other doctrine of claim or issue preclusion, any claim for damages by any individual as a result of defendants’ conduct.
74. Within thirty (30) days from the entry of this Consent Decree, plaintiffs shall submit to defendants a proposed stipulated record including stipulations of fact, depositions previously undertaken, and any stipulated documentary evidence upon which the remaining issues of fines and attorney’s fees shall be resolved. Thereafter, defendants will respond to the proposed record within sixty days. If the parties are unable to agree upon the stipulated record, the Court will direct further proceedings to resolve the remaining issues.
75. Within thirty (30) days from the filing of the stipulated record, the plaintiffs shall submit a brief in support of their position. Defendants shall file a response within forty-five days of receipt of plaintiffs’ brief.
76. Within forty-five (45) days from the Court’s decision on fines, plaintiffs shall file their Motion and affidavits in support of the request for attorney’s fees. Defendants *390 shall file their opposition, if any, within thirty days from the filing of plaintiffs’ request. Defendants may file a brief in support of their position. Within fifteen days from filing, plaintiffs may file a response to defendants’ brief.
77. A copy of the initial Order entered herein on May 2, 1980, this Consent Decree, and any supplemental order
23

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
entered by the Court shall be given by defendants to all present Income Maintenance supervisory personnel in the Jackson County DFS office and every present County DFS Director in the State of Missouri.
78. The attorneys for plaintiffs shall be given copies through the regular agency mailing system of any official policies and procedures issued by the State Office of the Division of Family Services, to implement the Court’s Order and this Consent Decree.
79. Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of enabling any of the parties to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be deemed necessary or appropriate for carrying out this Consent Decree, and the judgment entered by this Court on May 2, 1980 for the amendment or modification of any of the provisions hereof, for the enforcement of compliance therewith, or for the punishment of violation thereof.
/s/ William Siedhoff William Siedhoff, Director
Division of Family Services
/s/ Effie F. Day Effie F. Day
Attorney for plaintiffs
Legal Aid Western Missouri
600 Lathrop Building
1005 Grand Ave.
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
(816) 474–6750
/s/ James Marshall Smith James Marshall Smith
Attorney for plaintiffs
Legal Aid Western Missouri
600 Lathrop Building

1005 Grand Ave. Kansas City, Mo. 64106 (816) 474–6750
/s/ Paul T. Keller Paul T. Keller Attorney for defendants Department of Social Services Division of Legal Services P.O. Box 1527 Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 (314) 751–3229 Approved and entered by this Court on April 30, 1987. It is so ORDERED. /s/ John W. Oliver
John W. Oliver Senior Judge
Mabel Thompson, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
Michael Reagen, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 75CV494–W–B–1
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division 24

G.L. v. Zumwalt, 731 F.Supp. 365 (1990)
STIPULATION
Come now parties, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
On April 30, 1987 the parties entered into a Consent Decree resolving the plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt filed October 27, 1986. The Consent Decree resolved all issues except the question of attorney’s fees which may be due to plaintiffs and whether or not a penalty should be imposed on defendants for contempt.
The parties have now resolved these issues. Defendants have agreed to pay and have paid plaintiffs the sum of $59,525.25 attorney’s fees. In addition, plaintiffs withdraw any requests that defendants be fined or otherwise subjected to a penalty in addition to the Consent Decree entered into previously. *391 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Effie F. Day Effie F. Day
Legal Aid of Western Missouri

600 Lathrop Building 1005 Grand Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64106–2216 (816) 474–6750 Attorney for Plaintiffs
/s/ Paul T. Keller Paul T. Keller Division of Legal Services Department of Social Services P.O. Box 1527 Jefferson City, Mo. 65102–1527 Attorney for Defendants
	  

25

 
 G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

564 F.Supp. 1030 United States District Court, W.D. Missouri,
Western Division.
G.L., An Infant, By and Through his Next Friend, William SHULL, D.T., An Infant, by and through her Next Friend, Cathy Connealy, R.M., An Infant, by and through his Next Friend Millard Aldridge, K.W., An Infant, by and through her Next Friend,
Janeen Weiss, and T.W., An Infant, by and through his Next Friend, Janeen Weiss, Plaintiffs,
v. John ZUMWALT, individually and as State Director of the Missouri Division of Family Services, J. Joseph Lewis, individually and as County Director of the Jackson County Office of the Missouri Div. of Family Services, Sandra Brooks, individually and as County Director of the Clay County Office of the Missouri Div. of Family Services, Sherrell Hunt, individually and as Social Service Supervisor of the Jackson County Office of the Mo. Div. of Family Services; and Gail Horsey, individually and as Social Service Supervisor of the Jackson County Office of the Missouri Div. of
Family Services, Defendants.
No. 77–0242–CV–W–4. | March 21, 1983.

Action was brought challenging provision of foster care to

children in metropolitan area. The District Court, Russell

G. Clark, Chief Judge, approved consent decree entered

into between the parties providing for, inter alia, licensing

of foster homes, preplacement process, prohibition on use

of improper punishment, elimination of overcrowding,

and rate of reimbursement.

I	  N	  D	  E	  X	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

-­‐	  -­‐	  -­‐	  -­‐	  -­‐	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  	  

Decree approved.
Attorneys and Law Firms *1030 Effie F. Day, William Dittmeier, Thomas P. O’Donnell, Candace M. Zierdt, Legal Aid of Western Missouri, Kansas City, Mo., David M. Hashmall, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Michael B. Mushlin, Lauren Anderson, Children’s Rights Project American Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for plaintiffs. William F. Arnet, J. Paul Allred, Jr., Weldon W. Perry, Jr., Jerry Short, Nancie Aulgur, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants. Opinion
MEMORANDUM
RUSSELL G. CLARK, Chief Judge. Counsel for all parties presented, and the Court approved a consent decree regarding the provision of foster care for children in the Kansas City, Missouri area. It is at the request of plaintiffs’ counsel and because of the assistance this case may render other courts considering similar questions that the consent decree is published. Goldsby v. Carnes, 365 F.Supp. 395, 396 (W.D.Mo.1973).
	  
	  	   	  
	  	   	  
	  
	  
1

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

	  

I.	  Licensing	  of	  Foster	  Homes ......................................................................................	  1031	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

II.	   Mandatory	  Training	  of	  Foster	  Parents .........................................................	   1033	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

III.	   Proper	  Matching	  of	  Foster	  Children	  

	  

	  	   	  	  

	   	  

	   with	  Foster	  Parents ........................................................................................................	   1033	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

IV.	   Pre-­‐Placement	  Process	  and	  Supervision	  

	  

	  	   	  	  

	   	  

	  of	  the	  Foster	  Home .........................................................................................................	  1034	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

V.	   Prohibition	  on	  the	  Use	  of	  Improper	  

	  

	  	   	  	  

	   	  

	  Punishment	  of	  Foster	  Children ...........................................................................	  1035	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

VI.	   Investigation	  of	  and	  Response	  to	  

	  

	  	   	  	  

2

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

	   	  

	   Suspected	  Incidents	  of	  Abuse	  

	  

	  	  

	  

	   and	  Neglect	  or	  Unsuitable	  Care...........................................................................	   1035	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

VII.	   Elimination	  of	  Overcrowding	  in	  the	  

	  

	  	   	  	  

	   	  

	   Foster	  Home..........................................................................................................................	   1036	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

VIII.	   Rate	  of	  Reimbursement..............................................................................................	   1036	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

IX.	   Caseload	  Size ........................................................................................................................	   1036	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

X.	  Social	  Service	  Worker	  Training ..........................................................................	  1036	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

XI.	   Medical	  Care..........................................................................................................................	   1037	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

3

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

	  

XII.	   Essential	  Services.............................................................................................................	   1038	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

XIII.	  Permanency	  Planning ..................................................................................................	  1038	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

XIV.	   Establishment	  of	  Uniform	  Case	  

	  

	  	   	  	  

	   	  

	  Record	  System ....................................................................................................................	  1041	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

XV.	  Reporting	  and	  Monitoring .......................................................................................	  1042	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

XVI.	  Costs	  and	  Attorneys’	  Fees ........................................................................................	  1043	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

.....................................................................	 	   

	  

	  	  

	  

XVII.	   Damage	  Claim ......................................................................................................................	   1043	  

	  	   	  	  

	  	  

	   	  

	  

*1031 CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs, identified as children in the custody of the Jackson County Office of the Missouri Division of Family Services, brought this action on March 28, 1977, challenging practices and policies of defendants as
4

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

violative of their rights to be protected from harm secured by the United States Constitution and by Title IV of the Social Security Act. On April 20, 1979, the Court certified this case as a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief. The defendants have denied that they have violated plaintiffs’ rights. The case has been scheduled by the Court for trial on May 9, 1983. The parties have now agreed that it is in the best interests of all the parties that the case be resolved amicably between them without the necessity of trial. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, and subject to approval by the Court that the following agreement will be incorporated in a final judgment by consent in this case:
1. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of all parties hereto. The Court has authority to grant the relief provided in this agreement.
2. Plaintiffs shall be protected from harm by defendants while plaintiffs are in foster care. To secure this right the defendants shall implement the following practices and procedures:
I. Licensing of Foster Homes A. Defendants will establish a process to ensure that only those persons who possess the requisite qualities to be suitable foster parents and who are capable of providing a healthy, nurturing and safe home, are licensed to provide foster care for plaintiffs. Toward that end defendants shall adopt and implement the following practices.
B. Licensing Workers
1. The assessment study of each prospective foster parent shall be done by a professional social worker and approved by a Social Service Supervisor.
2. All social service workers who have responsibility for the licensing or renewal of licenses of foster homes shall receive two days of orientation training covering the licensing process, the practice issues attendant to the conduct of a home study and the decisions involved in assessing the suitability of the home and adequacy of parenting skills. They shall also be trained as to the specific psychological, emotional, physical and educational problems that foster children are likely to have.

3. Thereafter, all licensing workers shall receive one day of state-of-the-art training per year focused on standards and methods of assessing the acceptability of applicants for foster home licenses.
4. This training shall be conducted by qualified DFS employees or by outside consultants who are not in the regular employ of DFS.
5. The curriculum and written materials utilized in the training of licensing workers shall be provided to counsel for plaintiffs at least thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of the training. Defendants shall not unreasonably refuse to implement plaintiffs’ suggested revisions to the curriculum and written materials. This review process will continue for a period of five (5) years from the date of entry of this decree.
C. The Assessment Process
1. Prior to the licensure of a foster home, the licensing worker shall:
a. Interview each member of the family, including children and other adults living in the home, individually and collectively.
b. Conduct a home visit to evaluate the physical conditions of the home and the community which shall include an assessment of the home, living arrangements for the foster children, the community in which *1032 the prospective foster parents live, and the special resources available in the community such as diagnostic clinics, medical care, schools and recreational facilities.
c. Interview at least three references by either personal or telephone contact.
d. Review the Child Abuse Registry and police records.
e. Assess the foster parents and their children’s physical and mental health which shall include:
1. A physical for each parent using a form which will be developed by defendants and which will be submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel for approval within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this decree.
2. History of hospitalization for either physical or emotional problems, including the reason and extent of the hospitalization, date(s) and current extent of problems.
5

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

3. Determine if any member of the family now living in the house ever received outpatient treatment at a mental hospital, mental health clinic, psychiatric clinic or from a psychiatrist, and if so provide reason, extent and nature of problems, date(s) and current extent of problems.
4. Determine if any member of the family now living in the house ever received treatment for drug abuse, alcoholism or alcohol abuse, or drug overdose, and if so provide the nature of the condition, extent and nature of treatment, date(s) and current state of problem.
f. Obtain a verification of employment or, verification of adequate financial income.
g. As part of the homestudy process, the licensing worker shall assess the prospective foster parents’ willingness to work with the child’s natural parents and their attitudes towards discipline.
2. DFS regulations shall specify essential information regarding parenting skills which must be elicited in the homestudy.
3. These steps shall be accomplished, a recommendation made, and approval or denial of the application made within ninety (90) days of receipt of the foster parent application.
D. Relative Foster Home
All relative foster homes shall be licensed or approved in the same manner as non-relative foster homes.
E. Emergency Foster Homes
Certain foster homes and shelters shall be licensed specifically for emergency foster care. These homes and shelters will only be used for children on a short term basis of no more than thirty (30) days. The emergency foster homes shall be licensed in the same manner as other foster homes. Unless extraordinary circumstances make it impossible in a particular case, a home shall not be used for short term foster care unless it is specifically licensed for these cases. Any exceptions to the provisions of this section shall be documented in writing and approved by a supervisor.
F. Renewal of Licenses
1. Licenses shall be renewed at least once every two (2) years.

2. Prior to the license being renewed, the licensing worker will consult with the social service workers for each child in the home or who has been in the home in the previous two years to evaluate the ability of the foster parents to deal with foster children, the agency and the foster children’s natural parents.
3. The licensing worker shall interview all members of the foster family’s household, including foster children individually.
4. The licensing worker shall evaluate the physical conditions of the home.
5. No foster parent shall have his/her license renewed if he/she has not completed the requisite number of foster parent training courses (see § II, infra ).
6. The foster parent must be in full compliance with his/her license and all applicable regulations and must be deemed to be performing adequately as a foster parent prior to his/her license being renewed.
7. The licensing worker shall provide a written recommendation, approved by a Social Service Supervisor, that the foster parent *1033 has provided adequate care, continues to meet DFS standards and that the license should be renewed.
G. Suspension of License
Unless the social service worker recommends, with the written approval of the supervisor, that the foster parent can be assisted in rectifying the problems which were “substantiated” or classified as “reason to suspect” by the investigation of an incident of child abuse or neglect, and that the foster parent is ready, willing and able to utilize such assistance in changing his/her behavior, the license of any foster parent who is the subject of a report of child abuse or neglect which has been “substantiated” or classified as “reason to suspect” must be suspended immediately and the child or children removed to an appropriate foster home situation pending resolution of the grievance process established by defendants for foster parents.
II. Mandatory Training of Foster Parents A. All foster parents shall receive special training in the parenting skills needed to raise a foster child in order to
6

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

lessen the likelihood of abuse or neglect of foster children and to reduce the frequency of movements of foster children.
B. Pre-service Training
1. Prior to receiving a license to be a foster parent, all prospective foster parents must complete a foster parent training course of at least twelve (12) hours.
2. This course shall at a minimum provide the foster parent with knowledge of the structure of the agency; the role of the caseworker and the foster parent’s relationship with the caseworker; applicable DFS regulations; the special needs of foster children; the need to work with the natural parents; appropriate disciplining methods and alternatives to corporal punishment; and the importance of utilizing medical, dental, educational and other community resources.
C. Continuing Foster Parent Training
1. All foster parents must receive at least ten (10) hours of foster parent training per year.
2. No foster parent’s license may be renewed unless they have received the requisite number of hours of training.
D. Training in the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect
1. Within two (2) years after this decree is entered, all presently licensed foster parents shall take a thirty (30) hour course in the prevention of abuse and neglect of foster children and appropriate methods of discipline.
2. All foster parents licensed after the signing of this decree shall take such a course within the first year after being licensed.
3. The foregoing provisions shall be contingent upon the availability of the National Foster Care Education Program or another mutually agreed upon program to assist DFS in the development of the training.
E. All of the foregoing training shall be provided at no cost to the foster parent.
F. Curriculum
1. The curriculum and written materials to be used shall be developed and supervised by qualified DFS employees or by outside consultants with previous experience in

foster parent training.
2. The curriculum and written materials to be used shall be submitted to counsel for plaintiffs within sixty (60) days of the entry of this decree. Defendants shall not unreasonably refuse to implement plaintiffs’ revisions to the curriculum and written materials. This review process will continue for a period of five (5) years from the date of entry of this decree.
3. The resumes of each person who will be responsible for the development and supervision of the program shall be provided to plaintiffs.
III. Proper Matching of Foster Children with Foster Parents A. Foster children shall be carefully matched with foster parents to ensure that *1034 the foster parent is able to meet the child’s needs and to prevent improper matching.
B. Essential Elements of Proper Matching
The placement of a child in a foster home shall in all cases be in conformity with the licensing restrictions for that home and with the foster parents’ expressed preferences.
C. Training and Supervision
1. DFS shall designate an employee with training and experience in matching to supervise the placement process and approve each foster home placement.
2. All social service workers who have responsibility for the placement of foster children must receive a minimum of six (6) hours of training on proper placement practices.
3. The curriculum and written materials to be utilized in this training shall be submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel at least thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of training. Defendants shall not unreasonably refuse to implement plaintiffs’ suggested revisions of the curriculum and written material.
4. The social service worker shall document, in writing, why a particular foster home is recommended for a child.
5. Each placement must be approved by the matching supervisor, in writing.
7

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

IV. Pre-Placement Process and Supervision of the Foster Home A. Defendants shall prepare the foster child and foster parents for each new placement in order to ensure that an appropriate match has been made and to reduce unnecessary movement of foster children.
B. Preparation of the Child
1. The child shall be provided with as much information about the prospective foster family as possible, including but not limited to family composition, location, living accommodations, schools, and photographs whenever possible.
2. The child should be helped to cope with the trauma of separation.
3. The social service worker shall prepare a life book with the foster child.
C. Preparation of the Foster Family
1. The social service worker shall provide the foster family with as much pertinent information on the child as is available, to assist them in deciding if they want to accept the child, including, but not limited to:
a. The reasons for the child being in the foster care;
b. The child’s relationship with his/her natural family;
c. Any psychological or behavioral problems the child may have;
d. The child’s progress in school;
e. The child’s complete medical history (in writing) including, but not limited to:
1. Any medications the child is currently using;
2. History of childhood illnesses;
3. History of vaccinations and inoculations;
4. Any chronic medical problems;
f. Any special needs of the child.

D. Pre-Placement Visit
1. At least one (1) pre-placement visit in the foster parents’ home shall be arranged at least two (2) weeks in advance of the placement.
2. The following persons should be present at the visit:
a. The child;
b. The child’s social service worker;
c. The child’s natural parents, or other appropriate member of the natural family;
d. Any children or other persons living in the foster home.
3. Whenever possible a second pre-placement visit, by the child, preferably overnight, should occur.
E. Supervision by Social Service Worker
1. The child’s social service worker shall visit the child in the foster home within twenty-four (24) hours after placement and weekly for the first month of placement *1035 and, thereafter, at a minimum of every two (2) weeks to monitor the placement. Telephone contact is not an acceptable substitute for a face-to-face visit.
The social service worker shall meet with the child alone and in the presence of the foster parents in order to adequately assess the nature of the relationship and to learn of any problems in the home.
F. Relative Foster Homes
The provisions of this section shall be equally applicable to relative foster homes.
G. Emergency Placements
1. Except in the case of an emergency placement, the pre-placement provisions of this section shall be strictly adhered to.
2. An emergency does not exist unless there is imminent danger of physical abuse to the child in his or her present placement.
3. All emergency placements shall be approved by a Social Service Supervisor. In the event that an emergency situation exists which requires immediate placement or
8

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

placement on less than two (2) weeks notice, whenever possible a pre-placement visit shall nevertheless take place even if it occurs on the same day as the actual placement.
H. Supervision
The supervisor shall review the social service worker’s records on a monthly basis to ensure that the home is being properly supervised and to assist in identifying and rectifying any problems.
V. Prohibition on the Use of Improper Punishment of Foster Children A. Defendants shall prohibit any inappropriate punishment of foster children.
B. Ban of Corporal Punishment
1. The use of corporal punishment by foster parents against foster children shall be prohibited.
2. The social service worker shall assist the foster parent in the development of appropriate alternative forms of discipline.
C. Reporting and Follow-Up
1. Anytime a social service worker has reason to believe that a foster parent has used an inappropriate method of discipline, it is to be documented, in writing, and immediately reported to the social service worker’s supervisor.
2. All such cases shall be referred to the Central Registry Unit and also to the Juvenile Court for investigation.
3. If, notwithstanding the inappropriate punishment, a decision is made not to revoke the foster parent’s license, the foster parent will receive intensive supervision and assistance in developing appropriate methods of discipline.
VI. Investigation of and Response to Suspected Incidents of Abuse and Neglect or Unsuitable Care A. Defendants shall respond to all cases of suspected incidents of abuse and neglect, or of unsuitable care by foster parents of plaintiffs in order to prevent aggravation

of harm by a child’s continued placement in an unsafe setting.
B. Investigation and Follow-Up
1. All instances of suspected abuse and neglect by foster parents shall be referred immediately to the Central Registry Unit and to the Juvenile Court for investigation.
2. The social service worker shall also immediately report all such instances to a social service supervisor.
3. A decision shall be made within 48 hours as to the need to remove the child or other foster children from the home. This decision shall be approved by the supervisor. If removal is appropriate, the child or children shall be immediately removed pending resolution of the grievance process established for foster parents. If intensive supervision is needed, it shall be provided immediately.
4. In the case of “substantiated abuse or neglect” and/or “reason to suspect abuse and neglect” by the foster parent to a foster child in a foster home maintained by DFS, or in the case of inappropriate treatment of foster children, DFS should schedule a conference immediately to determine *1036 whether that home is suitable for continuation of foster care.
VII. Elimination of Overcrowding in the Foster Home A. DFS shall not place any member of plaintiffs’ class in an overcrowded foster home.
B. Number of Children in the Home
1. At no time shall the number of children in a foster home exceed six (6), including the foster parents’ children, with the exception of foster children sibling groups.
2. Supervisory approval shall be required whenever the number of children in the home exceeds four (4).
3. There should never be more than two (2) children under the age of two in a foster home or four (4) pre-school age children unless necessary to accommodate a sibling group.
4. When a home is first licensed, no more than one child at a time shall be placed in the home for the first six (6) months, except in the case of siblings who are placed
9

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

together.
5. If both foster parents are employed outside of the home, DFS shall ensure the adequate provision of approved day care services.
6. If the foster parent is also a licensed day care provider, no child under the age of seven shall be placed in that home.
VIII. Rate of Reimbursement A. DFS shall provide each foster parent with an appropriate rate of reimbursement in order to increase the pool of foster parents, and to ensure that the foster parents adequately meet the needs of the foster child.
B. Rate of Reimbursement
Defendant shall, on an annual basis, beginning in Fiscal Year 1985, request and lobby the legislature for a budget line item providing a rate of reimbursement equivalent to the rate determined by the United States Department of Agriculture as necessary to adequately care for children in urban areas of the region of the country that includes the state of Missouri.
IX. Caseload Size A. Defendants shall prohibit excessive caseloads which prevent social service workers from providing adequate services to children and natural parents and from providing appropriate supervision and support of foster parents. To that end defendants shall adopt and implement the following caseload limits:
B. Caseload Size of Social Service Workers
1. DFS social service workers should never have caseloads that exceed twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) children per social service worker. Any exception to the provisions of this section shall only be on a temporary and emergency basis.
2. If a social service worker leaves DFS, that caseload will be assigned to other social service workers within a maximum of two (2) weeks.
3. A supervisor shall only be responsible for a caseload during the time that it takes to reassign cases as provided

in ¶ B.2, supra.
C. Ratio of Social Service Workers to Supervisors
The ratio of immediate supervisors to social service workers should be seven to one to ensure adequate supervision. Supervisors should meet with social service workers at least twice a month.
X. Social Service Worker Training A. To effectively implement the provisions of this decree and to ensure that the needs of the child, the natural parents and the foster parent are met, continuing social service worker training shall be required. This is in addition to specific courses of training referred to in sections I and III, supra.
B. Training Program
1. A formal pre-service and in-service training program shall be established.
*1037 2. The training program shall be in writing and shall use state-of-the-art material.
3. The training program shall be developed and supervised by qualified DFS employees or by outside consultants not in the regular employment of DFS.
4. At a minimum, all supervisors shall receive at least one (1) week training during the first three (3) months they are in a supervisory position and at least two (2) days each year thereafter with training provided by qualified DFS employees or by outside consultants. This training shall be for the purpose of developing and improving supervisory skills.
5. All social service workers shall receive one (1) week of training within their first month of work and at least four (4) days each year thereafter.
C. Training in Prevention of Abuse and Neglect
1. Within two (2) years of the signing of this decree all social service workers and supervisors shall receive sixteen (16) hours of training in the prevention of abuse and neglect of foster children.
2. Thereafter, all new social service workers and supervisors shall receive such training within six (6)
10

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

months of their hiring.
3. The foregoing provisions shall be contingent upon the availability of the National Foster Care Education Program or another mutually agreed upon program to assist DFS in the development of this training.
XI. Medical Care A. Defendants shall establish an adequate medical care system to ensure that foster children’s medical, dental and mental health needs are adequately met. Defendants shall meet this obligation as outlined in paragraphs B, C, and D, infra.
B. Beginning on or about July 1, 1983, DFS shall enroll each foster child in either a health maintenance organization or a prepaid health plan which shall provide a full range of medical services for each child.
C. DFS shall designate an appropriately trained person who will monitor the delivery of medical services and ensure that the medical needs of all children are met. This person shall have the medical records of all children in DFS custody.
D. DFS will ensure the following:
1. All children shall receive a complete medical examination within 24 hours of coming into DFS custody or the next working day.
2. All children will receive a dental, hearing and eye examination within one (1) month after coming into DFS custody.
3. DFS shall obtain a complete medical history for each child when they come into DFS custody including, but not limited to:
(a) any chronic ailments
(b) history of childhood illnesses
(c) history of inoculations and immunizations
(d) any history of psychological problems
(e) dental records to the extent that they exist
(f) name(s) of any previous doctors

(g) any allergies
(h) any medications the child is using.
4. DFS shall provide a prospective foster parent in writing with a complete medical record for each foster child.
5. All children shall receive examinations at the times set forth by the Early Periodic Diagnosis and Treatment Program.
6. All children shall receive annual dental and eye examinations.
7. DFS shall ensure that a child receives all follow-up medical treatment recommended by a doctor including the scheduling of additional appointments and obtaining necessary medication. The need for follow-up treatment shall be clearly indicated in the child’s medical record and monitored. A plan for such treatment shall be formulated in consultation with the treating physician, dentist or the qualified health care provider. A copy of the plan shall be given to the employee designated to monitor *1038 health care. The plan shall include the time periods for the treatment. When the plan has been achieved it shall be recorded in the child’s record along with a statement by the treatment professional that the condition noted has been remedied to the point that there is no future need for treatment. If a further checkup is indicated at a future date this should be noted in the record and should be reviewed by the employee designated to monitor health care.
8. DFS shall maintain accurate medical records for each child, including, but not limited to:
(a) Complete medical history as set forth in section 3 above.
(b) Record of all medical, dental and eye examinations.
(c) Record of all inoculations, medical tests and prescribed medications.
(d) An indication as to when the next medical examination should occur.
9. The foster parent shall be responsible for taking a child to all necessary medical appointments. If a foster parent is unable to take a child to medical appointments, DFS shall either remove those obstacles by providing carfare or babysitting or, as a last resort, the child’s social service
11

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

worker shall take the child to the appointment.
10. The continued failure or refusal by a foster parent to ensure that a foster child receives adequate medical attention shall be considered to be cause for license revocation.
XII. Essential Services A. Defendants shall ensure that essential services are provided to all foster children to treat psychological, emotional and intellectual problems that any foster children may suffer.
B. No later than thirty (30) days after coming into foster care, the social service worker shall evaluate whether the child has any psychological, emotional or intellectual problems. If the child is in need of diagnostic services to determine the existence or the nature and the extent of these problems, if any, the child shall be referred immediately to an appropriate professional for evaluation.
C. If the child is experiencing difficulties in the foster home, the social service worker shall determine whether the problem is being caused by any psychological, emotional or intellectual problem of the child and if necessary shall refer a child for diagnostic services as provided in paragraph B above.
D. In the event that it is determined that the child has an emotional, psychological or intellectual problem, defendants shall ensure that the child receives adequate professional services to treat the problem.
E. For all school age children the social service worker shall determine on a periodic basis, by at least a yearly visit to the child’s school, the child’s school performance. If deficient, the worker shall determine through a diagnostic referral or advice from the school the nature of the child’s problems and shall arrange for the provision of adequate services to treat the problem.
XIII. Permanency Planning A. DFS shall implement permanent plans for each child in its custody to ensure that no child stays in foster care longer than is necessary. To meet this requirement, DFS shall establish the following system of permanency planning:

B. Preliminary Planning
1. A preliminary planning conference shall be held no more than one (1) month after each child enters the custody of DFS even if DFS only has temporary custody. The child’s parents or the caretaking person with whom the child resided prior to entering DFS custody, and a legal representative of the parent(s) or caretaking person, if desired, shall be notified of the conference and their participation in the conference shall be facilitated in every way possible. A record shall be made of written notification to the parents and of efforts made to facilitate their attendance.
2. During the preliminary planning conference, a preliminary permanency plan for *1039 the child, containing timetables, shall be developed, put in writing, signed by the social service worker, the supervisor, and, if the child’s parents are in attendance, by the child’s parents. In addition to containing timetables, this plan shall set forth with specificity the reason for the child’s entering DFS custody, whether the plan is for the child to be returned to his/her family, the steps necessary to enable the child to be returned and how long each step should take to accomplish, including visitation schedules, indication of services to be provided to reduce problems that necessitated placement and who will provide and be responsible for monitoring service provision, precisely what DFS will do to accomplish each step and the parent’s responsibility with regard to each step. Each step shall contain a timetable.
3. A written service agreement shall be made with each natural parent within thirty (30) days after the child comes into care unless there are documented reasons which render the making of a service agreement impossible because of the death or disappearance of a parent. The agreement shall specify the services which DFS shall provide the natural parent to enable the child to be reunited with his or her parent. The agreement shall be signed by all parties, provided however that the oral agreement of the natural parent is sufficient in the event that the natural parent assents to the agreement and the social service worker documents that the natural parent has refused to sign. In all cases, DFS shall provide the services agreed to.
4. If the Juvenile Court is involved with the family, the agreement shall be submitted to the Court for its review and approval. The Court shall then be given a copy for their file. Defendants shall provide the services required by this Agreement.
12

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

5. Visits
(a) DFS will ensure, unless it is documented to be impossible, or not in the best interest of the child, that weekly visits between the parent, child and siblings are arranged. Preferably, the visits shall take place in the natural family’s or foster family’s home. If this is not possible, they shall be in an appropriate, dignified setting providing a natural and homelike environment.
(b) Contacts by telephone or in writing, between visits shall be encouraged, but they are not replacements for visits.
C. Permanency Plans
1. No later than six months after the child has entered DFS custody a permanent plan shall be determined. This plan shall be approved, in writing, by the supervisor and the Permanency Planning Review Team. The permanent plan shall be either return home, adoption, emancipation or independent living. The plans of emancipation or independent living shall be limited to children sixteen years or older.
2. In the event any plan other than return home, adoption, emancipation or independent living is deemed appropriate, documentation for the plan must be submitted for the approval of the Juvenile Court and to plaintiffs for review.
3. Except in special circumstances, long-term foster care is an inappropriate plan and it shall not be used for any child who is less than fifteen years old. Such need shall be clearly documented.
4. The permanency plan for each child shall be reviewed every six (6) months by the child’s social service worker, supervisor and the Permanency Planning Review Team. The permanent plan for each child shall be submitted annually to the Juvenile Court for review.
5. Except in special circumstances, DFS shall be prohibited from maintaining as a plan “return home” in any case in which there has been no contact between parent and child for six (6) months or longer. Such special circumstances shall be documented in writing. In the event that the plan is return home and a period of six (6) months thereafter passes with no contact between parent and child, that plan is no longer a valid plan and must be counted as an absence of a plan and a new plan

developed.
*1040 6. With regard to all children for whom the permanent plan is adoption, where appropriate DFS will attempt to secure a voluntary relinquishment from the parent(s). No later than thirty (30) days after the plan of adoption has been entered in the record, and regardless of whether the social service worker is attempting to obtain a voluntary relinquishment, the worker shall forward all necessary documentation for the initiation of judicial proceedings to the appropriate legal department of DFS and the Juvenile Court. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be read to preclude the worker from attempting to obtain a voluntary relinquishment up until the time of trial.
7. A written summary of the child’s history shall be submitted by the child’s social service worker to the adoption unit no later than five (5) days after the documentation has been forwarded to the appropriate legal departments. In those instances in which the child is freed for adoption by the obtaining of a voluntary relinquishment, the child’s summary shall be sent to the adoption unit no later than five (5) days after receipt of the voluntary relinquishment.
8. The adoption unit shall send at least one, and whenever possible, three home studies of appropriate prospective adoptive families to the social service worker no later than ten (10) working days after receipt of the material on the child, or if specific and identifiable facts related to this particular child’s needs so require, within a further period not exceeding thirty (30) days from receipt of material on the child. If unable to identify at least one home study of an appropriate adoptive family, the adoption unit shall follow the steps indicated below.
9. If no home studies are sent and/or no initial family-child matching decision has been made within thirty (30) days after the material on the child is submitted to the adoption unit, specific adoptive family recruitment efforts in conformity with nationally recognized adoption recruitment techniques shall be undertaken immediately by the adoption unit in consultation with the adoption exchange of Missouri staff in central office (DFS). Such efforts shall be documented in writing.
10. If a child has not been matched within an adoptive family within 120 days after the efforts described above have been undertaken the child shall be referred immediately thereafter to specialized adoption agencies and adoption exchanges.
13

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

11. A list of specialized agencies and exchanges shall be developed and maintained by defendants and submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel who shall have the right to add additional agencies and/or exchanges, to which defendants shall be obligated to refer children immediately in the event that the efforts described above shall prove unsuccessful.
12. DFS shall maintain aggregate records containing the following information for each child in DFS custody: the date the child entered DFS custody, the basis for legal custody, the date custody was obtained, the date a permanent plan was entered, what the plan is, the date of discharge from DFS custody, and the nature of the discharge. If a child enters DFS custody more than once, this data will be maintained for each entry. The format in which these records will be maintained shall be submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and plaintiffs shall have access to these records.
D. Permanency Planning Review Team
1. Permanency Planning Review is an administrative process conducted for the purpose of objectively determining the continued appropriateness of a child’s placement, a child’s progress in care toward the short and long range goals, and the need for continued care.
2. The Permanency Planning Review Team shall review the child’s case plan, and any other relevant material and information, after the child has been in custody for six (6) months and every six (6) months thereafter.
3. The Permanency Planning Review Team shall prepare a written report with its recommendations, and any dissents therefrom, which shall be provided to the *1041 child’s social service worker, supervisor and the Juvenile Court.
4. The Permanency Planning Review Team shall include, at a minimum, the following: the social service worker, the supervisor, the natural parent(s), the child, if of an appropriate age, and at least one individual who is not employed with DFS and represents the community.
XIV. Establishment of Uniform Case Record System A. Defendants shall establish a uniform case record system which will ensure that all essential information regarding services provided to a foster child and his or her natural parents is accurately maintained.

B. Case Records
1. The contents of each case record shall follow the standard recommended by the Child Welfare League of America and at a minimum should record the following information in a clear and readily obtainable manner.
a. The Child’s File
1. The child’s name, age, siblings, address of natural parents.
2. The reasons the child came into care.
3. The current case plan and all prior case plans, each to be recorded on a separate clearly identifiable form to be developed.
4. The complete medical history of the child and a current up-to-date description of the child’s medical problems and treatment.
5. Each social service worker visit with the child and the foster family, the date of the visit, any problems noted and services provided.
6. The number and ages of the children in the foster home.
7. The child’s school, grade and school performance.
8. Any medical, emotional, psychological and intellectual problems that the child may have and the treatment provided and dates of treatment.
9. Each placement that the child has had, the reason for the placement, the reason why the foster home selected was chosen, the date of the pre-placement visit and, if there was an emergency placement, the reason for the emergency and the supervisor who approved the placement.
10. For each placement a statement about whether the placement violated the restrictions in the foster parents’ license or the preferences of the foster parents.
b. The Foster Family File
1. The restrictions in the license and a statement of the preferences of the foster parents.
14

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

2. The dates and places on which the parents received foster parent training and a statement that the foster parent has satisfactorily completed all required training.
3. The application for a foster parent license and a record of all information collected in evaluation and approval of the license.
4. The dates of each social service worker contact with the foster parents and a statement as to whether the contact was a personal visit or a telephone contact.
5. Any problems the foster family has and services offered to assist with these problems.
6. Any reports of abuse or neglect and the outcome of investigations of abuse and neglect until required to be expunged by law.
7. The number and age of the foster children in the home and the dates on which each child entered the home and left the home.
c. The Natural Parents’ File
1. A description of the reason for removing the child from the parent.
2. A copy of the case plan for the family including the temporary case plan, and the current permanent plan.
3. A copy of each written service agreement with the parent.
4. An accurate record of the services actually provided to the parent, the dates *1042 on which the service was provided and the nature of the service. If the parent failed to avail him or herself of the service, the reason for this failure.
5. A statement of the date of each visit between the child and the parent, the duration and place of the visit.
6. Each social service worker contact with the parent, whether the contact was in person or by phone, the date of the contact and a description of the nature of the contact.
2. The uniform case record system shall be developed within three (3) months of the date of this decree and shall be submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel for their review.
C. Review of Records

A supervisor shall review the records of each foster child, natural parent and foster parent at least once every month with the social service worker assigned to that person to determine whether the social service worker is adequately performing the duties required by the provisions of this decree and to ensure that all parties are receiving the services required by this agreement.
XV. Reporting and Monitoring In order to monitor compliance with the terms of this decree the following monitoring provisions shall be placed into effect:
A. The defendants shall take all necessary steps to conform all departmental rules, regulations, directives and other administrative orders to the terms of this decree.
B. The defendants shall designate a person to oversee the implementation of the provisions of this decree and report to defendants on a regular basis the extent of compliance with the decree and recommended steps necessary to achieve full compliance.
C. On a semi-annual basis after entry of the decree for a period of five (5) years the defendants will provide to plaintiffs’ counsel a written report of the extent of compliance with the decree including at least the following:
1. The number of hotline reports made in the period reported concerning suspected abuse or neglect of any member of plaintiff class, a description of the injury done to each child, and the results of the investigation and defendants’ response to it.
2. The numbers of foster parents and social service workers who received training in the period which is the subject of the report, and the number who still require training and defendants’ schedule for providing it.
3. The number of movements that occurred by foster children and the number of children who had more than two placements while in foster care broken down into the number of children placed in 2 homes, 3 homes, 4 homes, 5 homes, 6 or more homes, since coming into Jackson County DFS’ custody.
4. The number of placements for which there was no pre-placement visit, the ages of the children involved and
15

G.L. By and Through Shull v. Zumwalt, 564 F.Supp. 1030 (1983)

an explanation of the facts in each case that accounted for the lack of a pre-placement visit.
5. The number of children and the ages of the children who were not supervised by social service workers in the manner and within the time periods contained in this decree and the reason in each case that the required level of supervision was not obtained.
6. The number of foster home placements, and the age of the children involved, not in accordance with the preferences or restrictions in the foster parent license and a statement of the facts that account for each such placement.
7. The number and ages of children placed in overcrowded homes, as defined by this decree, and a statement of the facts that account for each such placement.
8. The number of children in foster care, the length of time children have remained in care, the number of referrals for termination of parental rights, the number of children placed in adoptive homes and the number of children returned home or adopted by the length of stay of these children.
*1043 9. The number of children under the age of fifteen whose case plan is long-term foster care and a statement of the facts that account for this plan in each case, and the number of children who have had no contact with their parents for six (6) months or longer and have a case plan of return home and a statement of the facts that account for this plan in each case.
10. The number of social service workers and supervisors providing care to foster children and the caseload limits provided for in this decree have been covered by a social service worker for periods in excess of two (2) weeks. If caseloads limits have been exceeded or if uncovered caseloads have occurred, an identification of the caseloads involved shall be specified and a statement of the facts that accounts for the occurrence shall be provided.
D. The defendants shall permit plaintiffs’ counsel and their designated experts to have access to defendants’ casefiles and records maintained in accordance with this

decree on a quarterly basis upon request. Plaintiffs shall keep confidential the names of any foster children and parents contained in these records.
E. Defendants shall respond to written or oral questions from plaintiffs’ counsel relative to implementation of the judgment.
F. The defendants have no objection to plaintiffs seeking permission from the Juvenile Court of Jackson County to establish a procedure whereby each foster child’s case under the jurisdiction of that court is reviewed by the court on a semi-annual basis to determine whether adequate child protection procedures as required by this decree have been implemented in each case. The results of these reviews shall be reported to defendants and plaintiffs’ counsel.
G. This decree shall remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified by agreement of the parties. Prior to initiating formal enforcement proceedings, plaintiffs shall notify defendants of any area(s) of noncompliance and shall attempt to resolve such issues without the assistance of the Court. In the event that the issues are not resolved within thirty (30) days following notice to defendants, plaintiffs may move the Court to enforce this decree.
XVI. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees Defendants shall pay plaintiffs’ counsel, within sixty (60) days after the date of entry of this decree the sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) in full payment of all costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, incurred from the inception of this case until the entry of this decree.
XVII. Damage Claim It is mutually agreed, by and between the parties, that the claims of the named plaintiffs for damages in this case shall be withdrawn and dismissed by the Court.
	  

16