Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 1 of 38

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD ANDERSON; THELMA OUTEN; LILLIAN LONGS; THERESA NORMAN; ROSETTA SPIVEY; ELLA TATE; JODI and SHEPPARD POPE; BILLIE MAE KLINZING; GLORIA COMITO; PATRICIA HAUSHERNANDEZ; ELISIA L. VAZQUEZ, by and through her next friend, PATRICIA HAUSHERNANDEZ; EVAN VAZQUEZ, by and through his next friend, PATRICIA HAUSHERNANDEZ; EVELYN URQUHART; CYNTHIA WODARSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 00-4l48-CV

FEATHER 0. HOUSTOUN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; JOANN R. LAWER, in her official capacity as the Deputy Secretary for the Office of Children, Youth and Families, DPW; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; ALBA MARTINEZ, in her official capacity as Commissioner of DHS, Philadelphia; MAXINE TUCKER, in her official capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of the Children and Youth Division, DHS, Philadelphia; LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; JILL McVEY, in her official capacity as Executive Director of Lancaster County CYS; MONROE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; SAT BAHL in his official capacity as Agency Administrator of Monroe County CYS; MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; WALTER JUNEWICZ, in his official capacity as Director, Montgomery County CYS; BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; VICTOR COLONNA, in his official capacity as Director

Class Action

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 2 of 38
of Beaver County CYS; WASHINGTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES: JEFF FELTON, in his official capacity as Director, Washington County CYS
Defendants
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This civil rights class action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to redress defendant state and county officials' failure to provide mandated financial support, in the form of per diem foster care payments, to abused and neglected children who are in the care of plaintiff care givers, who are all relatives or close friends of the children in their care. State and county defendants have failed to meet the financial needs of these children and their care givers by either failing to inform plaintiffs of their right to receive per diem foster care payments for their care of these dependent children, or failing to pay plaintiff care givers per diem foster care payments for their care of these dependent children, as required under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 670 ~., the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Pennsylvania state law and regulations. 2. Named plaintiffs are all adult care givers who care for children whose parents are unable to provide care for them for a variety of reasons, including abuse and neglect. Plaintiffs are either relatives of the children for whom they care, or close friends of the children’s parents. Generally referred to as "kinship care givers," plaintiffs have no legal responsibility to provide financial support to the children they have taken into their homes. Named plaintiffs also include children who are in the care of the aforementioned “kinship care givers.” 3. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated kinship care givers and children. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants have violated state and federal law by failing to: (a) notify them and other kinship care givers of their right to apply for foster care benefits on behalf of the children in their care; (b) receive and process applications for foster care benefits from them and other kinship care givers; and (c) reimburse them and other kinship care givers

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 3 of 38
for the care of the dependent children placed in their homes at the same per diem rate as non-kinship foster care givers. 4. As a consequence of defendants' failure to provide foster care payments to plaintiff kinship care givers, the dependent children in their care have been, and continue to be, denied the full economic benefits to which they are legally entitled under state and federal law. Many of these children lived in socially and economically disadvantaged settings prior to their placement with relatives and close friends. The defendants' failure to provide these children the opportunity to receive foster care maintenance payments, which are meant to cover such basic necessities as the cost of food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, and school supplies, contributes to the cycle of poverty in which so many of these children find themselves. Moreover, as a consequence of defendants' acts and omissions described herein, some foster children may be placed in the care of strangers instead of relatives, if their relatives are without other sufficient financial resources to provide care for them.
II. JURISDICTION 5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1343 (3) over the subject matter of
this Complaint because it is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for redress of civil rights under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 670, et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
III. PARTIES PLAINTIFFS Philadelphia 7. Plaintiff Edward Anderson is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. Anderson cares for his sister's three children, who have been in the legal custody of defendant Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("Philadelphia DHS") since July 1998. Mr.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 4 of 38
Anderson has had temporary physical custody of these children since March 1999. Mr. Anderson has been expressly denied kinship care payments by Philadelphia DHS. 8. Plaintiff Thelma Outen is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Outen cares for her medically-needy grandson. Upon information and belief, the child has been in the legal custody of Philadelphia DHS since 1989. Ms. Outen has never received foster care maintenance payments nor was she ever informed about the possibility of receiving such payments. 9. Plaintiff Lillian Longs is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Longs cares for two children of a close friend. The two children have been in the legal custody of the Philadelphia DHS since 1992. Ms. Longs has never received foster care maintenance payments for the care of these children, nor was she ever informed about the availability of such payments. 10. Plaintiff Theresa Norman is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Norman has cared for her nephew since January 1998. Upon information and belief, the child was adjudicated dependent and committed to the legal custody of Philadelphia DHS at the time he was placed in Ms. Norman's care. On more than one occasion, DHS has denied Ms. Norman's request to become a certified foster care giver in order to receive foster care maintenance payments. In August 2000, DHS tried to close her nephew’s dependency case and simultaneously cease paying for her nephew’s day care, but the case remains open and has been continued until November 21, 2000. 11. Plaintiff Rosetta Spivey is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Spivey has been caring for her two grandchildren since July 1998, two months after Philadelphia DHS removed from their mother’s care on an emergency basis. In July 1998, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas awarded Ms. Spivey temporary legal custody of her grandchildren while retaining supervision of the children by deferring an adjudication of dependency. Since that placement, Philadelphia DHS has regularly monitored and supervised Ms. Spivey’s home, and has contracted with Lutheran Family Services to Children in their Own Home (SCOH) to Ms. Spivey. Philadelphia DHS has repeatedly told Ms. Spivey’s SCOH worker that kinship care payments were unavailable to Ms.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 5 of 38
Spivey, and that instead, she should apply for general assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. 12. Plaintiff Ella Tate is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Tate has been caring for her great-niece for eight and a half years. Upon information and belief, Philadelphia DHS placed the child in her care on an emergency basis in 1990. Following that initial placement, DHS had no contact with Ms. Tate or the child until 1998, when Ms. Tate contacted DHS about obtaining special services for her nephew. At that time, Ms. Tate was told by a DHS worker that the case had been closed in 1990, that DHS was trying to get rid of foster care maintenance payments for kinship care givers and that they were, therefore, unavailable to help her. Beaver County 13. Plaintiffs Jodi Rae and Sheppard Pope are residents of Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Mr. and Mrs. Pope care for their grandniece and their grandnephew. Upon information and belief, the Pope's grandniece has been in the legal custody of defendant Beaver County Children and Youth Services ("Beaver County CYS") since August, 1997. Upon infomlation and belief, the Pope's grandnephew has been in the legal custody of Beaver County CYS since June, 1999. Beaver County CYS has repeatedly denied the Pope's request for foster care maintenance payments. Washington County 14. Plaintiff Billie Mae Klinzing is a resident of Washington County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Klinzing cares for her three grandchildren who, upon information and belief, have been in the legal custody of defendant Washington County Children and Youth Services ("Washington County CYS") since January, 1999. Ms. Klinzing has inquired about, but been denied, kinship care/foster care payments for the three grandchildren placed in her care. 15. Plaintiff Gloria Comito is a resident of Washington County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Comito cares for her two grandchildren who have been in the legal custody of defendant Washington County Children and Youth Services since July 1997. Washington County CYS has never informed Ms. Comito about the possibility of becoming a certified foster caregiver who is eligible to receive foster care maintenance payments. Instead,

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 6 of 38
Washington County CYS has informed Ms. Comito that she is not eligible to receive financial assistance because she is related to the children in her care. Lancaster County 16. Plaintiff Patricia Haus-Hernandez is a resident of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Haus-Hernandez cares for her four grandchildren who have been in the legal custody of defendant Lancaster Children and Youth Services ("Lancaster County CYS") since June, 1999. Ms. Haus-Hemandez has never received foster care maintenance payments for the care of these children and has repeatedly been told by Lancaster County CYS that she was ineligible to receive such payments because she was a relative care giver. 17. Plaintiff Elisia L. Vasquez, birthdate 8/13/87, is a grandchild of plaintiff HausHernandez, who has been in her care since June 1999. She brings this action through her next friend and current care giver, Patricia Haus-Hernandez. 18. Plaintiff Evan Vazquez, birthdate 10/3/88, is a grandchild of plaintiff Haus-Hernandez, who has been in her care since June 1999. He brings this action through his next friend and current care giver, Patricia Haus-Hernandez. Monroe County 19. Plaintiff Evelyn Urquhart is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms. Urquhart has cared for her grandchild since April, 1999. Upon infonnation and belief, Ms. Urquhart's grandchild has been in the legal custody of defendant Monroe County Children and Youth Services ("Monroe County CYS") since April, 1999. When Ms. Urquhart asked Monroe County CYS about the availability of kinship foster care payments, she was told that she was only eligible for kinship care payments from Philadelphia County .When Ms. Urquhart contacted Philadelphia DHS, she was told that she was only eligible for kinship care payments from Momoe County CYS.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 7 of 38
Montgomery County 20. Plaintiff Cynthia Wodarski is a resident of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Ms.
Wodarski has cared for her nephew since October 1997. In 1995, the child was removed from his mother's care by defendant Montgomery County Children and Youth Services ("Montgomery County CYS") and placed by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in a foster care family. When Ms. Wodarski ' s nephew was placed in her care, he was in the legal custody of Montgomery County CYS. When Ms. Wodarski assumed responsibility for the child, she was told by Montgomery County CYS that they did not provide foster care maintenance payments to kinship care givers.
DEFENDANTS 21. Defendant Feather 0. Houstoun is sued in her official capacity, as the Secretary of the
Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("DPW"). DPW is an executive agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that oversees and supervises the Commonwealth's public welfare system. 71 P.S. § 591. As Secretary ofDPW, Ms. Houstoun is charged with exercising the powers and perfonning the duties which are vested in, and imposed upon, the DPW by law, 71 P .S. § 66. Among other things, Secretary Houstoun is responsible for the enforcement of the Pennsylvania Public Welfare Code, 62 P.S. §§ 101- 1503 et seq., including without limitation, 62 P.S. §§ 7701 et seq. Secretary Houstoun is also expressly responsible for: a. making and enforcing all rules and regulations necessary and appropriate to the
proper accomplishment of the child welfare duties and functions vested by law in the county institution districts. 62 p .8. § 201;

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 8 of 38
b. overseeing DPW's application for and use of federal funds for the financing of programs in fields in which the DPW has responsibility, 62 P.S. § 201 including the administration of the federal foster care program pursuant to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 671;
c. overseeing the policies, practices and operations of social services agencies in the state, including those of the Office of Children, Youth, and Families, 62 P.S. § 701,55 Pa. Code § 3130.12; and
d. ensuring compliance by those agencies with applicable provisions of state and federal law including the administration of the federally funded foster care maintenance payment program under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670, et seq.
22. Defendant Jo Ann R. Lawer is sued in her official capacity as the Deputy Secretary for the Office of Children, youth and Families ("OCYF"), a division ofDPW. 62 P.S. § 701. Ms. Lawer is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of OCYF and for ensuring compliance by the office with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 71 P.S. § 1467.
23. Defendant Department of Human Services of the City ofPhiladelphia ("Philadelphia DHS") is an agency of the Philadelphia County Institution District, the corporate entity created by the County of Philadelphia, pursuant to the County Institution District law, 62 p .8. § 2231, and is the county agency responsible, inter alia, for the supervision, care, custody, and support of dependent children in Philadelphia County. Philadelphia, P A., Charter § 5- 700. Philadelphia DHS is the sole authority for certifying a child's eligibility for placement maintenance in Philadelphia County. 55 Pa. Code § 3140.111. Once DHS

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 9 of 38
determines that a child is eligible for placement maintenance costs, DHS is responsible for authorizing the payment of those costs to the foster parents, including relative foster parents. Id. 24. Defendant Alba Martinez is sued in her official capacity as Commissioner of Philadelphia DHS. Ms. Martinez is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of the Philadelphia DHS and for ensuring compliance by DHS with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 62 P.S. § 2252; Philadelphia, PA., Charter § 3-101. 25. Defendant Maxine Tucker is sued in her official capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of the Children and Youth Division, Philadelphia DHS. Ms. Tucker is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of the Children and Youth Division and for ensuring compliance by the division with applicable provisions of state and federal law .62 p .S. § 2256; Philadelphia, PA., Charter § 3-701. 26. Defendant Lancaster County CYS is an agency of the Lancaster County Institution District, the corporate entity created by the County of Lancaster, pursuant to the County Institution District law, 62 p .S. § 2232, and is the county agency responsible, inter alia, for the supervision, care, custody, and support of dependent children in Lancaster County, including authorizing the payment of foster care payments to relative and non-relative care givers alike. 27. Defendant Jill McVey is sued in her official capacity as Executive Director of Lancaster County CYS. Ms. McVey is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of Lancaster County CYS and for ensuring compliance by the Lancaster County CYS with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 62 P.S. § 2252.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 10 of 38
28. Defendant Monroe County CYS is an agency of the Monroe County Institution District, the corporate entity created by the County of Monroe, pursuant to the County Institution District law, 62 p .8. § 2232, and is the county agency responsible, inter alia, for the supervision, care, custody, and support of dependent children in Monroe County , including authorizing the payment of foster care payments to relative and non-relative care givers.
29. Defendant Sat Bahl is sued in his official capacity as Agency Administrator of Monroe County CYS. Mr. Bahl is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of Monroe County CYS and for ensuring compliance by the Monroe County CYS with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 62 P.S. § 2252.
30. Defendant Montgomery CYS is an agency of the Montgomery County Institution District, the corporate entity created by the County of Montgomery, pursuant to the County Institution District law, 62 P.S. § 2232, and is the county agency responsible, inter alia, for the supervision, care, custody, and support of dependent children in Montgomery County, including authorizing the payment of foster care payments to relative and nonrelative care givers alike.
31. Defendant Walter Junewicz is sued in his official capacity as Director of Montgomery CYS. Mr. Junewicz is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of Monroe County CYS and for ensuring compliance by the Montgomery County CYS with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 62 P.S. § 2252.
32. Defendant Beaver County CYS is an agency of the Beaver County Institution District, the corporate entity created by the County of Beaver, pursuant to the County Institution District law, 62 P.S. § 2232, and is the county agency responsible, inter alia, for the

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 11 of 38
supervision, care, custody, and support of dependent children in Beaver County, including authorizing the payment of foster care maintenance payments to relative and non-relative care givers alike. 33. Defendant Victor Colonna is sued in his official capacity as the Director of Beaver County CYS. Mr. Colonna is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of Beaver County CYS and for ensuring compliance by the Beaver County CYS with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 62 P.S. § 2252. 34. Defendant Washington County CYS is an agency of the Washington County Institution District, the corporate entity created by the County of Washington, pursuant to the County Institution District law, 62 P. S .§ 2232, and is the county agency responsible, inter alia, for the supervision, care, custody, and support of dependent children in Washington County, including authorizing the payment of foster care maintenance payments to relative and non-relative care givers alike. 35. Defendant Jeff Felton is sued in his official capacity as the Director of Washington County CYS. Mr. Felton is responsible for the policies, practices and operation of Washington County CYS and for ensuring compliance by the Washington County CYS with applicable provisions of state and federal law. 62 P.S. § 2252.
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 36. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), the named plaintiffs bring this
state-wide class action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. The plaintiff class consists of: a. Plaintiff Class A – All children in Pennsylvania and their Kinship Caregivers who
were not provided notice of their ability to seek foster care maintenance payments

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 12 of 38
or who were otherwise denied the opportunity to seek foster care maintenance payments from August 16, 2000, and who fit into any one of the following categories: i. Who were adjudicated dependent and committed by court order to the
legal custody of a Defendant County Agency and were placed by the Defendant County Agency in the physical custody of a Kinship Caregiver, where the court subsequently transferred legal custody to the Kinship Caregiver; ii. Who were committed by court order to the legal custody of a Defendant County Agency, after adjudication of dependency was deferred, and were placed by the Defendant County Agency in the physical custody of a Kinship Caregiver, where the court subsequently transferred legal custody to the Kinship Caregiver; iii. Who were adjudicated dependent and committed by court order to the legal custody of a Defendant County Agency and were placed by the Defendant County Agency in the physical custody of a Kinship Caregiver. b. Plaintiff Class B – All children in Pennsylvania and their kinship Caregivers, who fit into any one of the following four categories during the period from August 16, 2000, until this case is dismissed: i. Who were adjudicated dependent and committed by court order to the legal custody of a County Agency and were placed by the County Agency in the physical custody of a Kinship Caregiver without notice to the Kinship Caregiver of the ability to seek foster care maintenance payments,

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 13 of 38
where the court subsequently transferred legal custody to the Kinship Caregiver; ii. Who were committed by court order to the legal custody of a County Agency, without an adjudication of dependency, and were placed by the County Agency in the physi8cal custody of a Kinship Caregiver without notice to the Kinship Caregiver of the ability to seek foster care maintenance payments, or who were otherwise denied the opportunity to seek foster care maintenance payments, where the court subsequently transferred legal custody to the Kinship Caregiver; iii. Who were committed by court order to the legal custody of a County Agency, with or without an adjudication of dependency, and were placed by the County Agency in the physical custody of a Kinship Caregiver who did not receive notice of the ability to seek foster care maintenance payments, or were otherwise denied the opportunity to seek foster care maintenance payments; iv. Who were placed with a Formal Kinship Caregiver who has received or is receiving foster care maintenance payments at a lower per diem rate than other similarly situated foster parents providing the same level of care within the county. 37. The defined class is so numerous that joinder of all plaintiffs is impracticable. Upon information and belief, the number of class members statewide exceeds 7500. 38. There are questions of fact and law common to the class, and those questions predominate over all other questions affecting individual class members. All plaintiff

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 14 of 38
class members have the same federal and state rights to be notified of the availability of foster care maintenance payments for the children in their care and have the same federal and state rights to be paid foster care per diem payments on the same basis and at the same rate as all other foster care givers of dependent children in Pennsylvania. 39. Common questions of fact include the following: a. Whether defendants have a policy, practice or custom of refusing to pay any per
diem foster care reimbursement, clothing allowance or other support for dependent children placed by the court in the care of kinship care givers; b. Whether defendants have a policy, practice or custom of failing to notify kinship care givers of their right to apply for foster care per diem reimbursements, clothing allowances and other support available to non- kinship foster families with whom the court and county children and youth agency have placed dependent children; c. Whether defendants have a policy, practice or custom of deterring and discouraging kinship care givers from applying for foster care per diem reimbursements, clothing allowances and other support in order to avoid paying such costs and d. Whether defendants have a policy or practice of failing to notify kinship care givers of the circumstances under which they could become eligible for foster care per diem reimbursements, clothing allowances and other support for the dependent children in their care. 40. Common questions of law include the following:

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 15 of 38
a. Whether defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 672, due to their failure to pay mandated per diem reimbursements, clothing allowances or other supports to the judicially approved kinship care givers;
b. Whether defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Title IV-E of the Social Security Act by their failure to require, through regulations or otherwise, that county agencies inform kinship care givers of the provisions of Title IV-E and of the circumstances under which they could become eligible for Title IV -E foster care maintenance payments;
c. Whether defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Title IV-E of the Social Security Act due to their failure to reimburse kinship foster care givers at the same per diem rate as non-kinship foster care givers;
d. Whether defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Pennsylvania law due to their failure to provide mandated per diem reimbursements, clothing allowances and other supports to kinship care givers of dependent children in their care;
e. Whether defendants have violated and are continuing to violate Pennsylvania law and policy due to their failure to inform formal kinship care givers of their right to receive foster care maintenance payments for the dependent children in their care;
f. Whether defendants have violated and continue to violate Pennsylvania law and policy due to their failure to reimburse kinship foster care givers at the same per diem rate as non-kinship foster care givers.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 16 of 38
41. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The named plaintiffs' claims arise from the same conduct -- the failure to notify and/or provide class members with mandated foster care payments -- that give rise to the absentee members’, claims.
42. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. They have no interests antagonistic to the interests of the class; the plaintiffs and class members seek to assure the availability of, and access to, foster care maintenance payments for the children in their care. Therefore, the relief that the named plaintiffs seek will benefit all.
43. Plaintiffs' attorneys are experienced career public interest lawyers with extensive experience litigating federal civil rights class action lawsuits.
44. By routinely denying foster care maintenance payments to kinship care givers and/or by routinely failing to inform kinship care givers of the circumstances under which they are entitled to foster care reimbursement payments, defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to members of the class. As a result, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the entire class is appropriate. The plaintiffs' rights to foster care maintenance payments can best be addressed through one action on their behalf.
45. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy and this litigation presents no unusual manageability problems. V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS FEDERAL LAW
46. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 672, requires states receiving funds pursuant to that Act to make foster care maintenance payments to foster parents caring for children placed in their care who have, inter alia, either been removed from the home

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 17 of 38
pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or as the result of a judicial determination and court order, where such children would have been eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ("TANF") in accordance with the State plan. 42 U.S.C. § 672 (a)(l), ( 4)(A), (B). 47. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 670 ~., does not distinguish between foster parents who are unrelated to a child placed in their home, and those who are kinship care givers, for the purposes of establishing the care givers' legal right to receive foster care maintenance payments. 48. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 671, requires a state to designate a state agency to be responsible for administering its foster care maintenance program. In Pennsylvania, the agency responsible for overseeing the administration of the foster care maintenance program, which includes the disbursement of federal funds under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, is the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. 71 P .S. § 201 49. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 675, defines foster care maintenance payments as "payments to cover the cost of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child's personal incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation." 50. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 672, defines a foster family home as a "home for children which is licensed by the State in which it is situated or has been approved, by the agency of such State having responsibility for licensing homes of this types, as meeting the standards established for such licensing."

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 18 of 38
51. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 671, requires a State to consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-related care giver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative care giver meets all relevant State child protection standards.
52. Pursuant to the federal statutory scheme described above, Pennsylvania receives a portion of its funds for foster care payments, including kinship care payments, from the federal government. On inforn1ation and belief, the federal share of these payments is not less than 50%.
53. On information and belief, the remaining portion of federally mandated foster care payments is made up of a combination of state and county funds. STATE LAW AND POLICY
54. According to regulations promulgated by the Pennsylvania DPW, a county agency may place a child in a foster family home if the agency finds placement essential to protect the health and safety of a child and: "(1) the child has been taken into custody under the provisions of the Juvenile Act or by a physician under the Child Protective Services Law; (2) the county agency obtains a court order which transfers temporary legal custody to the county agency and which authorizes such placement; or (3) the county agency obtains a voluntary placement agreement." 55 Pa. Code § 3130.64 (a)(l), (2), and (3).
55. Once a child is placed in a judicially approved foster care home pursuant to a court order or a voluntary placement agreement, the foster care giver is entitled to foster care maintenance payments, to be administered by the county agency. 55 Pa. Code § 3140.111.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 19 of 38
56. A foster family in Pennsylvania is "[t]he living unit, including the foster family residence and foster parent, approved by a foster family care agency to provide foster family care to children." 55 Pa. Code § 3700.4
57. A foster parent in Pennsylvania is "[an] individual responsible for providing foster family care to children placed by the Foster Family Care Agency." Foster family care is defined as "[r]esidential care and supervision provided to a child placed with a foster family." 55 Pa. Code § 3700.4.
58. Pennsylvania regulations require county agencies to give all foster care givers, including kinship care givers, information about the availability of foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. 55 Pa. Code § 3700.38. The Office of Children, youth and Families ofDPW recognizes that "child welfare agencies should inform potential kinship care givers in writing of their possible right to receive foster care payments." OCYF Bulletin 00-97-06.
59. State regulations regarding the certification and approval of foster family homes are to be uniformly applied to any adult providing substitute family care for any child considered to be in placement regardless of the relatedness of the care giver and the child. OCYF Bulletin, 3130-84-06, 3700-84-01.
60. OCYF defines kinship care as "the full-time nurturing and protection of children who must be separated from their parents and temporarily placed in the home of a care giver who has an existing relationship with the child and/or the child's family." OCYF Bulletin 00-97 -06.
61. OCYF defines a formal kinship care giver as "[a]n individual providing care for a child who has a relationship with a child or the child's family. The child is in the custody of an

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 20 of 38
approved county children and youth agency. The relationship will involve one of the following characteristics: (i) related to the child through blood or marriage; OR (ii) god parent as recognized by an organized church; OR (iii) member of a tribe or clan; OR (iv) significant and positive relationship with the child or the child's family." OCYF Bulletin 00-97-06. 62. According to OCYF regulations, if a child is placed with a relative through a formal kinship care arrangement, the agency is responsible for providing supervision to kinship care givers and supervision and services to the child. OCYF Bulletin 00-97-06. 63. In accordance with federal law, OCYF officially recognizes that "[f]oster parents who are related to the foster child are entitled to the same rate of reimbursement as would be paid to non-relative foster parents." OCYF Bulletin 3130-84-07,3700-84-02. 64. Upon information and belief, and notwithstanding the foregoing, Pennsylvania DPW and defendants Houstoun and Lawer have a policy, custom or practice of directing the county agencies to reimburse kinship foster care givers and non-kinship foster care givers at different per diem rates. See Exhibit " A " attached hereto, setting forth schedule of rates for Pennsylvania Contracts, and showing lower per diem rates for kinship care foster parents. 65. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on information and belief, DPW state officials, including Robert Stefan, DPW Western Regional Director, and John Austin, DPW Western Regional Supervisor, have in the past been made aware of the inability of certain of plaintiff class members to obtain kinship foster care payments from their county CYS, but have failed to advise plaintiffs of their right to file a complaint with DPW, or to instruct the relevant county CYS office to proffer the state and federally mandated payments to

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 21 of 38
plaintiffs. On further information and belief, state DPW officials Stefan and Austin have advised plaintiffs that the state's authority was limited to "urging" the counties to comply, despite DPW's clear obligation to ensure state and county compliance with the federal law and mandates. 66. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on information and belief, DPW state officials, including Richard A. Houston, DPW Regional Director, were and are aware that county CYS agencies are not complying with state and federal laws regarding the provision of foster care maintenance payments to eligible kinship care givers. See Exhibit "C" (redacted) attached hereto, wherein Mr. Houston writes in an e-mail dated 9/8/00 that DPW is "addressing the areas that all agencies will need to address to come into compliance with the Children, Youth and Families Bulletin on Kinship Care."
COUNTIES' POLICIES. PRACTICES AND CUSTOMS 67. Upon information and belief, Philadelphia DHS has a policy, practice and custom of
reimbursing kinship foster care givers in Philadelphia county at a different per diem rate than non-kinship foster care givers. See Exhibit " A," setting forth schedule of rates for Pennsylvania Contracts, and showing lower per diem rates for kinship care foster parents. 68. Upon information and belief, all defendant county children and youth agencies have a policy, practice or custom of not informing kinship care givers' of their right to receive foster care maintenance payments. 69. Upon information and belief, all defendant county children and youth agencies have a policy, practice or custom of encouraging kinship care givers to assume legal custody of the children in their care without explaining the full ramifications of that decision or

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 22 of 38
informing them of the option of becoming formal kinship care givers, thereby relieving the defendant county agencies of any legal or financial responsibilities toward the children or their caretakers through the provision of foster care payments. 70. Upon information and belief, all defendant county children and youth agencies have a policy, practice or custom of denying foster care payments to kinship care givers who ask about such payments. 71. Upon information and belief, in addition to named defendant county CYS agencies, numerous other county CYS agencies around the state have a policy, practice or custom of denying foster care payments to kinship care givers either by failing to inform eligible care givers about the possibility of becoming certified foster parents or by expressly denying eligible care givers foster care payments on the basis of their relatedness to the children in their care. These counties include but are not limited to: Westmoreland County, Huntingdon County , Delaware County , and Carbon County.
ALLEGATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS Plaintiff Anderson 72. Plaintiff Edward Anderson was awarded temporary physical custody of his sister's three
children, ages 3,4, and 14, on March 22, 1999. 73. The three children were committed to the custody of Philadelphia DHS in July 1998. 74. At that time, Mr. Anderson was told by DHS that, in order to qualify for kinship care
payments, he would have to move to a larger apartment, as Mr. Anderson also has custody of his 11 year-old son. 75. Mr. Anderson subsequently obtained a three bedroom apartment, and was awarded temporary physical custody of the children. Mr. Anderson has completed parenting

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 23 of 38
classes at the request of DHS and currently receives SCOH ("Services to Children In Their Own Homes") from DHS. 76. The oldest of plaintiff Anderson's three foster children has special needs, and receives Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. 77. Although Mr. Anderson has requested kinship care payments from DHS, his DHS caseworker, Francia Taggart, and Taggart’s supervisor, Gail Cummings, have denied Mr. Anderson these payments. Instead, DHS has directed Mr. Anderson to apply for public welfare benefits, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ("TANF") and to rely as well on the SSI payments received on the oldest foster child's behalf. According to DHS employees Taggart and Cummings, the decision whether to award kinship foster care payments is "discretionary," and in DHS's view, Mr. Anderson does not need these payments. Plaintiff Outen 78. Plaintiff Thelma Outen has been caring for her grandson for eight and a half years. 79. Upon information and belief, the child has been in the custody of the Philadelphia DHS since he was born, nine years ago. 80. Ms. Outen began caring for the child when he was nine months old, following his removal from a medical foster care placement. 81. When DHS placed her grandson in her home, Ms. Outen was informed by DHS that "grandparents cannot be foster parents." 82. Ms. Outen was never informed about the availability of foster care maintenance payments.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 24 of 38
Plaintiff Longs 83. Plaintiff Lillian Longs began caring for the two children of her friend in 1992, when
Philadelphia DHS removed the children from the care of their mother. 84. Upon information and belief, the children were adjudicated dependent and placed by the
court in Ms. Longs' home in 1992. 85. Upon information and belief, Ms. Longs' home was a certified foster care home at the
time the children were placed. 86. At the time Ms. Longs became a fornla1 kinship caregiver for the two children, she was
not informed of the availability of foster care maintenance payments. 87. Instead, Ms. Longs was advised by her DHS caseworker, Phyllis Williams, and William's
supervisor, Bill Lawhorne, to apply for public assistance for the care of the children. 88. Upon information and belief, the amount Ms. Longs receives in public assistance is less
than the amount she would receive as a kinship foster caregiver. Plaintiff Norman 89. Plaintiff Theresa Norman has cared for her four-year old nephew since January 1998. 90. Upon information and belief, the child was adjudicated dependent on November 12, 1997
and committed to the legal custody of Philadelphia DHS. In January 1998, the child was placed by Philadelphia family court in Ms. Norman's home. 91. Throughout the time that Ms. Norman has cared for her nephew, DHS has paid for his day care arrangements. 92. In August, 2000, Ms. Norman received a letter from DHS in which she was informed that DHS was closing her nephew's case and also stopping payments for her nephew's day care.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 25 of 38
93. When Ms. Nom1an infom1ed DHS that she would not be able to care for her nephew without DHS' help in paying for day care, she was told that the child would be removed from her home and placed for adoption.
94. When Ms. Norman asked DHS about becoming a certified foster parent, she was told she was ineligible.
95. When Ms. Norman asked DHS about accessing kinship care payments, she was told that kinship care was only available "to those who deserve it" and that the child in her care did not need the financial help.
96. On October 20, 2000, there was a hearing in Philadelphia Family Court which was continued until November 21, 2000.
Plaintiff Spivey 97. Plaintiff Rosetta Spivey has cared for her two grandchildren, now ages eight and seven,
since July 1998, two months after Philadelphia DHS removed them on an emergency basis from their mother's care. 98. Upon information and belief, a dependency petition was filed on behalf of the children, but in July 1998 the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas deferred adjudication on the petition and awarded temporary legal custody to Ms. Spivey. 99. Since the children's placement, Philadelphia DHS has regularly monitored and supervised Ms. Spivey's home through the provision of Services to Children in their Own Homes (SCOH). 100. In accordance with the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, specifically 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6351(e), six-month review hearings before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas are routinely scheduled in this case. The most recent hearing was in June, 2000.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 26 of 38
101. Although Ms. Spivey is wheelchair bound, Ms. Spivey has no difficulty parenting her grandchildren, attending court hearings, or participating in other required activities or meetings involving her grandchildren. Additionally, Ms. Spivey's twenty-seven-year-old daughter lives with her and assists in taking care of the grandchildren.
102. On behalf of Ms. Spivey, the SCOH worker, Michelle Murphy, has asked Philadelphia DHS about the possibility of Ms. Spivey receiving kinship care payments for the care of her grandchildren. Philadelphia DHS has declined to offer Ms. Spivey kinship care payments, purportedly because DHS does not believe Ms. Spivey would attend parenting classes based on her disability.
103. On information and belief, Philadelphia DHS has never advised Ms. Spivey of its kinship care program, or of the criteria for her participation as a kinship care giver.
104. Upon information and belief, the amount Ms. Spivey receives in public assistance is less than the amount she would receive as a kinship care giver.
Plaintiff Tate 105. Plaintiff Ella Tate has been caring for her great-niece for eight and a half years. 106. The child was originally taken from her mother's custody by the Philadelphia DHS in
1990 because the child was living in a shelter. 107. At that time, DHS asked Ms. Tate to begin caring for the child on an emergency basis. 108. When Ms. Tate agreed, DHS gave her a document stating that the child would only be in
her care for two weeks. 109. Following the placement, DHS had no contact with Ms. Tate or the child until early 1998.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 27 of 38
110. At that time, Ms. Tate contacted DHS because she wanted their help in getting therapy for the child.
111. Ms. Tate was informed by a DHS worker, Patricia Simmons, that the agency had closed the case after the child was placed in her care in 1990.
112. Further, Ms. Tate was told by Simmons that DHS was trying to get rid of kinship care payments and that they were, therefore, unavailable to her.
113. Upon information and belief, there was never any formal transfer of custody to Ms. Tate. Plaintiffs Jodi Rae and Sheppard Pope 114. Plaintiffs Jodi Rae and Sheppard Pope began caring for their grandniece in August, 1997,
when Beaver County CYS removed the child from his mother's care and placed him with Mr. and Mrs. Pope. Upon information and belief, the Pope's grandniece was adjudicated dependent by the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas in August, 1997. 115. In 1997, Mr. and Mrs. Pope completed all of the foster care parent requirements specified by Beaver County CYS. 116. Despite the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Pope are certified foster care givers, they have never received foster care maintenance payments for the care of their grandniece. Mr. and Mrs.Pope have been repeatedly denied these payments by Beaver County CYS because they are "blood relatives" of their grandniece. 117. In June of 1999, Mr. and Mrs. Pope also began caring for their grandnephew after he was removed from his parent's care by Beaver County CYS. Following the boy's removal from his parent's home, a caseworker from Beaver County CYS called Mr. and Mrs. Pope several times to ask for permission to place the child in their care.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 28 of 38
118. Upon information and belief, the Pope’s grandnephew was adjudicated dependent by the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas and placed by the court in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Pope.
119. Mr. and Mrs. Pope have never received foster care maintenance payments for the care of their grandnephew. Beaver County CYS has denied them these payments because the Pope's are kinship care givers.
120. Beaver County CYS advised the Pope's that they were only entitled to welfare payments. On information and belief, Mr. and Mrs. Pope began receiving welfare payments in late 1999. Upon information and belief, the amount that the Pope's receive in welfare is less than the amount that they would have received in foster care maintenance payments.
121. The Pope's have on several occasions asked Beaver County CYS to provide assistance in securing necessities for the foster children, such as car seats and a bed. Beaver County CYS provided a car seat for the grandniece. However, after the placement of the grandnephew with the Pope's, the agency refused to provide a second car seat. The agency also refused to provide a bed for the grandnephew, making it necessary for him to sleep with his grandparents.
122. On August 24,2000, a caseworker for Beaver County CYS sent a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Pope in which she wrote that Beaver County CYS was "in the process of developing a Kinship Care Program, which will provide a variety of services to support families who care for children." See Exhibit "D" attached hereto.
Plaintiff Billie Mae Klinzing 123. Plaintiff Billie Mae Klinzing had taken care of her three grandchildren intermittently prior
to 1999, sometimes as a result of a Washington County Court adjudication of dependency

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 29 of 38
and sometimes voluntarily at the request of Washington County CYS. Never once did Washington County CYS advise Ms. Klinzing that she is entitled to foster care maintenance payments for the foster children in her care. 124. Most recently, Ms. Klinzing began caring for her three grandchildren in January of 1999 at the request of a Washington County CYS caseworker, who decided to remove the children from their mother's care. 125. Klinzing's grandchildren were adjudicated dependent and placed formally by the Washington County Court of Common Pleas in Ms. Klinzing's home on June 3, 1999. 126. Ms. Klinzing was told by her Washington County CYS caseworker, Julie Moresschi and Ms. Moresschi's supervisor, Marjorie King, that she was not eligible for foster care payments. Instead, she was advised to apply for TANF. 127. On information and belief, on July 26,2000, the Washington County Court of Common Pleas continued placement of the three grandchildren with the Klinzings, and scheduled a further review hearing in six months from that date. Plaintiff Gloria Comito 128. Plaintiff Gloria Comito has cared for her two granddaughters since July of 1997 when they were removed from their mother's care by Washington County CYS. 129. Ms. Comito's grandchildren were adjudicated dependent, committed to the legal custody of Washington County CYS and placed by the Washington County Court of Common Pleas in her care in July of 1997. 130. Ms. Comito has never received foster care maintenance payments for the care of her grandchildren.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 30 of 38
131. When Ms. Comito asked Washington County CYS about receiving financial assistance for the care of her granddaughters, she was told that she was not eligible to receive assistance because she was a grandparent.
132. On information and belief, in August 2000 the Washington County Court of Common Pleas ordered the two children to remain in foster care placement with their maternal grandmother and scheduled a further review hearing six months from that date.
Plaintiffs Haus-Hemandez and Elisia and Evan Vazquez 133. Plaintiff Patricia Haus-Hemandez began caring for her four grandchildren, including
plaintiffs Elisia L. Vazquez and Evan Vazquez, in June of 1999. At that time, Lancaster County CYS had removed the children from their mother's care. 134. Plaintiff Haus-Hemandez's grandchildren were adjudicated dependent, committed to the custody of Lancaster County CYS, and placed by the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in Ms. Haus-Hemandez' home in June, 1999. 135. When Ms. Haus- Hernandez inquired about the availability of foster care payments for the care of her four grandchildren, she was told by Lancaster County CYS supervisor Kurt Miller and CYS caseworkers Amber Goehreg and Marlene Jennings that she was not entitled to receive any money because she was a relative care giver. 136. Again, when Ms. Hernandez asked Lancaster County CYS about becoming a certified foster care giver, she was told that regardless of whether or not she was a certified foster parent, she would still not be eligible to receive any foster care payments because she was related to the children in her care.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 31 of 38
137. Ms. Hernandez was advised to apply for public assistance (TANF) for the care of her grandchildren. Ms. Hernandez has not received been receiving TANF, but has been receiving SSI benefits effective January 2000.
138. Ms. Hernandez is currently receiving child support from her grandchildren's parents. Upon information and belief, the amount Ms. Hernandez receives in child support is less than the amount she would receive as a kinship foster care giver.
Plaintiff Urquhart 139. Plaintiff Evelyn Urquhart has cared for her grandchild since April 5, 1999. 140. The child was living in Monroe County when he was removed from his mother's care by
Monroe County Children and Youth Services ("CYS"). 141. On information and belief, Monroe County CYS caseworker, PJ Giese, informed Ms.
Urquhart that if she did not agree to care for her granddaughter, the child would be placed in foster care. 142. Subsequently, Ms. Urquhart went to Domestic Relations Court in Philadelphia County and was given emergency temporary custody of the child. 143. When Ms. Urquhart asked Monroe County CYS about the availability of kinship foster care payments, she was told by Giese that she was only eligible for kinship care payments from Philadelphia County, where she was a resident. 144. When Ms. Urquhart contacted Philadelphia DHS, she was told by Philadelphia DHS caseworker, Chris Sirachman, that she was only eligible for kinship care payments from Monroe County. 145. Ms. Urquhart has not received kinship foster care payments from either county.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 32 of 38
Plaintiff Wodarski 146. Plaintiff Cynthia Wodarski has cared for her nephew since October, 1997. 147. In 1995, the child was removed from his mother's care by in Montgomery County CYS,
adjudicated dependent and placed by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in a foster care family. 148. When Ms. Wodarski assumed responsibility for the child, she was told by Montgomery County CYS that they do not provide foster care payments to kinship care givers. 149. When Ms. Wodarski began caring for her nephew in October, 1997, he was in the legal custody of Montgomery County CYS. 150. Ms. Wodarski was also told by Montgomery County CYS that if she could not handle the financial burden of caring for her nephew, he would be removed from her care and placed elsewhere. Allegations as to all Plaintiffs 151. All plaintiffs, who have been entrusted with the care and placement of foster children by defendant county agencies and/or the court, have either been formally certified as foster parents or could and should have been certified as foster parents. 152. On information and belief, all of the children placed in the care of plaintiff kinship care givers would have been eligible for state aid (now T ANF) at the time they were placed with plaintiff kinship care givers, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(4)(A),(B). Harm to all Plaintiffs 153. Defendants' failure to inform plaintiffs of their rights under federal and state law to receive foster care per diem financial assistance to help with the care of the children in their custody, and the defendants' failure to provide the legally required subsidies, has

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 33 of 38
caused plaintiffs significant financial hardship and has in some instances deprived the foster children of important life necessities. 154. As a result of state and county defendants' policies and practices, actions and omissions set forth above, all plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
VI. CLAIMS FIRST COUNT: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
(ALL DEFENDANTS) 155. Plaintiffs incorporate herein the allegations set forth in Paras. 1- 152 of this Complaint. 156. Defendants, by their acts and omissions under color of state law as described above,
including, without limitation, (I) their failure to pay any support in the form of a per diem reimbursement, clothing allowance or other support to the judicially approved plaintiff care givers of the circumstances under which they can apply for such benefits in order to avoid paying such costs established under the federal AFDC-FC foster care regulations; and (3) their failure to reimburse judicially approved kinship foster care givers at the same per diem rate as non-kinship foster care givers for the care of dependent children placed with them pursuant to a court order or a voluntary placement agreement, have violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. SECOND COUNT: VIOLATION OF TITLE IV-E OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
(ALL DEFENDANTS) 157. Plaintiffs incorporate herein the allegations set forth in Paras. 1- 154 of this Complaint. 158. Defendants, by their acts and omissions under color of state law described above,
including, without limitation, (I) their failure to pay any support in the form of a per diem

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 34 of 38
reimbursement, clothing allowance or other support to the judicially approved plaintiff kinship care givers and their dependent children; and (2) their failure to notify plaintiff kinship care givers of the circumstances under which they can apply for such benefits, have violated Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 672, the purpose of which is to assure that children who have been determined by a court to be dependent, whose placement and care are the responsibility of the state or local agency responsible for administering the state plan for aid and services to needy families, and who were eligible for AFDC-FC are placed in certified foster homes and receive foster care per diem reimbursements. 159. Defendants, by their acts and omissions under color of state law described above, including, without limitation, their failure to reimburse judicially approved kinship foster care givers at the same per diem rate as non-kinship foster care givers for the care of dependent children placed with them pursuant to a court order or a voluntary placement agreement, have violated Title IV -E of the Social Security Act, 42 U .S.C. §§ 670 et seq., which establishes kinship foster care givers' legal right to receive foster care maintenance payments on the same basis and at the same rate as non-kinship care givers.
THIRD COUNT: VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW (DEFENDANT COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH AGENCIES
AND INDIVIDUAL COUNTY DEFENDANTS) 160. Plaintiffs incorporate herein the allegations set forth in Paras. 1- 157 of this Complaint. 161. Defendant County Children and Youth Agencies and individual county defendants, by
their acts and omissions under color of state law described above, including, without limitation, their failure to notify kinship care givers of their right to receive foster care

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 35 of 38
reimbursement payments for the care and support of dependent children placed with them by the court, have violated their obligations under Pennsylvania law to fully inform prospective foster care givers of all applicable statutes and regulations governing Pennsylvania's foster care system. 55 Pa. Code § 3700.38. 162. Defendant County Children and Youth Agencies and individual county defendants, by their acts and omissions under color of state law described above, including, without limitation, their failure to reimburse plaintiff kinship care givers for their care and support of dependent children placed with them by the court, have violated their obligations under Pennsylvania law to pay reimbursement and support to caretakers of dependent children who are not legally responsible for the children's support, 55 Pa. Code § 3140.111. 163. Defendant County Children and Youth Agencies and individual county defendants, by their acts and omissions under color of state law described above, including, without limitation, their failure to reimburse kinship care givers at the same per diem rate as nonkinship foster care givers for the care of dependent children placed with them pursuant to a court order or a voluntary placement agreement, have violated their obligations under Pennsylvania law, 55 Pa. Code § 3700 et seq., and OCYF Bulletin 3130-84-07,3700-8402, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", which establishes that kinship care givers should receive foster care maintenance payments on the same basis and at the same rate as nonkinship care givers.
VII. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Representative Plaintiffs respectfully pray: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction of the action;

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 36 of 38
2. That this Court certify this as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1 ), 23(b )(2);
3. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that the State and County defendants' policy and practice of failing to notify plaintiff kinship care givers of their eligibility for per diem foster care payments, and/or failing to pay any per diem foster care reimbursement, clothing allowance or other support for dependent children placed in the homes of plaintiff kinship care givers pursuant to either a court order or voluntary placement agreement, violates Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq., as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution;
4. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that the County defendants, policies and practices of failing to notify plaintiff kinship care givers of their eligibility for per diem foster care payments, and/or failing to pay any per diem foster care reimbursement, clothing allowance or other support for dependent children placed in the homes of plaintiff kinship care givers pursuant to a court order or voluntary placement agreement, violates Pennsylvania law and regulations;
5. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that plaintiff kinship care givers who have been or will in the future serve as kinship care givers for dependent children placed in their homes pursuant to a court order or voluntary placement agreement, are entitled to foster care reimbursement payments at the same per diem rate as non-kinship care givers;
6. That this Court issue preliminary and then permanent injunctive relief enjoining State and County defendants: (1) from engaging in the practices complained of in this Complaint, namely,

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 37 of 38
(a) failing to give plaintiff provide kinship care givers information about foster care benefits;
(b) failing to notify plaintiffs of their right to apply for foster care benefits; (c) failing to notify plaintiffs in writing of the action taken on their request for
foster care benefits and, if benefits are denied, the reason for the denial, the legal basis for the denial, and an explanation and description of their appeal rights; (d) failing to notify plaintiffs in writing of the action taken on their request for foster care benefits and, if benefits are approved, a statement of the starting date of eligibility , the amount of the maintenance payment and an explanation of any offset for recoupment of TANF or Family GA, the amount of the difficulty of care supplement, an explanation of how it was calculated, and an explanation and description of appeal rights; and 7. That this Court order State and County defendants to audit their records and notify eligible class members of their potential right to file claims and seek state administrative proceedings; 8. That this court award plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and 9. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief which this Court deems just, proper, or equitable.

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 60 Filed 05/07/04 Page 38 of 38
Respectfully submitted,
Marsha L. Levick Pa. Attorney No.22535 JUVENILE LAW CENTER The Philadelphia Building 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-625-0551
Witold J. Walczak Pa. Attorney No.62976 . AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-681-7736

 
 Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 61 Filed 05/07/04 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD ANDERSON et al. v.
FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

NO. 00-CV-4148

ORDER AND NOW, this _______ day of May, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint (docket no. 59) and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall file the attached document as Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

BY THE COURT:
_________________________ BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

 
 Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 64 Filed 10/29/04 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD ANDERSON, et al. v.
ESTELLE B. RICHMAN, et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

NO. 00-CV-4148

ORDER AND NOW, this _______ day of October, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' unopposed Amended Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class (docket no. 63) and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.1 The proposed class is accordingly certified for settlement purposes only.

BY THE COURT:
_________________________ BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

1

A District Court may certify a class purely for settlement purposes “so long as the

four requirements of [Rule] 23(a) and the appropriate requirements of [Rule] 23(b) are met[.]” In

re General Motors Corp. Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Litig, 55 F.3d 768, 778 (3d Cir. 1995).

The requirements set out in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a) are (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3)

typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. The Court finds that each of the four requirements

is satisfied in this case. The Court further finds that Defendants have acted in a manner generally

applicable to the class such that injunctive relief is appropriate, and that, accordingly, the

requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) have been met.

 
 Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 76 Filed 04/01/05 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD ANDERSON, et al. v.
FEATHER O. HOUSTON, et al.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

NO. 00-CV-4148

ORDER AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2005, upon consideration of the parties’ joint settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the parties’ representations at the settlement hearing held March 14, 2005, the Court finds as follows: (1) The parties published notice of the settlement hearing in the largest circulation
newspapers serving each of the counties represented by Defendant county agencies as well as the largest circulation newspapers serving Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie, Jamestown, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, York, and Harrisburg. (2) Members of the settlement class were given due notice and an opportunity to present their legal and factual arguments in opposition to the approval of the Settlement Agreement. (3) Members of the settlement class were given full opportunity to participate in the hearing held on March 14, 2005. (4) The Settlement Agreement constitutes a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of the dispute for the members of the class. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) it is ORDERED that: (1) The Settlement Agreement is approved and confirmed as being fair, reasonable,

Case 2:00-cv-04148-BWK Document 76 Filed 04/01/05 Page 2 of 2
and adequate as to all members of the Class. (2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter this Order as a final judgment, and this
case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 41(a)(2).
BY THE COURT:
S/Bruce W. Kauffman BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

 
 Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 1 of 13
SEALDC,CLOSED,A/R,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:00−cv−04148−BWK

ANDERSON, et al v. HOUSTOUN, et al Assigned to: HONORABLE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/16/2000 Date Terminated: 04/01/2005 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

EDWARD ANDERSON

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK JUVENILE LAW CENTER 1315 WALNUT STREET THE PHILADELPHIA BUILDING, FOURTH FLOOR PHILA, PA 19107 TEL 215−625−0551 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff THELMA OUTEN

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LILLIAN LONGS

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ELLA TATE

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JODI POPE

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHEPPARD POPE

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 2 of 13

BILLIE MAE KLINZING

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EVELYN URQUHART

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CYNTHIA WODARSKI on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
EVAN VAZQUEZ by and through his next fried, PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK JUVENILE LAW CENTER 801 ARCH STREET STE. 610 PHILA, PA 19107−2445 (215) 625−9589 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ELISIA L. VAZQUEZ by and through her next friend, PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ

represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendant JOANN R. LAWER in her official capacity as the Deputy Secretary for the Office of Children, Youth and Families, DPW
Defendant DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

represented by SHERRI GLANTZ PATCHEN DEPT.OF PUBLIC WELFARE 1700 STATE OFFICE BUILDING 1400 SPRING GARDEN STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19130−4088 215−560−2192 Fax: 215−560−5554 Email: shpatchen@state.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by SHERRI GLANTZ PATCHEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALAN C. KESSLER DUANE MORRIS LLP 1940 ROUTE 70 EAST STE 200 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003 856−874−4210 Email: akessler@wolfblock.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 3 of 13

Defendant ALBA . MARTINEZ in her official capacity as Commissioner of DHS, Philadelphia
Defendant MAXINE TUCKER in her official capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of the Children and Youth Division, DHS, Philadelphia
Defendant LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

TIMOTHY E. STAUSS DUANE MORRIS LLP 1940 ROUTE 70 EAST SUITE 200 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003 Email: tstauss@duanemorris.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM G. FREY GIBBONS P.C. 1700 TWO LOGAN SQUARE 18th &ARCH STREETS PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−446−6253 Fax: 267−675−6350 Email: wfrey@gibbonslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALAN C. KESSLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TIMOTHY E. STAUSS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM G. FREY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALAN C. KESSLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TIMOTHY E. STAUSS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM G. FREY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DONALD E. WIEAND , JR. STEVENS &LEE 190 BRODHEAD ROAD SUITE 200 BETHLEHEM, PA 18017 610−997−5071 Email: dew@stevenslee.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 4 of 13

Defendant JILL McVEY in her official capacity as Executive Director of Lancaster County CYS Defendant MONROE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES
Defendant SAT BAHL in his official capacity as Agency Administrator of Monroe County CYS
Defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES
Defendant WALTER JUNEWICZ in his official capacity as Director, Montgomery County CYS Defendant

represented by DONALD E. WIEAND , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN LAMB MCERLANE PC 24 EAST MARKET ST BOX 565 WEST CHESTER, PA 19381−0565 610−430−8000 Fax: 610−692−0877 Email: dmacmain@lambmcerlane.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SHERYL L. BROWN DEASEY, MAHONEY, VALENTINI, NORTH LTD 1601 MARKET ST STE 3400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−587−9400 Fax: 215−587−9456 Email: sbrown@dmvnlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SHERYL L. BROWN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PHILIP W. NEWCOMER MONTGOMERY COUNTY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE ONE MONTGOMERY PLZ STE 800 PO BOX 311 NORRISTOWN, PA 19404−0311 610−278−3033 Email: pnewcome@montcopa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PHILIP W. NEWCOMER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 5 of 13

BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

DAVID J. MACMAIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIE MILIE JONES JONES PASSODELIS PLLC GULF TOWER SUITE 3510 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 412−315−7272 Fax: 412−471−2754 Email: mjones@jonespassodelis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SHERYL L. BROWN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
VICTOR COLONNA in his official capacity as Director of Beaver County CYS

represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIE MILIE JONES (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SHERYL L. BROWN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WASHINGTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

represented by JOHN P. GONZALES MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &GOGGIN 2000 MARKET ST SUITE 2300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−575−2871 Email: jpgonzales@mdwcg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH J. SANTARONE , JR. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &GOGGIN 620 FREEDOM BUSINESS CENTER SUITE 300 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 610−354−8452 Email: jjsantarone@mdwcg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JEFF FELTON in his official capacity as Director,

represented by JOHN P. GONZALES (See above for address)

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 6 of 13

Washington County CYS

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSEPH J. SANTARONE , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant DAVID J. MacMAIN
Plaintiff THERESA NORMAN
Plaintiff ROSETTA SPIVEY
Plaintiff GLORIA COMITO

represented by DAVID J. MACMAIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MARSHA L. LEVICK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/16/2000 08/16/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000
09/14/2000
09/19/2000

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. filing fee $ 150 receipt # 740027 (mrs) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
Summons(es) issued Forwarded to: 15 originals mailed to counsel 08/16/00 (mrs) Modified on 08/16/2000 (Entered: 08/16/2000)
Standard Case Management Track. (mrs) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
2 MOTION by PLAINTIFF EDWARD . ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF THELMA OUTEN, PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LONGS, PLAINTIFF ELLA TATE, PLAINTIFF PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF JODI POPE, PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD POPE, PLAINTIFF BILLIE MAE KLINZING, PLAINTIFF EVELYN URQUHART, PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA WODARSKI FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
3 ORDER THAT THE CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE JAY C. WALDMAN TO THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY. ( SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT MICHAEL E. KUNZ ) 9/14/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
4 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS FEATHER O. HOUSTON AND JO ANN LAWER SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME UP TO AND INCLUDING 11/6/00 TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND THE MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE ANITA B. BRODY ) 9/19/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 09/19/2000)

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 7 of 13

09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/28/2000 09/28/2000 10/02/2000 10/05/2000
10/05/2000
10/05/2000
10/05/2000
10/05/2000 10/05/2000

5 Praecipe for Appearance of DONALD E. WIEAND JR. for DEFENDANT LANCASTER CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JILL McVEY, Certificate of Service. (er) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
6 Appearance of WILLIAM G. FREY for DEFENDANT DEPT OF HUMAN, DEFENDANT ALBA MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT MAXINE TUCKER, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
7 Appearance of JOSEPH J. SANTARONE JR., JOHN P. GONZALES for DEFENDANT WASHINGTON CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JEFF FELTON, jury demand, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
8 Appearance of DAVID J. MAC MAIN for DEFENDANT MONROE COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT SAT BAHL, DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
9 ORDER THAT THE CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY, TO THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN. ( SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT MICHAEL E. KUNZ ) 10/2/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
10 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS MONE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUGH SERVICES, SAT BAHL, BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN &YOUTH SERVICES AND VICTOR COLONNA SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL 11/6/00 TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' COMPLAINT EITHER BY ANSWER OR BY MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
11 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILA., ALBA MARTINEZ AND MAXINE TUCKER SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NOT LATER THAT 45 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF CLASS DISCOVERY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
12 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS MONROE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, SAT BAHL, BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AND VICTOR COLONNA SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NOT LATER THAN 45 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF CLASS DISCOVERY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
13 AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AND WALTER JUNEWICZ SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NOT LATER THAN 45 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF CLASS DISCOVERY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
14 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILA., ALBA MARTINEZ AND MAXINE TUCKER SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO 11/6/00 TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
15 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS' LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AND JILL MCVEY TIME FOR FILING A RESPONSE PLEADING TO THE COMPLAINT AND A REPLY TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION SHALL BE EXTENDED TO 11/6/00. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/2000)

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 8 of 13

10/13/2000
10/13/2000 10/20/2000
10/20/2000
10/20/2000
10/26/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000

16 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFTS FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN AND JO ANN LAWER MAY RESPOND TO THE PLFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNTIL 11/6/00. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. ) 10/13/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/13/2000)
17 MOTION by MOVANT DAVID J. MacMAIN FOR MARIE MILIE JONES TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFTS BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN &YOUTH SERVICES AND VICTOR COLONNA , AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
18 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS WASHINGTON COUNTY AND JEFF FELTON HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL 11/6/00 TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLFFS' COMPLAINT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/20/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
19 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS' WASHINGTON COUNTY AND JEFF FELTON SHALL HAVE AN XTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NOT LATER THAN (45) DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF CLASS DISCOVERY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/20/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
20 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR MARIE MILIE JONES TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFTS BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN &SERVICES AND VICTOR COLONNA (Attorney: MARIE MILIE JONES). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 10/20/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
21 Appearance of MARIE MILIE JONES for DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
22 Affidavit of: Richard Ehrlich re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT MONTGOMERY CO CHILD, DEFENDANT WALTER JUNEWICZ . Served by: personal service on 8/22/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
23 Affidavit of: William Alexander re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT ALBA . MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT TUCKER and JOHN SHELLENBERGER. Served by: personal service on 8/22/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
24 Affidavit of: Larry Morine re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT LANCASTER CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JILL McVEY. Served by: personal service on 8/30/00. (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
25 Affidavit of: Joseph Johnson re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN, DEFENDANT JOANN R. LAWER . Served by: personal service on 8/30/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
26 Affidavit of: Francis Jolley re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT MONROE COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT SAT BAHL . Served by: personal service on 9/1/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
27 Affidavit of: Kenneth Kearney re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA . Served by: personal service on 9/5/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
28 Affidavit of: William Revels re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT DEPT OF HUMAN . Served by: personal service on 8/29/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
29 Affidavit of: Kenneth Kearney re: served summons and complaint upon DEFENDANT WASHINGTON CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JEFF FELTON . Served by: personal service on 8/29/00 . (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 9 of 13

11/03/2000
11/06/2000 11/07/2000 11/13/2000
11/16/2000 11/16/2000 11/17/2000 11/20/2000 11/21/2000 11/21/2000 12/05/2000 12/26/2000

30 Amended complaint by PLAINTIFF EDWARD . ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF THELMA OUTEN, PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LONGS, PLAINTIFF ELLA TATE, PLAINTIFF PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF JODI POPE, PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD POPE, PLAINTIFF BILLIE MAE KLINZING, PLAINTIFF EVELYN URQUHART, PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA WODARSKI, PLAINTIFF THERESA NORMAN, PLAINTIFF ROSETTA SPIVEY, PLAINTIFF GLORIA COMITO , amending [1−1] complaint , Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
31 MOTION by DEFENDANT MONTGOMERY CO CHILD, DEFENDANT WALTER JUNEWICZ TO DISMISS PLFFS' COMPLAINT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
32 Praecipe by DEFENDANT MONTGOMERY CO CHILD, DEFENDANT WALTER JUNEWICZ to withdraw motion to dismiss plffs' complaint, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
33 AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES AND JILL MCVEY SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND THE DEFTS WILL RESPOND NO LATER THAN 45 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF CLASS DISCOVERY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 11/13/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
34 MOTION by DEFENDANT MONROE COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT SAT BAHL, DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 (b)(6) , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jl) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
35 MOTION BY DEFENDANT DEPT OF HUMAN, DEFENDANT ALBA . MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT MAXINE TUCKER TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (dt) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
36 MOTION BY DEFENDANT WALTER JUNEWICZ, DEFENDANT MONTGOMERY CO CHILD TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (dt) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
37 MOTION by DEFENDANT FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN, DEFENDANT JOANN R. LAWER TO DISMISS PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
38 MOTION by DEFENDANT LANCASTER CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JILL McVEY TO DISMISS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
39 MOTION by DEFENDANT WASHINGTON CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JEFF FELTON TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) , OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1404(A) , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (md) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
40 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 22, 2000 TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS. ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN) 12/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (dt) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
41 PLAINTIFF EDWARD ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF THELMA OUTEN, PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LONGS, PLAINTIFF ELLA TATE, PLAINTIFF PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF JODI POPE, PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD POPE, PLAINTIFF BILLIE MAE KLINZING, PLAINTIFF EVELYN URQUHART, PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA WODARSKI, PLAINTIFF THERESA NORMAN, PLAINTIFF ROSETTA SPIVEY, PLAINTIFF GLORIA COMITO'S Memorandum of Law in Response to DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 10 of 13

01/12/2001 01/12/2001 01/12/2001 01/12/2001 01/12/2001 03/16/2001
03/20/2001 04/04/2001
04/11/2001 06/07/2001

DISMISS, Declaration, Certificate of Service. (fh) (Entered: 12/26/2000)
42 Reply Memorandum by DEFENDANT LANCASTER CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JILL McVEY in support of MOTION TO DISMISS, Certificate of Service. (er) (Entered: 01/12/2001)
43 Reply Memorandum by DEFENDANT DEPT OF HUMAN, DEFENDANT ALBA MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT MAXINE TUCKER in support of their motion to dismiss plffs' amended complaint, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
44 Appearance of SHERYL L. BROWN for DEFENDANT MONROE COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT SAT BAHL, DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA , Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
45 MOTION by DEFENDANT MONROE COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT SAT BAHL, DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF TO PLFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (REPLY BRIEF ATTACHED) (gn) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
46 Reply Memorandum by DEFENDANT DEPT OF HUMAN, DEFENDANT ALBA MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT MAXINE TUCKER in support of defts' motion to dismiss plffs' complaint, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
47 MOTION by PLAINTIFF EDWARD ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF THELMA OUTEN, PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LONGS, PLAINTIFF ELLA TATE, PLAINTIFF PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF JODI POPE, PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD POPE, PLAINTIFF BILLIE MAE KLINZING, PLAINTIFF EVELYN URQUHART, PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA WODARSKI TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
48 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. PLFFS SHALL HAVE UNTIL 6/20/01 TO RE−FILE SAID MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 3/20/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) Modified on 03/20/2001 (Entered: 03/20/2001)
49 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL WITHDRAW ALL PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFTS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FILE AN ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD TO PLFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT DURING THE PENDENCY OF SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS. PLFFS SHALL NOT SEEK JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST DEFTS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, ET. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 4/4/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
50 ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THE MOTION OF DEFTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN &YOUTH SERVICS AND WALTER JUNEWICZ TO DISMISS PLFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCKET #36) FROM THE COURT'S LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 4/11/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
51 MOTION by PLAINTIFF EDWARD ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF THELMA OUTEN, PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LONGS, PLAINTIFF ELLA TATE, PLAINTIFF PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF JODI POPE, PLAINTIFF SHEPPARD POPE, PLAINTIFF BILLIE MAE KLINZING, PLAINTIFF EVELYN URQUHART, PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA WODARSKI, PLAINTIFF THERESA NORMAN, PLAINTIFF ROSETTA SPIVEY, PLAINTIFF GLORIA COMITO FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 06/07/2001)

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 11 of 13

06/14/2001 06/15/2001 07/30/2001 07/31/2001
10/29/2001 01/17/2002 01/17/2002 03/12/2002 04/22/2004
05/07/2004
05/07/2004

52 ORDER GRANTING [45−1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF TO PLFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 6/14/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED ON 6/13/01. (gn) Modified on 06/14/2001 (Entered: 06/14/2001)
53 Reply by DEFENDANT MONROE COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT SAT BAHL, DEFENDANT BEAVER COUNTY CHILD, DEFENDANT VICTOR COLONNA to plffs' response to defts' motion to dismiss. (gn) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
54 Praecipe by DEFENDANT WASHINGTON CO CHILD, DEFENDANT JEFF FELTON to withdraw motion to transfer venue, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
55 ORDER THAT BECAUSE DEFENDANTS FILED A PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. &1404 FROM THE COURT'S LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 7/31/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (jl) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
56 Petition of DEFENDANT DEPT OF HUMAN, DEFENDANT ALBA . MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT MAXINE TUCKER for entry of Confidentiality Order, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
57 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH COURT APPROVAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 1/17/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
Certain documents governed by Protective Order. (gn) (Entered: 01/17/2002)
58 ORDER THAT PLFFS' REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS GRANTED AND THAT PLFFS SHALL HAVE UNTIL 6/21/02 TO RE−FILE SAID MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ) 3/12/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
59 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT FILED BY PLFFS' EDWARD ANDERSON, GLORIA COMITO, PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, BILLIE MAE KLINZING, LILLIAN LONGS, THERESA NORMAN, THELMA OUTEN, JODI POPE, SHEPPARD POPE, ROSETTA SPIVEY, ELLA TATE, EVELYN URQUHART, CYNTHIA WODARSKI, CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTACHED) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C Second Amended Complaint# 2 Appendix D)(gn, ) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
60 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against SAT BAHL, BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, VICTOR COLONNA, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, JEFF FELTON, FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN, WALTER JUNEWICZ, LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, JOANN R. LAWER, ALBA. MARTINEZ, MONROE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, JILL McVEY, MAXINE TUCKER, WASHINGTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, filed by plffs' EVAN VAZQUEZ, ELISIA L. VAZQUEZ, GLORIA COMITO, ROSETTA SPIVEY, THERESA NORMAN, EDWARD ANDERSON, PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, BILLIE MAE KLINZING, LILLIAN LONGS, THELMA OUTEN, JODI POPE, SHEPPARD POPE, ELLA TATE, EVELYN URQUHART, CYNTHIA WODARSKI.(gn, ) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
61 ORDER THAT PLFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL FILE THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT AS PLFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ON 5/6/04.) 5/7/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn, ) (Entered:

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 12 of 13

08/27/2004
10/04/2004
10/29/2004 11/04/2004 12/28/2004 01/07/2005 01/07/2005 01/14/2005
02/28/2005

05/07/2004)
62 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FILED BY PLFFS' EDWARD ANDERSON, GLORIA COMITO, PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, BILLIE MAE KLINZING, LILLIAN LONGS, THERESA NORMAN, THELMA OUTEN, JODI POPE, SHEPPARD POPE, ROSETTA SPIVEY, ELLA TATE, EVELYN URQUHART, ELISIA L. VAZQUEZ, EVAN VAZQUEZ, CYNTHIA WODARSKI, CERTIFICATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
63 UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, FILED BY PLFFS' EDWARD ANDERSON, GLORIA COMITO, PATRICIA HAUS−HERNANDEZ, BILLIE MAE KLINZING, LILLIAN LONGS, THERESA NORMAN, THELMA OUTEN, JODI POPE, SHEPPARD POPE, ROSETTA SPIVEY, ELLA TATE, EVELYN URQUHART, ELISIA L. VAZQUEZ, EVAN VAZQUEZ, CYNTHIA WODARSKI, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
64 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ON 10/28/04.10/29/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED. (mac, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
Copy of order dated 10/29/04 and envelope returned by the U.S. Postal Service and addressed to Marsha Levick for the following reason: Not deliverable as addressed. (gn, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
65 ORDER THAT THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT IN THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED CASE ON 2/7/05 AT 2:00 P.M. IN COURTROOM 3−A, U.S. COURTHOUSE.SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ON 12/27/04. 12/28/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(cdd, ) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
66 MOTION for Approval of Notice of Settlement Hearing filed by DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ALBA. MARTINEZ, MAXINE TUCKER.Local Rule Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "A" − Proposed Notice# 2 Local Rule Certification# 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Notice)(STAUSS, TIMOTHY) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ALBA. MARTINEZ, MAXINE TUCKER re 66 MOTION for Approval of Notice of Settlement Hearing (STAUSS, TIMOTHY) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
68 ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO FRCP 23(e)(1)(B) FOR PARTIES SHALL PUBLISH THE NOTICE ATTACHED HERETO NO LATER THAN 1/24/05, IN THE FOLLOWING NEWSPAPERS: THE PHILA. INQUIRER; THE TIMES HERALD (NORRISTOWN); THE LANCASTER INTELLIGENCER JOURNAL (MORNING AND EVENING EDITIONS); THE PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE; THE ERIE TIMES NEWS; THE JOHNSTOWN TRIBUNE DEMOCRAT; THE WILKES BARRE TIMES LEADER; THE SCRANTON TIMES; THE YORK DAILY RECORD; THE HARRISBURG PATRIOT NEWS; THE ALLENTOWN MORNING CALL; THE BEAVER COUNTY TIMES; THE POCONO RECORD; AND THE WASHING COUNTY OBSERVER REPORTER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ON 1/14/05. ) 1/14/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
69 Second MOTION for Approval of Notice of Settlement Hearing filed by DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ALBA. MARTINEZ, MAXINE TUCKER.Local Rule 7.1 Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Local Rule 7.1 Certification# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(STAUSS, TIMOTHY) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

Case: 2:00-cv-4148 As of: 09/13/2012 09:02 PM EDT 13 of 13

02/28/2005 03/02/2005 03/03/2005
03/09/2005 03/14/2005 03/14/2005 03/21/2005 04/01/2005
09/23/2005 09/26/2005

70 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ALBA. MARTINEZ, MAXINE TUCKER re 69 Second MOTION for Approval of Notice of Settlement Hearing (STAUSS, TIMOTHY) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
71 MOTION for Approval of Notice of Settlement Hearing filed by DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.Rule 7.1(b) Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Notice of Proposed Settlement# 2 Local Rule 7.1(b) Certification# 3 Text of Proposed Order Order)(STAUSS, TIMOTHY) Modified on 3/4/2005 (np). (Entered: 03/02/2005)
72 ORDER THAT PURSUANT TO FRCP 23(e)(1)(B), THE PARTIES SHALL PUBLISH THE NOTICE ATTACHED HERETO NO LATER THAN 3/8/05 IN THE FOLLOWING NEWSPAPERS: THE PHILA. INQUIRER; THE TIMES HEALD (NORRISTOWN); THE LANCASTER INTELLIGENCER JOURNAL (MORNING AND EVENING EDITIONS); THE PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE; THE ERIE TIMES NEWS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ON 3/2/05. ) 3/3/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
Copy of order dated 3/3/05 and envelope returned by the U.S. Postal Service and addressed to Marsha L. Levick for the following reason: Return to Sender. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
73 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN : Settlement Hearing held on 3/14/05. ESR Operator: Michael Beck. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
74 EXHIBITS PER JUDGE KAUFFMAN'S REQUEST. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
75 Proof of Publication by the deft BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN &YOUTH SERVICES AND VICTOR COLONNA of the Legal Notice in the Beaver County Times on 3/8/05 and which was provided in open Court as an exhibit during the hearing on 3/14/05 on approval of settlement. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
76 ORDER THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS APPROVED AND CONFIRMED AS BEING FAIR, REASONABLE,AND ADEQUATE AS TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS. THE CLERK OF THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO ENTER THIS ORDER AS A FINAL JUDGMENT, AND THIS CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN ON 3/31/05. ) 4/1/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
77 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by WASHINGTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES, JEFF FELTON in connection with the Notice Letter pursuant to II.C.2 of the Settlement Agreement (GONZALES, JOHN) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
78 AFFIDAVIT Certification of Service by DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. (FREY, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/26/2005)