IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

Behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00755-MHT

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

Behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00908-MEF

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT FILING

Plaintiff, J.B., hereby requests the Court to hereby to amend/correct

Plaintiff’s Consolidated Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and

Summary Judgment Reply Brief filed on August 9, 2007 (Doc. #58) with the

attached corrected version.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
_/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr._________

ROBERT D. DRUMMOND, JR. (DRU004)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

323 De La Mare Avenue

Fairhope, Alabama 36532

(251) 990-6249

_/s/Michael J. Crow_______________

MICHAEL J. CROW (CRO039)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

P.O. Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

(334) 269-2343 - Telephone

(334) 954-7555 - Facsimile

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 14

th

day of August, 2007, I electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will

send notification of such filing to the following:

T. Dudley Perry

P.O. Box 66

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057

Michael Crow

P.O. Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

Robert D. Drummond

Attorney at Law

323 De LaMare

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
Fairhope, AL 36532

/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr.______

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

Behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00755-MHT

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

Behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00908-MEF

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF

COMES NOW the plaintiff, by and through counsel, and in response to the

Defendant’s Motion To Suppress and Defendant‘s Summary Judgment Reply Brief

states as follows:

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 18
2

Subsequent to the filing of plaintiff’s brief in opposition to summary judgment, the

defendant filed a motion to suppress certain portions of the brief and exhibits attached

thereto, and later filed a reply brief. (Documents 43 and 49 respectively). Both

documents assert facts not raised in the motion for summary judgment and brief in

support thereof.

The motion to suppress appears to be premised on defendant’s assertion that:

“Plaintiff’s entire case is a sham because every fact he disputes is immaterial.” See

page 3 of the motion to suppress.

The reply brief primarily attempts to correct defendant’s original factually

inaccurate “Undisputed Facts” and asserts new facts and exhibits.

LEGAL CONTEXT OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

The plaintiff has set forth two causes of action, each separate and distinct from

the other; the §1983 claim and state law claims. Neither cause of action relies in whole

or part on the other and each claim could have been brought as the only count or cause

of action in these lawsuits.

More specifically, the §1983 claim is premised on the unreasonable delay in

detention without care, treatment or services pending appropriate placement by the

defendant. This claim is unaffected by Alabama law which requires committed children

to be placed within seven days of notice of commitment. Plaintiff does not contend that

violation of the seven day placement requirement constitutes, per se, a violation of

plaintiff’s due process rights under the United States Constitution. Rather, the only

relationship the seven day requirement has to the constitutional claim, is as Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 18
3

Albritton pointed out in A.G. V. Wood, “A violation of a state statute is not necessarily

the equivalent of a federal constitutional violation... A violation of a state defined

procedure can however, also constitute a violation of federal due process.” See Albritton

order, page 5, Exhibit 16 to plaintiff’s summary judgment brief.

Thus, while the state seven day requirement does not form the basis of the

§1983 claim, a violation of the seven day rule provides strong support for the conclusion

that the defendant was fully aware of the wrongful character of his conduct, and the

Court may conclude that detention delays beyond seven days are unreasonable.

Conversely, if the state of Alabama had a requirement that children need not be

placed for 21 days, such a statutory provision could well be found to be an

unreasonable delay and therefore unconstitutional. Moreover, §12-15-71(j), Code of

Alabama (1975) which states if acceptance of a child would cause an agency to be in

violation of a state statute or standard, then seven day compliance is not required, could

well be found to be violative of due process for detained children and thus

unconstitutional.

This particular question is not before the Court in this case as the overwhelming

evidence establishes that acceptance of J.B. within seven days would not have caused

DYS to be in violation of any state statute or standard. Although the defendant intimates

in his reply brief that acceptance of J.B within seven days would have caused a violation

of a state statute or standard, the defendant does not identify either.

While the federal claim stands alone, the seven-day state law requirement is

illustrative of the reasoning of the Alabama legislature as to the amount of time

considered reasonable for placement. Likewise, the state law claims, premised solely

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 3 of 18
4

on state law, can be adjudicated without reference to United States Constitutional due

process requirements.

It is possible, for example, that the federal claim, is not successful for some

reason, yet the state claims be adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff if the evidence

establishes that placement did not occur within seven days and all other elements of the

cause of action are proven.

Throughout defendant’s motion for summary judgment, brief, motion to suppress

and reply brief, the context of these respective claims is lost and/or misrepresented. As

each cause of action stands alone, the evidence before the court is overwhelming that

defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on either count.

THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE IN THE CONTEXT

OF THE RESPECTIVE CAUSES OF ACTION

Critical to the respective causes of action is the defendant’s evidence regarding

fundamental issues: As to the federal claim: the reasonableness of J.B.’s detention time

pending placement. As to the state claims: whether acceptance of J.B. within seven

days would have caused DYS to be in violation of a state statute or standard.

As established by the motion for summary judgment and supporting brief, the

defendant never asserts, claims or offers evidence that 1) the length of J.B’s detention

was reasonable; or 2) that acceptance of J.B. within seven days would have caused

DYS to be in violation of a state statute or standard.

As established by the motion to suppress and reply brief, the defendant still does

not assert that J.B.’s detention stay was reasonable. In his reply brief, on the last page,

44, defendant intimates that acceptance of J.B. would have caused DYS to be in

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 4 of 18
5

violation of “statutes and standards”. Just as he did in his deposition, the defendant

does not identify a single statute or standard that would have been violated. As

established herein, the reason the defendant has not, will not and never will be able to

make such assertion is that numerous appropriate beds were available for J.B.’s

placement. (Pendergast Affidavit Exh. 4 to Reply Brief)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant’s motion to suppress asserts various evidentiary submission are

immaterial. Because of the defendant’s unfocused assertions from page 2-13, it is

impossible to determine with any degree of certainty defendant’s contentions.

* On page 13, the defendant requests suppression of pages 9-13 of plaintiffs

brief and Exhibit 13 attached thereto. Pages 9-13 of plaintiff’s brief, part of the

“Statement of Facts”, set forth the statutory provisions regarding DYS acceptance of

committed children. Although the defendant’s conduct in regard to J.B. and hundreds of

other children suggests he believes the statutes to be immaterial, plaintiff believes they

are material as they establish the basis of plaintiff’s state law claims.

* Also on pages 9-13 are facts, fully supported, detailing the policies, procedures

and practices of the defendant and DYS relating to the receipt of commitment notices

through placement of children. As to each respective cause of action, the section

entitled “DYS Acceptance Process” sets forth facts material to the dispositive issues.

For example, §12-15-61(c) Code of Alabama, (1975) requires placement within seven

days of notice of commitment. The facts to which defendant objects set forth that the

defendant has perpetuated a policy, procedure or practice whereby committed children

are not even placed on the staffing list until certain ancillary documentation is sent to

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 5 of 18
6

DYS. Likewise Wood adopted a policy, procedure or practice whereby Screening and

Placement has two weeks to classify and staff a child, which is one week longer that the

statutory period to actually accept a child. (Exhibit 13 to plaintiff’s S/J brief) These

examples, like all other facts fully supported in plaintiff’s statement of facts are material

to the issue of deliberate indifference, defendant’s claim of qualified immunity,

defendant’s supervisory liability, as well as his negligence and wantonness under state

law.

* The defendant next asserts the entire depositions of Wood and Pendergast, not

directly referenced in the brief, should be suppressed. The defendant cites no authority

for such an assertion; he simply complains, “they are replete with objectionable

questions, immaterial and irrelevant testimony and otherwise inadmissible testimony.”

In the plaintiff’s statement of facts there are no less than twenty-two distinct and

direct references to deposition testimony. As the defendant’s responses are only fully

representative if read in the context of the lines of questioning, it would be unfair to the

defendant to target a single page or line without providing the full context. Likewise, it

would be misleading to the Court to only have targeted portions of testimony without the

context in which the response was given.

Equally as important, in this case, is the testimony that the defendant and

Pendergast did not give, namely that no assertion is made that J.B.’s delay in

placement was reasonable or that placement of J.B. within seven days would have

caused DYS to be in violation of some statute or standard. Plaintiff has no way of

supporting this fact without submission of the entire deposition. Moreover, plaintiff was

fully aware that defendant in his reply brief would attempt to suggest that J.B.’s

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 6 of 18
7

placement within seven days would cause DYS to be in violation of a statute or

standard. Absent submission of the entire deposition, plaintiff would have no way to

establish defendant’s testimony on the issue, as a sur-reply brief is not normally

permitted.

Additionally, denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the

Eleventh Circuit, whereby the Court would look, de novo, to the entire record. Absent

submission of the entire deposition plaintiff could not support his contention that the

defendant never made assertions regarding the reasonableness issue or the seven-day

placement issue.

Finally, counsel for the defendant had every opportunity to examine the

defendant at deposition and declined to do so.

Although rarely the case, the submission of the entire depositions of Wood and

Pendergast is proper, appropriate and necessary to the disposition of defendant’s

motion for summary judgment.

* Defendant next asserts that pages 16-19 of plaintiff’s brief, excerpted from

defendant’s deposition should be suppressed. Again, defendant cites not authority to

support his assertion. Instead, he argues that plaintiff’s argument is erroneous.

Defendant’s position is properly argued in a reply brief not a motion to suppress. If one

adopted defendant’s rationale, the majority of his “Undisputed Facts:” in his summary

judgment brief would be stricken for being erroneous, as he recognizes in his reply brief

wherein he corrects his many factual inaccuracies.

* Defendant’s next suppression target, is a statement on page 19 of plaintiff’s

brief, wherein plaintiff states:

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 7 of 18
8

“Defendant Wood is required by DYS policy to review the space requirements of

each facility on an annual basis and document corrective action. (Exhibit 20)” Plaintiff

then states “Defendant Wood has no documentation reflecting this review, nor any

documentation reflecting corrective action. (Wood depo. Pgs. 12-16)” Both statements

are factually supported by the evidence. Wood cites a portion of his testimony at page

15 of his deposition to attempt to establish his point that the statements are erroneous.

A review of the statements made and supporting cites by the plaintiff shows that

plaintiff referenced five (5) pages, 12-16, of deposition testimony so that all the

responses of Wood, which gave rise to plaintiff’s fact statement, could be given

consideration. The defendant decries the submission of extensive deposition testimony

offered to be balanced, yet what he submits to the court is a few lines out of 5 pages

which completely ignores the testimony giving rise to plaintiff’s factually accurate

statement. Defendant’s suggestion on this point is hypocritical and any objection should

be argued in his reply brief.

* Defendant next seeks suppression of the FY 2004 and FY 2005 annual reports

to the Governor. The statute mandating these reports is brief and without detail,

however, despite the brevity of the filing requirements, the statute is specific regarding

setting forth in the report, inter alia, the need for facilities under DYS’s jurisdiction and

the juvenile conditions in the state. Neither report contains such information, despite the

need for additional facilities and despite an ever-growing waiting list and length of

detention stays pending placement.

It is obvious the defendant believes these reports to be irrelevant, as evidenced

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 8 of 18
9

by his acknowledged failure to comply with the statutory reporting mandates. However,

the failure of the defendant to comply with his statutory obligation is yet another of many

acts and omissions evidencing defendant’s deliberate indifference and the reports are

obviously relevant to that issue.

* The defendant next seeks suppression of excerpts of Wood’s and Pendergast’s

deposition relating to a fundamental issue; that being what the defendant considered a

reasonable detention time pending placement. Defendant argues that neither deponent

could answer because reasonable depends on “ALL” the circumstances of the individual

case-not just a limited hypothetical set of circumstances dreamed up by J.B.’s attorney.

What defendant’s counsel conveniently fails to disclose to the Court is that in answering

this line of questions Wood and Pendergast reviewed and had before them the entire

screening and placement file utilized by the Screening and Placement committee at the

time of the respective children’s commitment, detention and placement. In answering

these questions regarding reasonableness the deponents had all the information

available to DYS at the time the child was staffed. This testimony is relevant, material

and is properly submitted as part of plaintiff’s brief.

For the reasons set forth above the Motion to Suppress is due to be denied.

DEFENDANT’S REPLY BRIEF

In his reply brief the defendant restates his previously provided “Undisputed

Facts” and goes on to argue various points and offer new facts. From his reply, it is

clear the defendant incorrectly assumes the plaintiff believes that plaintiff’s supported

facts of defendant’s conduct, acts and omissions, regarding space review requirements,

annual reports, corrective action documentation, etc, individually, are tantamount to

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 9 of 18
10

deliberate indifference. What plaintiff does not comprehend is that each of these acts or

omissions, and countless others, are evidence of his deliberate indifference.

* Defendant argues on page 6 of his reply brief, that any waiting list is the product

of systemic deficiencies. What plaintiff ignores is that while the number of children on

the waiting list is important, the issue is not the number of children on the list, the issue

is the length of time any one child, including J.B., languishes in detention awaiting

placement. Further, the waiting list could have just a single child on the list, but if that

wait in detention pending placement exceeded seven days, or was unreasonable for

due process purposes, the same lawsuit as filed by J.B. would be viable.

Equally disturbing is defendant’s failure to recognize that the system he decries

was adopted and perpetuated or in fact created by the defendant. For example, the

defendant requires committing courts to send additional marginally relevant materials to

DYS before the child is staffed; Wood allows staffing only once a week, for the benefit of

his employees, further delaying placement; Wood does not even contemplate

alternative placements to detention. Wood, instead of addressing space needs annually

does so only facilities every third year; Wood opts to contract for private placements

instead of operating DYS facilities; Wood fails to utilize existing resources to meet the

needs of committed children. Wood bemoans the very system that he created and/or

perpetuates.

* Wood further argues that it is certain categories at certain time that results in a

waiting list. See page 8 of the reply brief. Wood goes on to say: “There are dozens of

categories, each of which is a wait list from time to time.” This argument is not only a

fraud upon this Court, it is a fraud perpetrated on the juvenile Courts of this state, the

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 10 of 18
11

citizens of this state and the children committed to DYS custody. This fraud is created

when the defendant espouses that committed children are classified and staffed by the

Screening and Placement Committee and staffing is the result of classifying students

according to their needs and determinations made as to appropriate placement.

As evidenced by the testimony of two Screening and Placement Committee

members, the screening and placement process, as lauded by the defendant, is a farce.

Six year committee member Garry Gregg testified that:

* Screening and Placement does not classify children. (Gregg depo. pg 17 lines

47)

* Screening and Placement does not categorize children. (Gregg depo. Pg lines

810)

* Screening and Placement makes treatment decisions regarding children.

(Gregg depo. Pg 17 lines11-13)

* He doesn’t know if Screening and Placement has a classification manual.

(Gregg depo. Pg 16 lines 22-pg 17 line 3)

Seven year committee member Queen Barker testified that:

* Screening and Placement exists to determine which placement a child could be

housed to receive their services. (Barker depo. Pg 7 line 22-pg 8 line 40

* Screening and Placement is not there to develop service plans. (Barker depo.

Pg8 lines 5-8)

* Screening and Placement neither classifies nor categorizes, and she’s not sure

what classification means. (Barker depo. Pgs 26-28)

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 11 of 18
12

* She is unaware of what a drug and alcohol score of 52 means. (Barker depo.

Pg 29) (JB’s score was 52 which is in the chemically dependent range)

* She understands it to be DYS policy that whatever facility a child is placed DYS

is to secure the services to meet his needs. (Barker depo. Pg 42.)

Because each deposition was brief in duration, due to a one-hour limitation

imposed by the magistrate in this case, Doc. #55, the plaintiff was unable to

comprehensively examine the deponents. The above deposition related statements are

a compilation of the testimony of the deponents and are subject to context. Plaintiff has

attached hereto the relatively short transcripts in the interest of fairness and

completeness. Exhibits 1 and 2

* In his reply, Wood argues for the first time, other than in his Motion to

Suppress, that J.B. was not placed because when he was committed there was “no

available bed in the system for him. Wood reply brief at pgs. 12, 13 (A review of the

summary judgment brief reveals this assertion is never made.) Wood goes on to argue,

“The staffing process was not the cause of J.B.’s wait in detention-the problem was no

detention pending placement.” Page 13 of reply brief. This assertion and the following

statement of Wood reflect the “system” that Wood has created and perpetuated, which

he now decries as the culprit, and which directly leads to children waiting so long for

placement.

Wood states “ The Plaintiff implies that the Screening and Placement process

and the Service Plan process are unrelated as though any child can be placed in any

facility and a service plan delivered without regard to whether needs fit the capability of

the facility to deliver services.” Reply brief at page 13. This statement exposes Wood’s

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 12 of 18
13

and/or his legal counsel’s complete lack of comprehension regarding their legal

responsibility for the provision of care, services, treatment and rehabilitation

opportunities for committed children.

What Wood and counsel ignore is that the initial placement of a committed child

is for the assessment, development and implementation of the service plan and is

based on generic characteristics, such as gender, age, risk assessment, etc; not based

on what the Screening and Placement committee determines are program needs of the

child. See Pendergast depo. at pg. 166 lines 6-9, and DYS Policy 16.3 attached as

Exhibit 9 to plaintiff’s S/J brief) However, this is exactly what Wood has created and/or

perpetuated. Instead of placing children into appropriate housing where their needs can

be evaluated and then a service plan developed and implemented, Wood has

contracted for programmatic beds in a manner that he himself describes as “guesswork“

(Exhibit 3 to S/J brief at page 4), not only creating these “category waiting list” but

equally and maybe more so troubling depriving children of accurate assessments of

their needs and development and implementation of appropriate service plans.

Wood now seeks to hide behind the very system he created and/or perpetuated

and seeks relief by in essence asserting that his “guesswork” was wrong. Even

assuming that Wood’s guesswork scheme was appropriate, when questioned as to

what length of detention stay, 7, 14, 21, days, was used in determining the number of

beds needed, Wood stated he didn’t take that into account. (Wood depo. at page 241).

Because Wood has intentionally chosen to guess on the number of beds needed

and to do so every three years utilizing private providers, children, including J.B. are

pigeonholed into programs and must wait unreasonable times to be placed into a facility

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 13 of 18
14

which will only provide what the program has to offer instead of what the child needs.

* In Wood’s brief he renews his argument that this case be analyzed under the

Eight Amendment. Based on the prior decisions of the Middle District of Alabama and

the Eleventh Circuit on this and related issues, plaintiff rejects that notion.

* In regard to his new assertion that a bed was not available to J.B. and the

intimation that acceptance of J.B. within seven days would cause a violation of a state

statute or standard, the evidence is as follows:

According to the Pendergast affidavit, Exhibit 4 to the reply brief, during both

J.B. staffing dates beds at numerous facilities were available including the Montgomery

Group Home, the Mt. Meigs campus, the Alabama Youth Home in Westover, the Mobile

Group Home and the Alabama Youth Home in Wetumpka.

As Wood testified in deposition at pages 110-119 children can be placed at these

facilities and receive community services. Wood, not only failed to place J.B. in one of

the available beds, where his service plan could have been developed and

implemented, he never even considered such option. All Wood did was send a letter to

the committing Court stating that J.B. was non-violent and asking the Court to send him

home. Wood did this, knowing he had full authority to place J.B. anywhere he desired.

Wood acknowledges he is the final decision maker regarding placement. (Wood depo.

Pages 37, 62). Because these beds were available, Woods cannot assert that

acceptance of J.B. would have caused DYS to be in violation of a statute or standard.

Wood has had six opportunities, Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Suppress,

Reply Brief, deposition testimony, and two affidavits to claim and identify any such

statute or standard which would have been violated by the placement of J.B. within

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 14 of 18
15

seven days or a reasonable time. The reason he has declined on six occasions is

because such assertion would be false. This fact is undeniable.

* The defendant next argues “Right to Treatment Issues.” While the plaintiff

recognizes that the right to treatment concept for juveniles is unresolved, this is not a

right to treatment case. It is a due process deprivation of liberty case and inquiry into a

right to treatment, while important, is not dispositive of the issue.

Defendant in attempting to distinguish the case of D.W. v Rogers, 113 F.3d 1214,

1218 (11

th

Cir. 1007), a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit a year after Judge Hobbs

A.W. Order, misses the point. What defendant misses from the case is the distinction

the Court made between those in state custody and those committed to the legal

custody of the state yet not physically in state custody. A reading of the Court’s opinion

leaves no doubt that the Court would have reached a different conclusion had the minor

child been in detention awaiting a mental health placement. The issue was one of

substantive due process and when does such right attach. The Court concluded it

attaches when the state physically deprives one of their liberty.

Wood next continues to argue that J.B. does not have a constitutional right to

placement in a reasonable time. This issue is undebatable. Judge Hobbs has told his

predecessors so, he had been told so by Judge Albritton and he personally has settled

with monetary payment to the plaintiffs in a least five different cases. Defendant asserts,

“That well is now dry.” (Page 26 of reply brief.) Plaintiff can only hope and pray that

what defendant means is that he will no longer cause hundreds of children to languish

in detention awaiting placement, such that future litigation is unnecessary.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 15 of 18
16

PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT

The defendant asserts “The PLRA bars the first lawsuit because the Plaintiff was

in the custody of the state when the lawsuit was filed.” The defendant cites no authority

for this conclusory statement, which in fact is incorrect.

Because the defendant fails to offer any facts, authority or argument for this

blanket assertion it is impossible to respond other than to the reference by defendant to

§1997(e) (page 2 of reply brief) This section, if it is even applicable, and plaintiff asserts

it is not as discussed in the summary judgment brief, does not bar a lawsuit it only

places a limitation on the recovery for mental or emotional injury without showing of

physical injury. Even assuming application of the provision, plaintiff has alleged

unjustifiable restrain on his liberty and thus satisfies the physical injury requirement.

The United States Supreme Court in addressing the PLRA noted the following:

“But the interpretation respondents advocate creates its own

inconsistencies. Section 1997e(e) contains similar language,

"[n]o . . . action may be brought . . . for mental or emotional

injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of

physical injury," yet respondents cite no case interpreting

this provision to require dismissal of the entire law suit if only

one claim does not comply, and again we see little reason

for such an approach. Accord, Cassidy v. Indiana Dept. of

Corrections, 199 F.3d 374, 376-377 (CA7 2000) (dismissing

only the portions of the complaint barred by Sec. 1997e(e));

see also Williams v. Ollis, 230 F.3d 1361 (CA6 2000)

(unpublished table decision) (same). Interpreting the phrase

"no action shall be brought" to require dismissal of the entire

case under Sec. 1997e(a) but not Sec. 1997e(e) would

contravene our normal rules of statutory construction.

National Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.,

522 U.S. 479, 501-502 (1998).” Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct

910, 166 L. Ed.2d 798 (2007)

Thus, assuming the PLRA applied to the initial lawsuit, only the federal claim

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 16 of 18
17

therein would be subject to dismissal. However, as plaintiff has set forth in his brief, the

PLRA is not applicable and if applicable plaintiff has satisfied all requirements.

Submitted on this the 9th day of August, 2007.

s//Robert D. Drummond, Jr.____

Robert D. Drummond, Jr. (DRU004)

Attorney for the Plaintiff

ASB-4619-O78R

323 De La Mare Ave.

Fairhope, AL 36532 251-

990-6249 fax:251-650-

1264

s//Michael J. Crow______

Michael J. Crow (CRO039)

Attorney for the Plaintiff

BEASLEY. ALLEN, CROW,

METHVIN, PORTIS &MILES

P.O. 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

334-269-2343

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 17 of 18
18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14

th

day of August, 2007, the foregoing was

electronically filed with the Clerk of this Court thereby providing service to counsel for

the defendant, T. Dudley Perry, Esq.

s//Robert D. Drummond, Jr.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-2 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 18 of 18
DEPOSITION OF GARRY L. GREGG

August 1, 2007

Pages 1 through 63

PREPARED BY:

Haislip, Ragan, Green, Starkie & Watson, P.C.

566 South Perry Street

Post Office Box 62

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 263-4455

Fax: (334) 263-9167

E-mail: haislipragan@charter.net

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO:

02:06cv755-MHT

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

J.B., a minor child, by and through

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO:

02:06cv908-MHT

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

DEPOSITION OF GARRY L. GREGG

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 DEPOSITION OF GARRY L. GREGG, taken pursuant

2 to stipulation and agreement before Julie A. Duncan,

3 Court Reporter and Commissioner for the State of

4 Alabama at Large, in the Offices of Beasley, Allen,

5 Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, 218 Commerce Street,

6 Montgomery, Alabama, on Wednesday, August 1, 2007,

7 commencing at approximately 12:30 p.m.

8

9 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10

APPEARANCES

11

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

12

Mr. Michael J. Crow

13 BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES

Attorneys at Law

14 218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

15

Mr. Robert D. Drummond, Jr.

16 Attorney at Law

323 De la Mare Avenue

17 Fairhope, Alabama 36532

18 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

19 Mr. T. Dudley Perry, Jr.

State of Alabama

20 Department of Youth Services

Deputy Attorney General

21 Post Office Box 66

Mt. Meigs, Alabama 36057

22

23 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Page 3

1 EXAMINATION INDEX

2

GARRY L. GREGG

3

BY MR. DRUMMOND . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4

5

EXHIBIT INDEX

6

7 (No exhibits marked to this deposition.)

8

9 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10

11 STIPULATION

12 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and

13 between counsel representing the parties that the

14 deposition of GARRY L. GREGG is taken pursuant to the

15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that said

16 deposition may be taken before Julie A. Duncan, Court

17 Reporter and Commissioner for the State of Alabama at

18 Large, without the formality of a commission, that

19 objections to questions other than objections as to

20 the form of the question need not be made at this time

21 but may be reserved for a ruling at such time as the

22 said deposition may be offered in evidence or used for

23 any other purpose by either party provided for by the

Page 4

1 Statute.

2 It is further stipulated and agreed by and

3 between counsel representing the parties in this case

4 that the filing of said deposition is hereby waived

5 and may be introduced at the trial of this case or

6 used in any other manner by either party hereto

7 provided for by the Statute regardless of the waiving

8 of the filing of the same.

9 It is further stipulated and agreed by and

10 between the parties hereto and the witness that the

11 signature of the witness to this deposition is hereby

12 waived.

13

14 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

15

16 GARRY L. GREGG

17 The witness, after having first been duly sworn

18 to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

19 the truth testified as follows:

20 EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. DRUMMOND:

22 Q. Would you state your full name, please.

23 A. Garry L. Gregg.

Page 5

1 Q. Garry, what do you do with the Department of

2 Youth Services?

3 A. I work in the community services division.

4 I'm a treatment coordinator.

5 Q. Garry, have you ever given a deposition

6 before?

7 A. No, sir. This is the first time.

8 Q. Garry, I'm going to ask you a series of

9 questions. In asking you those questions, if

10 you don't understand the question, if you

11 would ask me to restate it, I'll be glad to do

12 that, okay?

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. Likewise, if you don't ask me to restate or

15 rephrase it, I will presume and conclude that

16 you're answering that question with a full

17 understanding of that question; is that a fair

18 agreement between us?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. All right. How long have you been a treatment

21 coordinator in -- with community services?

22 A. Probably -- let me see. July -- a little

23 over -- I started in July. Six years. About

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 3 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 six years.

2 Q. All right. How long have you been on the

3 screening and placement committee?

4 A. The whole time since I've been there.

5 Q. Okay. Is that what you know it as, the

6 screening and placement committee?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. What is the screening and placement committee?

9 A. The screening and placement is when youth

10 files come, we have a committee. And the

11 first thing they do is they get all of the

12 information on the youth as far as shot

13 records, the PO's evaluation, the court order,

14 any pertinent information to do with the

15 youth. And then after they gather all that

16 information, they have a file. And then

17 that's when I look at them. And on -- we

18 start reading them usually on Monday. And

19 then the meeting is at one o'clock on

20 Wednesdays.

21 Q. What do you mean you usually begin reading

22 them on Monday?

23 A. Well, after the files start coming in --

Page 7

1 Mondayfor me. I can't speak for anybody

2 else. On me, most of my days are to restaff,

3 because I'm the one that has the restaffs come

4 in from the private providers. So usually

5 Mondaymorning I'm gathering restaffs from the

6 different facilities. And then if there's

7 someone like from Mt. Meigs that they're

8 recommending go to a group home, they'll send

9 me all that information.

10 Q. Do y'all have a restaff meeting on Mondays?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. What time is that normally held?

13 A. One o'clock.

14 Q. And that's with Mr. Booker?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And there's a number of people on that restaff

17 committee?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. How long does that normally last?

20 A. That usuallylasts about -- I would say

21 usuallyabout an hour.

22 Q. Okay. And then do you have duties after that

23 restaffing meeting for the rest of the day?

Page 8

1 A. Just other than, you know, calling the people

2 back and letting them know what the decisions

3 were as far as if we decided that the youth

4 was going to be moved or they were going to

5 stay or did we have enough information.

6 Q. All right. So Mondaymorning then is utilized

7 with your time in preparing for that restaff

8 meeting?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. Okay. So the first time you would have an

11 opportunity to look at files for the Wednesday

12 staffing would be sometime Mondayafter two

13 o'clock?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Okay. And so you would have from -- maybe

16 from two to five on Mondayafternoons?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Okay. What about Tuesdays?

19 A. UsuallyI set aside all day for Tuesday.

20 Q. Okay. So Tuesdays you have no duties other

21 than reviewing files for Wednesday?

22 A. Reviewing files.

23 Q. Okay. And that's what you do?

Page 9

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. So, for example, staffing today is at one

3 o'clock -- is it going to be today at one

4 o'clock?

5 A. Well, it's going to be at two o'clock today

6 then.

7 MR. PERRY: Actually, no, it's back

8 to one.

9 A. One. Okay. One.

10 Q. So every file that you're going to go over

11 today at two o'clock, or one o'clock, you have

12 already reviewed all of those files?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. And in each of those files, have you made a

15 recommendation for classification?

16 A. What do you mean by that?

17 Q. Well, you've reviewed each of the files,

18 correct?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Okay. How many files are there for tomorrow?

21 A. I didn't really count today. It's usually --

22 on the busy weeks, it's like in the sixties.

23 And last week it was like -- I'd say about

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 4 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Page 10

1 forty. And today, I haven't even counted.

2 Q. But you reviewed all of the files?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And in reviewing those files, have you already

5 made a -- in your mind, a recommendation

6 regarding classification?

7 A. Yes, sir. On most of them, I have.

8 Q. Okay. And what are the various

9 classifications that you could possiblybe

10 recommending?

11 A. Well, I mean, you have some that's like --

12 they have a sex offense charge. So, I mean,

13 they, you know, go to the sex offender

14 program. You have some that -- substance

15 abuse. And then you've got some that just --

16 Q. So one classification is sex offender?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. One classification is substance abuse?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Okay. What are the other classifications?

21 A. Well, you could have one that goes to thirty

22 day HIT.

23 Q. Okay. I'm not asking where they go.

Page 11

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. I'm asking what are the classifications.

3 A. I don't understand what you mean by

4 classification. Because what we have is --

5 what I was meaning was, other than someone

6 going to Mt. Meigs, Chalkville, or Vacca,

7 other than that classification, everything

8 else under the HIT program is a private

9 provider. And as far as classification, I

10 guess you would say that they were community

11 based, like group homes and places of that

12 sort.

13 Q. Did I understand you right, that everything

14 other than the classification of Meigs, Vacca,

15 Chalkville and HIT is a private provider?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. Well, I want to make sure I understand.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. When you classifya child -- and that's one of

20 your duties as part of screening and

21 placement, correct?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Is it your testimony that classification

Page 12

1 really means placement decision?

2 A. Now, run that by me again now.

3 Q. Well, I asked you what the various

4 classifications were.

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. And you started telling me facilities.

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. Is that right?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. Well, is that what classification means, what

11 facilitythey're going to go to?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Okay. Then what does classification mean?

14 A. Classification, to me, means that after the

15 youth has committed a delinquent act -- is

16 develop a service plan where that delinquent

17 act can be dealt with and where they've

18 learned something where they won't come back.

19 Q. So your definition of classification is after

20 they've been committed to develop a service

21 plan?

22 A. Well, I mean, that's part of it. Because with

23 youth, as far as when they come to us, it's

Page 13

1 not like an adult where you have a -- so much

2 a set amount of time. It is driven by

3 developing a service plan.

4 Q. Okay. Well, Garry, help --

5 A. Okay.

6 Q. You have no responsibility in developing a

7 service plan, do you?

8 A. Not really. But what I'm saying is, when I

9 read a file and I'm looking at it, I'm trying

10 to the best of my ability to determine what

11 this youth needs from the file.

12 Q. Well, all right. So as you're making your

13 placement recommendation, you're making a

14 recommendation based on what you think the

15 child needs, correct?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. And that's a placement decision or a treatment

18 decision?

19 A. That's a treatment decision.

20 Q. So as a member of screening and placement,

21 you're making a treatment decision for the

22 child?

23 A. Yes, sir.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 5 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

5 (Pages 14 to 17)

Page 14

1 Q. And is that how -- is that the purpose of

2 screening and placement, from your

3 understanding, to make a treatment decision

4 regarding the child?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. And have you received any training or any

7 instructions from anyone other than -- from

8 anyone that teaches you anything different,

9 that screening and placement -- as a member

10 that you're there to make a treatment decision

11 for the child?

12 A. Now, what was that again now?

13 Q. Have you received any information or any

14 training, other than that's what screening and

15 placement is supposed to do, that being make a

16 treatment decision?

17 A. I don't understand your question.

18 Q. Okay. You said as a member of screening and

19 placement you're there to make a treatment

20 decision for the child, correct?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Okay. What document reflects that that's what

23 your role is, is to make a treatment decision

Page 15

1 for the child?

2 A. What document?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. I would say the only document is it's part of

5 my duties and responsibilities that's on my

6 evaluation.

7 Q. Okay. Well, has somebody said or showed you

8 any document -- how long have you been on

9 screening and placement, six years?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. And during those entire six years, each week

12 when you sit in there, in your mind, you're

13 making a treatment decision regarding that

14 child?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. And is it your belief that's what Pat is doing

17 as well?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. And is it your belief and observation that

20 that's what Ms. Barker is doing as well?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. And is it your belief and observation that

23 that's what Ms. Ross is doing as well?

Page 16

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. Okay. And so in the -- when I say the term

3 classification, that, to you, means develop a

4 service plan?

5 A. Yes, sir. I mean, if I understand what you're

6 saying, because --

7 Q. Well, I'm just going by what you said, Garry.

8 So is it your understanding --

9 A. Well, let me hear that again then. Explain it

10 to me one more time.

11 Q. Well, tell me again, so I understand. When I

12 say or ask you as part of screening and

13 placement do you classify children --

14 A. Well, I mean, what does classification --

15 that's the problem. I don't understand what

16 you mean by classification.

17 Q. Okay. Well, does the department have a

18 classification manual?

19 A. I don't know. I mean, I -- I mean, that -- I

20 wouldn't know about -- I mean, they -- I don't

21 know.

22 Q. Does screening and placement have a

23 classification manual?

Page 17

1 A. A classification manual?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. Okay. When I use the term -- well, let me ask

5 you this. Does screening and placement

6 classify children?

7 A. No, sir. No.

8 Q. Does screening and placement categorize

9 children?

10 A. No, sir.

11 Q. Does screening and placement make treatment

12 decisions regarding children?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. What is your background in terms of -- what is

15 your educational background?

16 A. I have a bachelor's degree in business. I

17 have a master's degree in counseling. And

18 then I had been working on my master's degree

19 in special education.

20 Q. Okay. So you have a master's in counseling?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Can you walk me through what happens? You've

23 reviewed the file. You're going at -- the

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 6 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

6 (Pages 18 to 21)

Page 18

1 procedures that you used last week at one

2 o'clock, are they the same procedures, the

3 same flow at the meeting as has been in place

4 for the last three years?

5 A. Well, what do you mean by flow?

6 Q. Have y'all been doing the same thing last week

7 as you did three years ago?

8 A. I don't know what I did three years ago.

9 That's a long time.

10 Q. That's a bad -- that's a bad question. The

11 process that you use once the meeting starts

12 at one o'clock on Wednesdays, is it the same

13 process you're still using?

14 A. What do you mean process is what I'm asking?

15 Q. Is it the same -- the events that take place

16 during --

17 A. I can't say it's the same every -- I mean --

18 Q. Okay. Can you walk me through a screening and

19 placement meeting as it exists now? What

20 happens once a meeting gets started?

21 A. Okay. Well, at one o'clock it starts. So

22 after it starts, the first file -- Pat opens

23 the first file. He reads the name out. He

Page 19

1 reads the risk. And during that time, he asks

2 if there's any discussion on the individual.

3 We may ask about the court order. We may have

4 something on there that maybe we didn't

5 know -- what was clear, because Pat may have

6 got some information in that we didn't know

7 about, whether he could have talked to a PO in

8 the last few minutes or sometime during the

9 day. Some things may not just be clear.

10 So from that regard, then we go through

11 each one. And then a decision will be made,

12 what is the best for that youth.

13 Q. Okay. What decision is made, a classification

14 decision is made?

15 A. I don't -- I wouldn't say classification.

16 That's a word I get hung up on, because I

17 don't classify. I'm not ...

18 Q. What decision is made regarding each child?

19 A. What the individual needs to stop doing the

20 delinquent behavior that got him or her to the

21 Department of Youth Services.

22 Q. Okay. So y'all spend roughly three to four

23 minutes a child?

Page 20

1 A. I haven't ever timed it.

2 Q. Well, how long do the meetings normally last?

3 A. I really don't look at the clock. It could

4 be -- I couldn't tell you. It could be --

5 it's according to how many there is that

6 week. I mean, there's sometimes, I'm sure,

7 we've stayed close to four or four-thirty.

8 And sometimes it hasn't been that long.

9 Q. Okay. Well, if Pat in his deposition said on

10 one particular day -- for example, the day

11 before his deposition was taken, staffing

12 started at one and finished at three-thirty

13 and there were fifty-one kids to staff that

14 day, so two and a half hours, so about three

15 minutes a kid. Does that sound about right?

16 A. I mean, I can't tell you what Pat said.

17 Q. Does that sound about right in terms of how

18 many kids you do in that amount of time?

19 A. Well, I mean, I don't know, because I haven't

20 really timed it to see.

21 Q. And so whatever amount of time there is per

22 child, you -- based on what's in the file, you

23 review their needs?

Page 21

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. And you determine a treatment plan for them?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And based on that treatment plan that the

5 committee determines of what the child needs,

6 then you do what?

7 A. Then what we're going to do is put them in a

8 program that can meet those needs.

9 Q. Okay. So once the needs are determined, you

10 decide what program the child needs, or what

11 program can meet those needs?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Is it which program can meet their needs or

14 which facilitycan meet their needs, or is it

15 the same thing?

16 A. What is your definition of program and

17 facility? I mean, what do you mean by that?

18 Q. I'm just --

19 A. I don't know. I don't know what you're

20 asking.

21 Q. Well, is it the -- once the needs are

22 determined, then you decide what facilitythe

23 child ought to go to?

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 7 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Page 22

1 A. No. What we decide is what kind of program

2 will meet those needs.

3 Q. Okay. That's what I just asked, is it program

4 or facilitythat you're deciding. So which is

5 it?

6 A. What we're doing -- okay. I'm having a --

7 okay. I don't understand what you -- what's

8 the difference between the program and the

9 facility. That's -- I don't know what you

10 mean by that.

11 Q. Well, once you decide what a child's needs

12 are, what do you do after that?

13 A. After we decide the needs, we want to have

14 them in a program which can meet their needs.

15 Q. Okay. So, for example, if a child is

16 chemically dependent, what kind of program

17 would they need?

18 A. He would need a substance -- he or she would

19 need a substance abuse program.

20 Q. Okay. Is there a difference between a person

21 that is abusing drugs and one that's

22 chemically dependent on drugs?

23 A. Yes, sir.

Page 23

1 Q. What's the difference?

2 A. Well, if you have someone who has abused it,

3 it could have been he or she, the first time

4 had tried it. They could have been using it

5 to deal with some problem happening in life.

6 We could say they're using it as a crutch.

7 But the bottom line on that is he or she can

8 stop.

9 Now, the difference, when you say that

10 someone is addicted, he or she cannot stop.

11 That's the difference. He or she just cannot

12 stop.

13 Q. Well, if you have somebody that has a CAPS

14 score, or a drug score of thirty-five, what

15 does that mean to you?

16 A. What I like is -- on those scores is I like

17 a -- a more in-depth assessment. I mean -- I

18 mean, I'm wondering what the treatment is. I

19 like an assessment, and we can look at that --

20 at his assessment. But I think a lot of times

21 you need to sit down with the youth and find

22 out really what's going on with her or him.

23 Q. Well, you're presented at screening and

Page 24

1 placement with a child that has a score of

2 thirty-five. What do you do with that? What

3 do you do with that child?

4 A. Well, I would have to read the file. I would

5 have to look to the best of my ability all

6 what's going on. Because on that scale, it

7 can be yes and no questions. And if I'm

8 filling out an assessment and I don't know

9 I've got a problem, I could be denying it. So

10 on them scores, the way I look at it is, is

11 anytime you have a youth that has been huffing

12 or drinking or drugs, or whatever, it needs to

13 be something that needs to be looked at and

14 just see.

15 Q. Well, who is going to look at it?

16 A. Well, when they go to a program is -- we want

17 the case manager, when dealing with the youth,

18 to find out is there any underlying factors

19 for the youth's behavior.

20 Q. What if a child has a drug score of fifty-two,

21 and that's what you have at screening and

22 placement?

23 A. It's still the same thing.

Page 25

1 Q. Well, would you send that child to -- if a

2 child is chemically dependent, what does that

3 child need as you're sitting there at

4 screening and placement?

5 A. Well, if he's chemically dependent, you know,

6 what we're looking at is -- is a score. But

7 also that kid could need just the education

8 part, and he could need the treatment.

9 Q. Well, would that child go to the HIT program?

10 A. If he had a high drug score.

11 Q. Would a child with a fifty-two on a CAPs score

12 go to the HIT program?

13 A. I couldn't -- I mean, I couldn't tell you. I

14 mean, I -- I don't know on that particular --

15 you know, because you're giving me a score.

16 And when you give me a score, on the -- and

17 the treatment end of it is, you know, there's

18 so many other factors than just that score.

19 Q. What other factors would you consider, his

20 risk score?

21 A. Well, not so much his risk score, his home

22 environment.

23 Q. And tell me -- well, was there ever a time

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 8 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Page 26

1 that you, as a member of screening and

2 placement, determined that with kids who

3 needed drug treatment, that they needed some

4 other component of a program first?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. Tell me about that.

7 A. Well, when you're looking at it, someone may

8 not be going to school, or whatever it is, and

9 maybe they needed the discipline, maybe they

10 need to complywith rules. And also, they

11 could have a substance abuse problem.

12 Q. Okay. Well, did screening and placement at

13 some point during your tenure on the committee

14 decide that for drug and alcohol we're going

15 to send some kids to drug and alcohol first

16 and some kids we'll send to drug and alcohol

17 after something else?

18 A. Now, what was that now? Would you repeat

19 that?

20 Q. Was there ever a time during your tenure on

21 the screening and placement committee that the

22 committee determined that there are some kids

23 that need drug treatment, that we're going to

Page 27

1 give it to them up front, and there's other

2 kids we're going to give it to them after

3 sending them to some other program first?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Okay. Tell me about that.

6 A. Well, I mean -- I mean, some of them the

7 decision may be made that they could go to a

8 HIT program.

9 Q. Let me ask you this first.

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. Is there a time in your mind when screening

12 and placement consciously made that decision,

13 that we're going to start doing this?

14 A. What do you mean consciously? I mean, what do

15 you mean by that?

16 Q. Well, was there ever a time that screening and

17 placement determined we're going to send kids

18 that need drug treatment to some other program

19 first, just as a broad concept?

20 A. What do you mean broad concept?

21 Q. Was there ever a time when screening and

22 placement decided that instead of sending some

23 kids to drug and alcohol treatment we're going

Page 28

1 to send them somewhere else first?

2 A. Well, that word some -- we look at it as

3 individually.

4 Q. When you say you look at it individually --

5 A. Well, each youth is an individual.

6 Q. Okay. Well, Garry --

7 A. So I -- go ahead.

8 Q. No, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead and

9 finish.

10 A. That's all right. Go ahead.

11 Q. Okay. When you say you look at each youth as

12 an individual --

13 A. Uh-huh (positive response).

14 Q. Tell me by what authorityyou're making a

15 treatment decision about that individual.

16 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

17 Q. Are you a psychologist?

18 A. No. No, sir.

19 Q. Do you have the evaluation of that child when

20 you're reviewing their file for screening and

21 placement?

22 A. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't.

23 Q. Okay. And if you don't, you're still making

Page 29

1 treatment decisions for that child, aren't

2 you?

3 A. Now, re -- you're saying what now?

4 Q. Whether you have the evaluation or not, you're

5 making treatment decisions for that child,

6 aren't you?

7 A. Making treatment decisions on what we have,

8 yes, sir.

9 Q. By what authority, Garry, do you think you

10 have the ability to make a treatment decision

11 for a child?

12 A. What authority? What do you mean by

13 authority?

14 Q. Garry, have you ever seen this document

15 before, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 to the

16 opposition for summary judgment?

17 A. Have I ever seen this?

18 Q. Yes, sir.

19 A. I've seen this before.

20 Q. What is that document?

21 A. That document is the general policies

22 regarding what -- classification of committed

23 youth.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 9 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Page 30

1 Q. Okay. What are the classifications for

2 committed youth to DYS?

3 A. What are the classifications? I do not know

4 each one. I mean, I read them right here. I

5 mean --

6 Q. What are the classifications for committed

7 youth?

8 A. I don't know what you mean. I mean, other

9 than these right here? Is this what you're

10 talking about?

11 Q. Garry, I'm just asking what are the -- you're

12 looking at the classification manual, are you

13 not?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Okay. Tell me what the classifications are

16 for committed youth to DYS.

17 A. Serious juvenile offender, regular commitment,

18 sex offender, community residential, pure HIT,

19 special needs, any combination of two or

20 more.

21 Q. Are there any other classifications that you

22 know of?

23 A. No. If that's what the manual says, that's --

Page 31

1 that's here.

2 Q. And you have reviewed that manual previously?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Okay. Do you use that on a regular basis?

5 A. Do I look at this manual, no, sir.

6 Q. Do you --

7 A. Not regular -- not on a regular basis.

8 Q. Have you ever used that manual in screening

9 and placement to do your job?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. When was the last time you used it?

12 A. The last time I used it, when I started with

13 placement and screening to learn these

14 different things.

15 Q. Okay. Does screening and placement or anybody

16 at that office, to your knowledge, contact

17 children -- after you staff them on Wednesday,

18 contact children and let them know where

19 they're going and when they're going to go?

20 A. That's done over in placement and screening.

21 I mean, over with Pat and Ms. Ross.

22 Q. Okay. So it's your belief that children are

23 told where they're going to go and when

Page 32

1 they're going to go after y'all staff them?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Do you think that's appropriate, that children

4 are informed of that information?

5 A. Well, if they're at home or detention, I

6 believe that they should know.

7 Q. Okay. And if a child is in detention, is it

8 your belief that a child should be told when

9 and where they're going to go?

10 A. I would hope so.

11 Q. Why would you hope so?

12 A. Well, I mean, I would hope that somebody, you

13 know, would tell them. I mean, if I was a

14 child, I would -- you know, I would want to be

15 told.

16 Q. Well, as a master's level counselor, do you

17 think it has some impact on a child to have

18 the benefit of that information?

19 A. I think it would depend on the child.

20 Q. So you think -- well, are there any children

21 that would benefit to have that information?

22 A. It may make them sleep better at night.

23 Q. Okay. Anything else?

Page 33

1 A. I mean, I think a lot of times just in life

2 the unknown of not knowing, you know, is

3 stress on an individual.

4 Q. Okay. And do you know that as a master's

5 level counselor, that uncertainty causes

6 stress in people's life?

7 A. I couldn't say for that. But personally, I

8 know it does for me.

9 Q. Well, as a master's level counselor, is that

10 something you counsel people about, about the

11 issues of certainty and trying to determine

12 certainty to reduce stress in their lives?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. Do you believe that a child has a right to

15 know after you staff them how long they're

16 going to be sitting in detention and where

17 they're going to go?

18 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

19 You can answer.

20 A. Am I supposed to answer that?

21 Q. Yes.

22 MR. PERRY: Yes. You can answer.

23 A. Now, what was the question again?

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 10 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Page 34

1 Q. Do you believe a child has that right to know

2 that information?

3 A. If I -- the child, the parent, yes.

4 Q. Okay. And you believe that information is

5 communicated to the child?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. What if I told you, Garry, that that

8 information is not communicated to a child?

9 A. I mean, I would have to -- I would wonder

10 why. I mean, I'm not on the other side. So

11 for what -- the court or detention or home or

12 whatever, I wouldn't know.

13 MR. DRUMMOND: Dudley, how much time

14 do you have left?

15 MR. PERRY: Thirty minutes.

16 MR. DRUMMOND: Okay. Let's take a

17 short break.

18 (Brief pause in proceedings.)

19 Q. (Mr. Drummond continuing) Garry, you've been

20 under the belief for the last six years that

21 you're there, as part of screening and

22 placement, to make treatment decisions,

23 correct?

Page 35

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. Would you agree with me, Garry, that the

3 facility a child gets placed to, once that

4 child gets there, the services that that child

5 can receive are limited to what can be secured

6 for that child at that facility; would you

7 agree with that?

8 A. Rephrase the question, please.

9 Q. Sure. Once a child is placed at a facility --

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. -- do you agree with me that the services a

12 child can receive are limited by what that

13 facility can provide?

14 A. No, sir.

15 Q. Okay. Tell me why that's not a true

16 statement.

17 A. Because there's situations where you have

18 someone like -- just an example, let's just

19 say a group home. You've got local mental

20 health. They can come in and help you. You

21 know, that's one thing. Maybe sometimes an

22 individual don't fully know what the

23 individual needs, but we're getting the

Page 36

1 community involved. Maybe they can bring

2 people in or help people go out and teach them

3 things that maybe they just could not learn at

4 the facility.

5 Q. So would you agree with me as part of

6 screening and placement, and in your general

7 position with DYS, that once a service plan is

8 developed, whatever services are needed to be

9 provided under that service plan could be

10 secured through other sources, can't they?

11 A. Okay. Ask -- now, rephrase that now.

12 Q. Once a service plan is developed for a child,

13 the services can be secured through other

14 sources, can't they?

15 A. I'm not understanding what you're saying.

16 Q. Once a service plan is developed for a child.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Are we together so far?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. And that service plan says a child needs this

21 service.

22 A. Yeah. Okay.

23 Q. Okay. If the facilitydoesn't have that

Page 37

1 service, it can go out and be secured through

2 other sources?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Okay. And, in fact, are you aware that that

5 is the policy of the DYS board, that services

6 not available are to be secured in the

7 community?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Okay. Do you know that as DYS policy?

10 A. In writing, or what do you mean?

11 Q. Either way. Whether you've ever seen it in

12 writing or do you know that to be the policy?

13 A. I know we do it. I don't know if it's

14 policy.

15 Q. Okay. And so do we agree so far, Garry, that

16 if a child is placed in a facility and that's

17 where the child is physically housed, all of

18 their services could be provided in the

19 community, couldn't they?

20 A. No, sir.

21 Q. Why is that not a true statement?

22 A. Well, what I'm saying is, you've got some

23 facilities that's maybe in a more rural place

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 11 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Page 38

1 than others. You've got some facilities, for

2 example, that they have a good GED program

3 and --

4 Q. But, Garry, I thought you said if a child goes

5 to a facility, then if a facilitycan't meet

6 those services, they can secure those services

7 elsewhere?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Is that true?

10 A. Now, rephrase. Okay. What -- are you saying

11 at that facility?

12 Q. While the child is at that facility, the

13 services can be secured somewhere else?

14 A. What do you mean, somewhere else?

15 Q. A child can be placed in a group home,

16 correct?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Okay. And if the group home -- if the child

19 at that group home needs drug treatment --

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. -- outpatient drug treatment, well, the group

22 home doesn't have that treatment at the group

23 home, does it?

Page 39

1 A. Some do. Some don't.

2 Q. Okay. And the ones that don't, you would send

3 down to the local mental health drug treatment

4 program, wouldn't you?

5 A. You could or you could restaff them and put

6 them in a substance abuse program.

7 Q. Okay. So a child that needs drug treatment,

8 that there's not a bed at one of the

9 designated drug treatment facilities, could go

10 to a group home and still receive drug

11 treatment, couldn't they?

12 A. Now, rephrase that again. Now, what did you

13 say?

14 Q. A child that needs drug treatment and has been

15 staffed to go to a drug treatment program but

16 there's not a bed there available for him --

17 do you understand that part?

18 A. No. Start back now. Start from the

19 beginning.

20 Q. Y'all determine a child needs drug treatment?

21 A. Okay. Who is y'all?

22 Q. Screening and placement.

23 A. Okay. Okay.

Page 40

1 Q. Are we together so far?

2 A. Yes. Yes.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. I'm with you.

5 Q. Screening and placement determines a child

6 needs drug treatment.

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. Okay. There's not a bed at the drug treatment

9 program. Okay. Are we together so far?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. Okay. But the child's risk score is low

12 enough where he could go to a group home. He

13 could go to that group home, couldn't he?

14 A. He could. But if he needs substance abuse,

15 he's going to be on a waiting list to get to

16 the substance abuse program.

17 Q. Well, if he's at a group home, he could go

18 down to the local mental health drug treatment

19 program, couldn't he?

20 A. I don't followyou right there, because you're

21 on one subject and then you're going to

22 another subject. And that's --

23 Q. We'll go back over it as long --

Page 41

1 A. All right.

2 Q. -- as we need to.

3 A. Okay. Go ahead.

4 Q. Tell me which part you're getting lost.

5 A. Okay.

6 Q. Screening and placement says a child is going

7 to go to a drug treatment program.

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. They put him on a waiting list for that drug

10 treatment program.

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. He's sitting in detention for a month waiting

13 to go to that drug treatment program. Are we

14 together so far?

15 A. I mean, if you say he was waiting a month, I

16 guess he was.

17 Q. I'm talking about any child. That's the

18 situation I'm giving you, okay?

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. He has a risk score that's low enough he could

21 go to a group home, all right?

22 A. Okay.

23 Q. You've alreadytold me that if a child is at a

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 12 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Page 42

1 group home and he needs a service, he could

2 get that service in the community, couldn't

3 he?

4 A. If they provide it in that community.

5 Q. Okay. And so that same child that's on a

6 waiting list to go to drug treatment somewhere

7 could go to that group home and get drug

8 treatment in a local community somewhere?

9 A. If they offered it.

10 Q. Okay. But there's no reason that couldn't

11 happen, is there?

12 A. No. In the perfect world, no.

13 Q. Okay. Now, I want you to tell me then, Garry,

14 how many -- and let's talk about a kid named

15 J.B., okay?

16 A. Okay.

17 Q. Do you know who J.B. is?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. Okay. When you have a kid who is sitting in

20 detention for a month and you know that that

21 child needs drug treatment --

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. -- okay -- there's a bed open at a group home

Page 43

1 in Montgomery County, okay?

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. That happens frequently, doesn't it?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. Okay. As a matter of fact, Pat submitted an

6 affidavit saying that there's times that that

7 happens. So you know that happens, don't

8 you?

9 A. If what happens?

10 Q. Where there's kids on a waiting list to go

11 somewhere, but there's maybe a group home bed

12 open.

13 A. Repeat what you're asking now.

14 Q. A situation where a child is waiting to go to

15 a drug treatment program sitting in detention

16 waiting for that drug program, but there's a

17 group home bed open. That --

18 A. So what's your --

19 Q. -- happens, doesn't it?

20 A. You're saying Pat said it happened?

21 Q. If a group home bed is open in Montgomery --

22 do you live in Montgomery?

23 A. Yes, sir.

Page 44

1 Q. Okay. You know that Montgomery is one of the

2 four largest cities in Alabama, don't you?

3 A. That's what I heard.

4 Q. Okay. And I presume you would agree with me

5 that there's a lot of resources for drug

6 treatment in Montgomery County, aren't there?

7 A. Not as many as you think.

8 Q. Okay. Well, how many are there?

9 A. What do you mean, for children or adults or --

10 Q. How many programs are there for drug treatment

11 for children in Montgomery?

12 A. Meadhaven is for adults. Okay. CAPs on

13 Air Base Boulevard has kids out there.

14 There's the Lighthouse. Other than that,

15 there may be some counselors that are

16 certified alcohol and drug counselors,

17 outpatient.

18 Q. All right. So a child could be placed in a

19 group home and get drug treatment through one

20 of those sources, couldn't he?

21 A. In Montgomery County, yes.

22 Q. Okay. And so if a young man y'all have

23 staffed to drug treatment is waiting in

Page 45

1 detention for a month yet there's a bed open

2 at the Montgomery group home and his risk

3 score says he's appropriate for a group home,

4 he could go to that group home and get drug

5 treatment in Montgomery, couldn't he?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Okay. How many times have you, being on that

8 screening and placement committee, looked at a

9 child and said, they're on the waiting list to

10 go to this program, but we could put him in a

11 group home or some other program and get him

12 the service locally?

13 A. How -- I couldn't tell you how many times.

14 Q. Have you ever done that?

15 A. Have I ever done what?

16 Q. Have you ever participated in that decision

17 process, Garry?

18 A. What?

19 Q. What I just described.

20 A. Explain it to me again.

21 Q. What I just described, where you have a

22 child --

23 A. You'll have to explain it to me again. When I

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 13 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Page 46

1 ask you -- if I don't know something and I ask

2 you, I don't understand. And from the start,

3 you told me if I didn't understand, you would

4 say it again.

5 Q. Sure.

6 A. And that's what I'm asking.

7 Q. I'll be glad to.

8 You have a child that screening and

9 placement has put on a waiting list for a drug

10 program. Do you understand that?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. Okay. You have a bed open at the Montgomery

13 group home.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. How many times have you participated in

16 decision-making as part of the screening and

17 placement committee where you have said, we'll

18 take the child, get him off the waiting list

19 for the drug program, we'll put him in a group

20 home, and he can get his drug treatment

21 locally?

22 A. Yes, sir. Because there's CAPs here. He

23 could do that here.

Page 47

1 Q. Okay. How many times have you participated in

2 that?

3 A. I couldn't tell you. Over six years, I

4 couldn't tell you. I do not know.

5 Q. So you've done that?

6 A. Have I done what? Had -- because they're

7 getting drug treatment at Montgomery group

8 home. They're getting it -- we're saying are

9 they getting drug treatment. Yes. And you've

10 said Montgomery. At Montgomery, they can get

11 drug treatment through CAPs. Some other group

12 homes don't have that. So when you just say

13 Montgomery and just use Montgomery, that would

14 be a true statement.

15 Q. Well, how many times have you put a kid on a

16 waiting list for a drug program, seen that

17 he's going to sit in detention for a long

18 time, and go ahead and just put him in a group

19 home and let him get his drug treatment

20 locally?

21 A. Well, the first thing you're asking is from my

22 perspective. I sometimes -- or I don't ask

23 how long they've been in detention. I mean, I

Page 48

1 don't ask that question.

2 Q. Why do you not ask that question?

3 A. I'm looking at what they need. And what I'm

4 looking at is whether they're at detention or

5 home, that's where they're at.

6 Q. So if a child is sitting in detention and has

7 been sitting there for a month --

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. -- on a waiting list to go to a drug

10 program -- are we together so far?

11 A. Yes, sir. We're together.

12 Q. And he could just as well -- if y'all went

13 back the next week and said, no, let's put him

14 in this group home and get him his drug

15 treatment locally, you could do that, couldn't

16 you?

17 A. Yeah. I mean, if -- I mean, there's certain

18 situations it may not work. I mean, one, the

19 kid could be from Montgomery County, and his

20 family is there and ...

21 Q. My question to you is, how many times have you

22 participated in the decision where a kid is on

23 a waiting list waiting to go to a drug program

Page 49

1 and you've said something like, well, he's in

2 detention, we can get him into a group home

3 quicker, let's do that?

4 A. I've done that, but I couldn't tell you how

5 many times. I don't know.

6 Q. Okay. So your testimony is screening and

7 placement has put a kid on a waiting list for

8 a drug program and you have participated in

9 decisions where you have moved him off the

10 waiting list for the drug treatment program

11 and moved him into a group home?

12 A. He's getting drug treatment at the group home.

13 Q. Okay.

14 MR. PERRY: Garry, listen carefully

15 to his question.

16 THE WITNESS: Okay.

17 MR. PERRY: He's asking you a

18 specific -- if that specific

19 incident or occurrence has ever

20 happened, when the committee has

21 gone back -- after they have

22 staffed a kid, then gone back

23 and said, look, let's get him

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 14 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Page 50

1 off the waiting list and let's

2 put him someplace other than

3 where we staffed him. He's

4 asking you did that ever --

5 A. Yeah, that's happened.

6 MR. PERRY: That has happened.

7 A. That has happened.

8 Q. Okay. Tell me the circumstances that has

9 happened.

10 A. Well, I mean, in a situation -- we're trying

11 to get kids off the waiting list as quick as

12 we can.

13 Q. How do you get them off the waiting list as

14 quick as you can?

15 A. Get them into a program.

16 Q. I don't understand what you mean by a

17 program. What do you mean get them into a

18 program?

19 A. As quickly as we can, get them in and start

20 helping them.

21 Q. Well, do you think it hurts them to sit in

22 detention and not get the help they need?

23 A. Does it -- what now?

Page 51

1 Q. Does it hurt them to sit in detention and not

2 have them get the help they need?

3 A. I mean, to me, personally speaking, I don't

4 think any youth -- and this is personally

5 speaking -- should have to stay in detention,

6 but it happens.

7 Q. Garry, I would represent to you that

8 Mr. Pendergast filed an affidavit with the

9 court in which he said that between May 18th

10 of '05 and June 28th of '05 that there were

11 vacant beds in Montgomery group home.

12 A. Okay.

13 Q. My question to you is, if during that time

14 period there was a child on the waiting list

15 that needed drug treatment and they had a risk

16 score that allowed them to go to a group home,

17 could it have been possible that that child

18 could have gone to that group home?

19 A. Under those circumstances, they could. I

20 mean, if it's all right with the court and the

21 judge and everybody else.

22 Q. Okay. Now, why do you say if it's all right

23 with the court?

Page 52

1 A. Because what I'm saying is, is after we get

2 through with placement and screening, to the

3 best of my knowledge, Ms. Ross and

4 Mr. Pendergast call the PO up and -- with

5 their findings and where the child is going to

6 go.

7 And there may be some situations -- I

8 don't know -- personally know, because I don't

9 personally at that time talk to the PO. Maybe

10 there's something added to it. Maybe just,

11 you know, we're -- where we're looking at it

12 is, maybe the child in the last week or so --

13 maybe their mother died, okay, maybe that

14 happened. So how you would have to look at it

15 is, would it be best to put the -- you know,

16 the child in a group home knowing he or she is

17 under all of those problems or not. I mean,

18 I'm just using that as a example.

19 Q. Sure. Garry, is it your belief that after

20 staffing on Wednesday that Pat or Jada contact

21 the probation officer and tell them where the

22 child is going to go?

23 A. Yes, sir.

Page 53

1 Q. You know that happens or you --

2 A. Well, I mean, I don't know. I mean, I -- you

3 know, it would -- I mean, all I know is after

4 that and they go back -- for us to get the

5 kids to us, there would have to be some kind

6 of conversation. I mean, I don't think it

7 would be where somebody would just drive up

8 and honk the horn and say, come on. I mean,

9 there would have to be something more than

10 that.

11 Q. Not much more. Garry, if you believe you're

12 there at screening and placement to make

13 treatment decisions for a child, what does

14 having a social security number have anything

15 to do with making that treatment decision for

16 the child?

17 A. What now, the social security number?

18 Q. Yes. Why would y'all have to have the social

19 security number to make a treatment decision

20 regarding the child?

21 A. I don't even know why we'd have to have a

22 social security number. I mean, just -- what

23 I'm thinking is sometimes there's kids that

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 15 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

15 (Pages 54 to 57)

Page 54

1 have similar names. And sometimes when you

2 look on the screen, if I did not see the

3 social securitynumber, I wouldn't know which

4 one that was.

5 Q. Why do you only have staffing once a week?

6 A. Why? I mean, I don't know why it's once a

7 week. I know it's once a week, but I don't

8 know why.

9 Q. Well, Garry, why should a child -- if you get

10 the complete packet on a Thursday, why should

11 a child have to wait until the following

12 Wednesday before y'all decide where it's

13 appropriate to go?

14 A. I couldn't answer that question.

15 Q. Do you think that's fair to the child?

16 A. He sat from Thursdayto Wednesday. I mean, it

17 would -- it is what it is. I mean, it's not

18 just meeting on it. It's getting, you know,

19 departments to bring kids.

20 Q. I'm not talking about placement.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. I'm talking about for y'all to meet and decide

23 where a child is going to go, why should a

Page 55

1 child have to wait up to a week before that

2 process happens?

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. Have you ever suggested that we do it quicker

5 than a week?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Do you think that it's fair to that child to

8 have to wait a week?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. When you review the files, Garry, do you make

11 notations in the file?

12 A. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.

13 Q. How do you make notations, and where would you

14 make your notations?

15 A. Usuallyin my head, or I might scribble

16 something down on a piece of paper.

17 Q. Well, do you have something you keep in

18 your -- when you review a file, tell me how

19 you review that file.

20 A. Well, I start with page one. And I look and

21 find the individual's name, what county, risk,

22 look at the court order, look at what the PO

23 has to say. I look if there's any kind of

Page 56

1 medical conditions, are they on any kind of

2 medication, do they have any kind of DHR

3 involvement.

4 Q. And from that, do you form an initial

5 impression about what your recommendation will

6 be as to where they should be placed?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. Do you make a notation from your review of the

9 file things that when you see this child's

10 name again you can remember anything about

11 that child?

12 A. Sometimes. I mean, when I look at them is --

13 there are going to be some that you can read

14 the file, and there's nothing really that --

15 that sticks out.

16 Q. Well, on Wednesday, you don't -- when you're

17 in a screening and placement meeting, you

18 don't read the file again, do you?

19 A. Well, if there's something I may question or

20 something, I may say, can I see the file

21 again; there's something I may have forgotten

22 or I didn't notate.

23 Q. So as a general proposition, you make no notes

Page 57

1 or notations anywhere of the files that you

2 review?

3 A. I do. I mean, some I do. Some I don't.

4 Q. Okay. And where are those documents? Where

5 do you keep those?

6 A. I tear them up afterwards. I mean, that's for

7 my personal use.

8 Q. So as you're reviewing each file, do you have

9 a notebook you use? Do you have --

10 A. Just a yellow piece of paper.

11 Q. And so on a yellow sheet of paper you'll have

12 information on about fifty kids on average?

13 A. Well, not fifty. If there's one I have some

14 questions about.

15 Q. Well, then, how do you remember the other

16 forty-five, Garry, anything about them that

17 you can make a competent decision about?

18 A. Well, what I'm saying is, is when I've read

19 them and I look at them, the ones I'm writing

20 down is ones I'm kind of questioning where

21 they go, because --

22 Q. So then the other ones that you're not

23 questioning where they go, you've already got

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 16 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

16 (Pages 58 to 61)

Page 58

1 in your mind a general impression of where

2 they should go?

3 A. No, I don't have a general impression.

4 Because then when we get in there and meet, I

5 haven't made an absolute certain decision.

6 Because I'm not going to be so concrete that

7 when I get there that I'm going to say, it's

8 got to be a certain way. Because there's

9 three other people in there.

10 Q. So you're telling me for the forty kids you

11 don't make notes on each week, you can

12 remember enough details about that kid to make

13 a credible recommendation about --

14 A. Well, what I --

15 Q. -- where that child should go?

16 A. -- what I've done -- what I've done is -- when

17 you say credible is -- we go over them. And

18 as we go over them, we're open for

19 discussion. And ones I know, to the best of

20 my ability, that this is what they need, this

21 is -- this is what I go by. And then the ones

22 that I'm not sure, maybe they're too young or

23 this or that or others, you know, I make

Page 59

1 little notations and ask some questions when

2 we get there.

3 Q. Do you understand that the decision that you

4 make each Wednesday dictates what happens to

5 that child for the next three or six months or

6 a year?

7 A. Yes, sir. I mean, I don't -- I don't take it

8 lightly. I mean, I -- personally, it's an

9 awesome responsibility. Because I know that,

10 you know, individual lives are being held at

11 stake and ...

12 Q. And if that's the case, Garry, tell me in your

13 mind what impact it has for a kid that has a

14 one on a risk assessment to sit in detention

15 for six weeks only when he's finallyplaced to

16 go to a group home, a non-secure program.

17 What significance does that have to you?

18 A. Well, that's not good. But I don't know all

19 the -- I don't know all of the factors why he

20 or she has been in detention six weeks. I

21 mean, like I said a few moments ago,

22 personally I wish that no child had to go to

23 detention for the first day.

Page 60

1 Q. Well, besides saying it's not good for a

2 child, does it have any other significance to

3 you?

4 A. What do you mean?

5 Q. Have you gotten your master's yet?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. The second one you're working on?

8 A. No, sir. I kind of slowed down. I went to

9 school so much.

10 Q. All right.

11 MR. DRUMMOND: Mr. Perry may have

12 some questions for you. If not,

13 thank you.

14 MR. PERRY: Thank you, Garry.

15 THE WITNESS: All right. Thank

16 you.

17

18 (The deposition concluded at

19 approximately 1:30 p.m.)

20

21 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

22 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT

23 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Page 61

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2

3 STATE OF ALABAMA:

4 BUTLER COUNTY:

5 I, Julie A. Duncan, Court Reporter and

6 Commissioner for the State of Alabama at Large, do

7 hereby certify that I reported the deposition of:

8 GARRY L. GREGG

9 who was first duly sworn by me to speak the truth,

10 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the

11 matter of:

12 J.B., a minor child, by and through

13 his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

14 behalf of himself and all others

15 similarlysituated,

16 Plaintiff,

17 vs.

18 WALTER WOOD, in his individual

19 capacity,

20 Defendant.

21 CASE NO: 02:06cv755-MHT

22

23 * * * * * * * * * *

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 17 of 18
Deposition of Garry L. GreggJ.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

17 (Pages 62 to 63)

Page 62

1 J.B., a minor child, by and through

2 his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

3 behalf of himself and all others

4 similarly situated,

5 Plaintiff,

6 vs.

7 WALTER WOOD, in his individual

8 capacity,

9 Defendant.

10 CASE NO: 02:06cv908-MHT,

11 In the United States District Court

12 for the Middle District of Alabama

13 Northern Division,

14 on Wednesday, August 1, 2007.

15 The foregoing 62 computer-printed pages

16 contain a true and correct transcript of the

17 examination of said witness by counsel for the parties

18 set out herein. The reading and signing of same is

19 hereby waived.

20 I further certify that I am neither of kin

21 nor of counsel to the parties to said cause

22 nor in any manner interested in the results

23 thereof.

Page 63

1 This 9th day of August, 2007.

2

3

4 _____________________________

Julie A. Duncan,

5 Court Reporter and

Commissioner for the State

6 of Alabama at Large

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-3 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 18 of 18
DEPOSITION OF QUEEN BARKER

August 1, 2007

Pages 1 through 49

PREPARED BY:

Haislip, Ragan, Green, Starkie & Watson, P.C.

566 South Perry Street

Post Office Box 62

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 263-4455

Fax: (334) 263-9167

E-mail: haislipragan@charter.net

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO:

02:06cv755-MHT

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

J.B., a minor child, by and through

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO:

02:06cv908-MHT

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

DEPOSITION OF QUEEN BARKER

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 DEPOSITION OF QUEEN BARKER, taken pursuant to

2 stipulation and agreement before Julie A. Duncan,

3 Court Reporter and Commissioner for the State of

4 Alabama at Large, in the Offices of Beasley, Allen,

5 Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, 218 Commerce Street,

6 Montgomery, Alabama, on Wednesday, August 1, 2007,

7 commencing at approximately 1:35 p.m.

8

9 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10

APPEARANCES

11

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

12

Mr. Michael J. Crow

13 BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES

Attorneys at Law

14 218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

15

Mr. Robert D. Drummond, Jr.

16 Attorney at Law

323 De la Mare Avenue

17 Fairhope, Alabama 36532

18 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

19 Mr. T. Dudley Perry, Jr.

State of Alabama

20 Department of Youth Services

Deputy Attorney General

21 Post Office Box 66

Mt. Meigs, Alabama 36057

22

23

Page 3

1 EXAMINATION INDEX

2

QUEEN BARKER

3

BY MR. DRUMMOND . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4

5 EXHIBIT INDEX

6

(No exhibits marked to this deposition.)

7

8

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

9

10 STIPULATION

11 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and

12 between counsel representing the parties that the

13 deposition of QUEEN BARKER is taken pursuant to the

14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that said

15 deposition may be taken before Julie A. Duncan, Court

16 Reporter and Commissioner for the State of Alabama at

17 Large, without the formality of a commission, that

18 objections to questions other than objections as to

19 the form of the question need not be made at this time

20 but may be reserved for a ruling at such time as the

21 said deposition may be offered in evidence or used for

22 any other purpose by either party provided for by the

23 Statute.

Page 4

1 It is further stipulated and agreed by and

2 between counsel representing the parties in this case

3 that the filing of said deposition is hereby waived

4 and may be introduced at the trial of this case or

5 used in any other manner by either party hereto

6 provided for by the Statute regardless of the waiving

7 of the filing of the same.

8 It is further stipulated and agreed by and

9 between the parties hereto and the witness that the

10 signature of the witness to this deposition is hereby

11 waived.

12

13 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

14

15 QUEEN BARKER

16 The witness, after having first been duly sworn

17 to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

18 the truth testified as follows:

19 EXAMINATION

20 BY MR. DRUMMOND:

21 Q. Queen, this is Mike Crow. He is co-counsel.

22 And I guess I've known you for twenty years or

23 so.

Page 5

1 A. Uh-huh (positive response).

2 Q. That sounds right. It's good to see you

3 again.

4 A. It's good to see you.

5 Q. Have you been deposed before, Queen?

6 A. Huh?

7 Q. Have you ever given a deposition before?

8 A. No. This is my first time.

9 Q. Queen, I'm going to ask you a series of

10 questions. In asking you those questions, if

11 I misstate or say something stupid, which is

12 likely, or ask a bad question, if you would

13 ask me to rephrase it or restate it, I'll be

14 glad to do that, okay?

15 A. Okay.

16 Q. Likewise, if I don't ask you -- or if you

17 don't ask me to rephrase it, I'll presume and

18 conclude that you're answering it with a full

19 understanding, okay?

20 A. (Witness nodding head).

21 Q. You have to speak out loud so she can get

22 you. She can't get a head nod.

23 A. Okay.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 3 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 Q. It probably isn't going to be fun for the next

2 hour, but it will be okay, okay?

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. Queen, what is your position with the

5 department?

6 A. I am a special education coordinator.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. And the assessment coordinator.

9 Q. Queen, how long have you served on the

10 screening and placement committee?

11 A. For about seven or eight years.

12 Q. How is it decided who will be on that

13 committee?

14 A. I am on the committee. I can only tell you

15 about why I am on it.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. I am on the committee to -- because I'm in

18 education, to identify the special education

19 students and/or the grades and schools which

20 the students attended and to help in making a

21 decision where placement is concerned.

22 Q. Okay. What is the purpose of the screening

23 and placement committee?

Page 7

1 A. Okay. The purpose of the screening and

2 placement committee?

3 Q. Yes, ma'am.

4 A. Is to get together, read -- first, we read the

5 records of all of the students, incoming

6 students. And we make a decision as to where

7 they are going to go based on the reasons for

8 coming in, which may be the crime that they

9 have committed, their needs, which includes

10 educational needs, and so forth, and on their

11 stay. And there may be others I may be not

12 saying.

13 Q. Does screening and placement exist to make

14 treatment decisions?

15 A. We make decisions, but not so much -- it may

16 be related to what treatment they may need for

17 placement. But when you say treatment, we

18 don't treat kids, so -- we make decisions

19 based on the treatment, you know, where they

20 may need to go or be placed for a particular

21 treatment.

22 Q. Okay. So, Queen, is it fair to say that the

23 purpose of screening and placement, from your

Page 8

1 perspective or your understanding, is to

2 determine which placement a child could be

3 housed at to receive their services?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. And by that, I mean, screening and

6 placement is not there to develop service

7 plans, are they?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. They're not there to take a look at the

10 file and say, these are the services we're

11 going to provide to a child?

12 A. Can you further explain that for me?

13 Q. Sure. You know the service plan -- what a

14 service plan is, correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. And a child doesn't get out of DYS

17 because they've satisfied what Pat Pendergast

18 or Queen Barker says they need to do, do they?

19 A. No.

20 Q. They get out of DYS by completing the service

21 plan?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. Screening and placement does not

Page 9

1 develop the service plan, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. So it is -- once a child gets to a facility

4 and that service plan is developed, it's the

5 services that that child gets to meet his

6 needs in the service plan, his completion of

7 those, that's what gets him released from

8 DYS? Is that true?

9 A. I'm going to have to ask you to state that --

10 that last phrase, say it over again, please --

11 Q. Sure.

12 A. -- so I can pay more attention to the last

13 phrase.

14 Q. Once a child is placed at a facility --

15 A. Uh-huh (positive response).

16 Q. -- then there's a whole policy, procedure, and

17 practice in place for the development of a

18 service plan, correct?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Okay. And it is those services that that

21 child is provided and his completion of those

22 services -- that's what leads to his release

23 from DYS; is that correct?

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 4 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Page 10

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Okay. So then, Queen, can you explain to

3 me -- let me ask you this way. If screening

4 and placement plays no role in the development

5 of a service plan -- which is true, correct?

6 Is that correct?

7 A. Uh-huh (positive response).

8 Q. Okay. She needs --

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Okay. If they play no role in the development

11 of that service plan, then screening and

12 placement is there to decide which facilitya

13 child can be housed at most appropriately to

14 have his service plan developed; is that

15 correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Queen, if screening and placement is there

18 simplyto determine housing placement, then

19 does it use a risk assessment in part in

20 making that determination?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And would that be the primary

23 consideration -- is that the first, other than

Page 11

1 gender maybe? But is the risk assessment the

2 primary consideration in the type of housing a

3 child will need?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Okay. If it's not risk that is the primary,

6 is it a primary consideration?

7 A. It's one of the considerations.

8 Q. Okay. Then what other consideration

9 determines what type of housing a child will

10 need in order to get their service plan

11 developed?

12 A. It would be -- the risk is not the primary --

13 it's one of them. It's just one of them.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. The treatment is based on what the child needs

16 based on what they have done to get to that

17 point in the first place.

18 Q. All right. Let me stop you there. Let's take

19 it piece by piece.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. Screening and placement doesn't develop the

22 service plan. So screening and placement,

23 would you not -- they play no role in the

Page 12

1 development of the service plan, do they?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. And so when you're talking about needs,

4 it doesn't matter what needs a child has.

5 Once they get to a facility, then his service

6 plan will be developed to decide what needs he

7 has and how best to serve those needs; isn't

8 that true?

9 A. That's true.

10 Q. Then what role, Queen, does screening and

11 placement, say in looking at a need, have any

12 role in determining where a child is going to

13 be housed to have his service plan developed?

14 A. We look at the crime that the child has

15 committed. And we think about the facilities

16 we have that may be able to -- even though we

17 don't play a role in treatment, that may be

18 the best placement for that child to get that

19 treatment.

20 Q. Okay. Well, for example, if a child needs

21 drug treatment as one of his needs -- well,

22 you might decide he needs drug treatment,

23 right? If he has drug treatment needs, you

Page 13

1 might say, well, let's get him into a drug

2 treatment program, right?

3 A. We do.

4 Q. Okay. And in fact, his drug treatment may be

5 just one need out of many that he has, right?

6 A. That's true.

7 Q. Okay. For whatever reason, besides Meigs,

8 Vacca, Chalkville, HIT, and the group homes,

9 everything is private provider now, isn't it?

10 A. That's true.

11 Q. And there's over thirty private providers,

12 aren't there? However many there are, it

13 doesn't matter. But the number of private

14 providers -- you know as a screening and

15 placement member that each one has different

16 attributes for certain types of children,

17 correct?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Okay. And so if you decide that a child needs

20 drug treatment, he's going to go on a drug

21 treatment placement list, right?

22 A. He will go to a facilitythat would be able to

23 service him in that area.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 5 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

5 (Pages 14 to 17)

Page 14

1 Q. Okay. Well, in all of these private

2 placements that exist, is it true or not true

3 that screening and placement, or you, or Pat,

4 I don't care who it is -- that somebody has

5 made the decision, if we think the child is

6 this person based on some characteristics,

7 we're going to put him in X program, for

8 example, Camp Cobia, or the Bridge A & D; is

9 that accurate?

10 A. I wouldn't say that's altogether accurate.

11 Q. Okay. You tell me, Queen. You're the one on

12 the committee.

13 A. Okay. We read the records of all of the

14 incoming students. We look at their needs.

15 And like I say, you say we're not there for

16 needs. I understand what you're saying. That

17 is correct.

18 Q. Okay. What I'm saying --

19 A. But we have to --

20 Q. -- is correct about that, right?

21 A. -- make a decision --

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. -- where they can get -- best get the

Page 15

1 treatment that they may need.

2 Q. Well, Queen, let's take J.B., for example, a

3 young man back in 2005, spring of 2005. He

4 had a low risk score. He was committed with a

5 specific recommendation for drug treatment.

6 And he was placed on -- well, something called

7 HIT -- no, Autauga slash AD combo. What is

8 that?

9 A. HIT is a twenty-eight day program that they

10 will go to to, hopefully, make some changes

11 where -- the behavior component. It's a

12 structured program. A & D will be one of our

13 programs, drug programs, that will service

14 that child relative to the drug issues that he

15 or she will have -- or with him, I guess.

16 Q. Well, what does it mean if y'all staff them at

17 Autauga slash AD combo?

18 A. We're giving the child a little bit more

19 time. You know, when I say that, the HIT

20 components are there to help children to learn

21 to develop better decision-making processes

22 and how to work together as a whole. The

23 A & D program slash -- that's a combo. That

Page 16

1 means he's going to HIT and then he's going to

2 go to the A & D program. He's going to go to

3 both programs.

4 Q. Okay. And that's a treatment decision you've

5 made about that child, isn't it?

6 A. That is a decision that we make to, hopefully,

7 get him the treatment he needs.

8 Q. Well, now, wait a minute, Queen. You don't

9 develop the service plan. Your sending him to

10 HIT is a treatment decision, isn't it?

11 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

12 Argumentative.

13 Q. You can go ahead and answer. Screening and

14 placement is determining, we think he needs

15 HIT; isn't that right?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And then you're making a decision he needs

18 drug treatment, right?

19 A. That's correct, if he needed it.

20 Q. Okay. But it's not your role to decide what

21 programs he needs, is it?

22 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

23 Q. It's your role to get him into an appropriate

Page 17

1 facilityto have his service plan developed;

2 isn't that right?

3 A. That's not altogether true.

4 Q. Okay. Well, Queen, we've got about forty-five

5 minutes to make it altogether true. You know,

6 you've been with the department a long time.

7 And you're the one person that knows this.

8 When you -- when screening and

9 placement -- well, let's go about it this

10 way. HIT is a program, isn't it?

11 A. True.

12 Q. Okay. HIT happens to be a program that is at

13 the Autauga campus, correct?

14 A. True, that's one of them.

15 Q. Is Thomasville still operational?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So HIT are not destinations? HIT are programs

18 that happen to be at Autauga and Thomasville,

19 correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Okay. So when J.B. -- it was determined that

22 he was going to go to the HIT program, that

23 was a program treatment decision, wasn't it?

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 6 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

6 (Pages 18 to 21)

Page 18

1 A. Based on what the committee felt that the

2 child needed.

3 Q. Okay. But, Queen, screening and placement

4 doesn't have the authority, do they -- by

5 policy, have any authority to decide what the

6 needs are for a child's service plan, do they?

7 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

8 Q. Do they, Queen?

9 MR. CROW: You can answer.

10 Q. You can go ahead and answer.

11 MR. PERRY: I'm sorry. Yes.

12 A. Okay.

13 Q. Y'all don't have that authority, do you?

14 A. I would say that --

15 MR. PERRY: He's not asking for --

16 Queen, he's not asking for an

17 opinion. He's asking you if --

18 he's asking you what is the

19 answer to the question.

20 A. I couldn't give you that answer without giving

21 my opinion.

22 Q. Okay. Well, you're welcome to give your

23 opinion. My next question is going to be,

Page 19

1 direct me to what authority there is. So you

2 tell me what authority screening and placement

3 has to make treatment decisions regarding any

4 child.

5 MR. PERRY: Queen, you're here to

6 answer the questions that you

7 know the answer to. Tell him

8 what you know. Answer the

9 questions to the best of your

10 ability if you --

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Okay. I would represent to you that Pat in an

13 affidavit has sworn to the court that in May

14 of 2005 that there were beds open at the

15 Montgomery group home. Okay. I'm making that

16 representation to you. Mr. Perry will make it

17 too if you ask him. He's the one that wrote

18 it.

19 A child that is on -- that has a risk

20 score -- or, I'm sorry, has a score indicating

21 that he needs drug treatment, if he had a risk

22 score that allowed him to go to a group home,

23 he could go to that group home, couldn't he?

Page 20

1 MR. PERRY: Objection to form.

2 Why don't you represent to

3 her the other material facts?

4 Q. You can go ahead and answer.

5 A. It is based on his needs. And I know what

6 you're going to go back to, but it's --

7 Q. Well, if his --

8 A. -- based on his needs.

9 Q. Well, if his need is drug treatment, because

10 the court said he needs drug treatment, he

11 could go to a group home and get drug

12 treatment, couldn't he?

13 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

14 A. I couldn't answer that --

15 Q. Well --

16 A. -- without my opinion being there.

17 Q. Okay. Well, let's go back, Queen. Kids that

18 go to a group home have all sorts of needs,

19 don't they?

20 A. That would be assuming, and I don't want to do

21 that.

22 Q. Well, what kind of kids do you send to group

23 homes?

Page 21

1 A. These are very low risk kids. Kids who most

2 likely can function out there in society,

3 because these kids are able to move freely

4 sometimes.

5 Q. Well, even a kid that waits six weeks in

6 detention could be staffed by y'all to go to a

7 group home, couldn't he?

8 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

9 What kid?

10 Q. Any kid. Any kid that's in detention, y'all

11 might staff them to go to a group home,

12 couldn't you?

13 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

14 A. There are other variables that must be met.

15 Q. Queen, when you go into the -- when you review

16 the files each week, when do you do that?

17 A. When do I review the files?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. Sometimes I start reading on Monday, Tuesday,

20 and Wednesday mornings.

21 Q. Okay. So the earliest that you would start

22 reviewing for Wednesday afternoon would be

23 Monday sometime?

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 7 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Page 22

1 A. Uh-huh (positive response).

2 Q. Okay. And how do you -- do the files come to

3 you or do you go to the files? What do you

4 do?

5 A. I go and get the files from the screening and

6 placement area.

7 Q. Okay. And then as you're reviewing them, do

8 you make notes?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Where do you -- how do you keep those notes,

11 in a diary or a log or something?

12 A. Usually, I keep them on paper, but I

13 eliminate -- get rid of the paper after the

14 meeting.

15 Q. Do you make a note about each child, some sort

16 of note?

17 A. I do to a great extent.

18 Q. Okay. For example, what would you make notes

19 about a child regarding?

20 A. If the child has been in a system before, what

21 the educational problems appear to be.

22 Q. What notes do you make about your impression

23 as to an initial placement?

Page 23

1 A. I look at the court order also. And many

2 times the PO, or in the court order there will

3 be a suggestion for placement. I might write

4 it on the file -- on the folder. I might

5 write it on my paper, but it's only a

6 suggestion.

7 Q. Okay. I would represent to you in Pat's

8 deposition he said that generally what

9 happened, y'all would start the meeting, he

10 would pull the file, he would, basically, say

11 what his recommendation is and then there

12 would be some discussion. If there was some

13 descension, there might be more discussion,

14 and then y'all would come to a consensus; is

15 that accurate?

16 A. That's accurate.

17 Q. Okay. Is it the sense that Pat comes in, he

18 pulls the file, he says, it's so and so, I've

19 got him down as this is the placement, any

20 thoughts? Is that pretty much how it works?

21 A. Not really. We look at the suggestions made

22 by the court, and we discuss it.

23 Q. What I'm trying to find out is, who makes the

Page 24

1 initial placement comment? Who says, here is

2 where I think they ought to go?

3 A. Oh, no, we don't have that kind of thing, not

4 during my -- okay. We -- we talk about it.

5 And I may say, you know, well, he needs this.

6 And then we'll look at it. And we may make a

7 decision, but ...

8 Q. All right. The decision is made, Queen. Is

9 that decision communicated to the child?

10 A. We don't have any kids there.

11 Q. Well, the kids that are at home or in

12 detention, do y'all communicate what you've

13 decided to the child?

14 A. I do not. I can't say what anyone else does.

15 Q. Do you think a child ought to be notified?

16 A. I don't know. I don't know whether they do it

17 or not. I don't know what the situation is

18 with that.

19 Q. Okay. So if a child is going to be waiting in

20 detention for a month, do you think that child

21 ought to be notified that it's anticipated

22 he's going to be waiting there for three or

23 four weeks waiting for a placement?

Page 25

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Okay. When you have a child that is sitting

3 in detention and you, through Child Find,

4 determine -- do you use Child Find if you

5 don't know whether or not they're special ed?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Okay. You find that a child is entitled to

8 special ed. Do you ensure that they have an

9 interim IEP while they're waiting?

10 A. While they're waiting in detention?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. No.

13 Q. When I say make any effort, I'm not

14 criticizing. Is there any effort made to make

15 sure that that child is being provided his

16 educational entitlements while he's waiting in

17 detention to be placed?

18 A. Based on the educational procedures, the

19 school in that particular area where the

20 teaching facility is, is responsible for

21 making sure that those kids receive their

22 special education.

23 Q. Okay. Is it your belief that that's being

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 8 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Page 26

1 done?

2 A. I don't want to speculate that it's not being

3 done. I hope so.

4 Q. Queen, are you familiar with the

5 classification manual? Are you familiar with

6 the classification manual?

7 A. Explain what you are talking about when you

8 say classification manual.

9 Q. All right. Do you know whether or not

10 screening and placement utilizes a

11 classification manual?

12 A. Can you explain that more, because what I may

13 be thinking may not be what you're thinking.

14 Q. Well, tell me what you're thinking.

15 A. We have categories such as serious juvenile

16 offenders. Is that what you're talking

17 about?

18 Q. Does screening and placement categorize

19 children?

20 A. Based --

21 Q. Does screening and placement either

22 classify --

23 A. No.

Page 27

1 Q. -- or categorize children?

2 A. We don't categorize. We -- we're given

3 classifications based on what comes in the

4 files.

5 Q. What are the classifications that -- what are

6 all the different classifications y'all could

7 be given?

8 A. A child may be a serious juvenile offender.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. The child may be -- it's based on what they

11 have done.

12 Q. Based on what?

13 A. What they have done, you know.

14 Q. Well, what are the different classifications

15 that you would review on a weekly basis?

16 A. Drug offenders.

17 Q. So drug offenders is a classification or a

18 category?

19 A. A category, I guess.

20 Q. Okay. I think you had said there were some

21 classifications based on what you get in.

22 What are the other classifications besides

23 SJO?

Page 28

1 A. I would like for you to -- if you don't mind,

2 to explain what you mean by classification.

3 And to the best of my ability, I will answer.

4 Q. Sure. Queen, I'm just asking you -- you said

5 that the -- there's classifications based on

6 what comes in. I don't know. That's why I'm

7 asking you. What classifications are there

8 that you would review weekly? How do y'all

9 classify kids?

10 A. I wouldn't say we classify them. I'm looking

11 at needs, what may be best for the child.

12 Q. So in looking at needs, what may be best for

13 the child, that's before the service plan is

14 developed, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And you're making a placement decision based

17 on your perceived needs of the child before

18 the service plan is developed?

19 A. We're making decisions on what would be the

20 best facility that may service based on the

21 child's needs, what is recommended or the

22 crime he committed.

23 Q. And then a child then goes to that facility,

Page 29

1 because that facilitycan meet the child's

2 needs, as you perceive them to be?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Okay. And then what happens -- what is a

5 fifty-two on the drug and alcohol score?

6 A. I don't know. I don't know.

7 Q. Would a fifty-two be a high score or a low

8 score or --

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. Queen, as I look through the list of private

11 providers, to me they fall generally into

12 secure programs, somewhat secure programs, and

13 non-secure programs; would that be right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And so take, for example -- other than drug

16 treatment, there's some programs that DYS has

17 private providers that are known as drug

18 treatment programs, right?

19 A. They are known to be able to service students

20 who may have -- or have a need for drug

21 treatment.

22 Q. Well, for example, The Bridge is a drug

23 treatment program?

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 9 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Page 30

1 A. The Bridge is known to have a component to

2 service a child who needs drug treatment.

3 Q. What about Steps? What is it?

4 A. Steps is known to have a component also that

5 service kids with drug problems.

6 Q. Queen, other than drug treatment and sex

7 offender treatment, other than those two

8 categories, what's the difference in all of

9 the other facilities?

10 A. Okay. The difference is, we look at the

11 educational.

12 Q. Let me stop you there. Regardless of any

13 facilitythat a child is placed at, their

14 education is going to be provided, right?

15 A. Right.

16 Q. So it should make no difference in a placement

17 decision about the educational needs, should

18 it?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Okay. So then we've wiped out education.

21 Other than sex offender and drug treatment,

22 tell me what's the difference in all of these

23 other facilities where children can be placed?

Page 31

1 A. We have group homes that when a -- will enable

2 kids to -- you know, who may have a GED or who

3 is a low risk kid can go to to get a job, go

4 to college.

5 Q. But the kid that goes to a group home could

6 just as well go to a Wilderness program,

7 couldn't he?

8 A. Repeat that again.

9 Q. A kid that goes to a group home could just as

10 well go to a Wilderness program, couldn't he?

11 A. I wouldn't suggest that.

12 Q. Well, tell me what criteria that you review

13 that says a person can go to a group home but

14 can't go to a Wilderness program.

15 A. I would look at their risk score and the crime

16 in which they committed to come in, and the

17 length of time and what they really need.

18 Q. Well --

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. But, Queen, screening and placement is there

21 not to make treatment decisions, are they?

22 A. Again, I say they do not.

23 Q. So a child -- I'm sorry. Did you finish?

Page 32

1 A. But we make decisions on facilities that may

2 be able to treat the child.

3 Q. Right. And it's the decision that screening

4 and placement makes, their decision as to

5 which facilitythey're going to put a child,

6 whether or not they're going to end up on a

7 waiting list if that particular --

8 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

9 Q. -- if that particular facilitydoesn't have a

10 bed; is that true?

11 A. I hate to tell you this, but you need to

12 repeat that again.

13 Q. I'll be glad to. Your decision, screening and

14 placement, to place a child in any particular

15 facilityis what determines whether they're

16 going to have to wait or not to get into that

17 program, aren't they?

18 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

19 A. Sometimes.

20 Q. And so if you decide program X is where we're

21 going to put him, but program Y -- if a

22 decision had been made to put him in program Y

23 and there's no waiting list, he could go right

Page 33

1 away, couldn't he?

2 A. We decide program X is where he's going. I'm

3 trying to see if I understand you, okay?

4 Q. Sure.

5 A. But program Y does not have -- has a bed?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Program X does not have a bed, but this is our

8 decision.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. So your question is about X and Y?

11 Q. He could go to the program that has an open

12 bed, couldn't he?

13 MR. PERRY: Objection to the form.

14 Q. He could go to the facilitythat has the open

15 bed, couldn't he?

16 If he met the risk score -- if the risk

17 score didn't keep him out of that facility, he

18 could go to that facility, couldn't he?

19 A. There are variables that are being left out

20 here.

21 Q. Listen to my question. Mr. Perry can ask you

22 whatever questions he wants when we're done.

23 If you staffed him to program X, but

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 10 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Page 34

1 there is a bed open in programY, and his risk

2 score says he could go to programY, he could

3 go to programY, couldn't he?

4 MR. PERRY: Queen, if the answer to

5 your question -- don't worry

6 about whether I'm going to ask

7 you any questions. If you know

8 the answer, answer it. If there

9 are things that are being left

10 out, tell him there's things

11 being left out. But don't let

12 him force you to answer a

13 question when things are being

14 left out.

15 A. He's right. There are things that are being

16 left out.

17 Q. All right. If you recognize screening and

18 placement doesn't make treatment decisions

19 other than the risk score and gender, tell me

20 what's being left out.

21 A. We're looking at -- believe it or not, we're

22 looking at age. We're looking at education.

23 Q. All right. Stop. Let's take --

Page 35

1 A. We're looking at --

2 Q. Let's take them one at a time. Let's take

3 them one at a time. You said the first one is

4 age. It would be another variable, right?

5 A. Uh-huh (positive response.)

6 Q. Okay. The second one you said is education?

7 A. Uh-huh (positive response).

8 Q. Right? Which you testified a minute ago

9 doesn't matter, because wherever they're going

10 to be, they're going to get what they're

11 entitled to, right?

12 A. Hopefully.

13 Q. Okay. So we have age. Education is gone.

14 What else?

15 A. The risk.

16 Q. Well, we already said risk is the first one.

17 A. We're looking at how many times the student

18 has been -- which creates -- helps to create

19 that risk score.

20 Q. Well, that's the same as risk, isn't it?

21 A. Yeah. But you're looking at their behavior.

22 Q. Well, that's all reflected in the risk score,

23 isn't it?

Page 36

1 A. Not everything is reflected in the risk,

2 but -- the behavior. When I read a record, I

3 look at behavior. And I might recognize

4 something.

5 Q. Queen, the risk score takes into account all

6 of those considerations related to behavior

7 and past offenses, doesn't it?

8 A. Did you want me to read it all?

9 Q. No. I'm just asking you about the risk

10 assessment, Queen, whether or not that entails

11 all of the things you're -- so what else is

12 there besides age and risk?

13 A. But, now, I'm sure you know, like I know, you

14 just cannot look at a number and determine,

15 even though that's there, what a child needs

16 just based on a number. Two kids may have the

17 same number, but they're unique in their own

18 way. It's not the same.

19 Q. Queen, your background is education, right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. So when it comes to treatment needs

22 other than education, not that you're not

23 qualified -- but you're not qualified to make

Page 37

1 those determinations, are you?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. And you agree with that, don't you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, when it comes to education at DYS, you

6 are the education guru. I'll even tell John

7 Stewart I said that.

8 But when it comes to treatment needs of

9 children other than education, that's outside

10 your field of expertise, isn't it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. You've worked with Garry for six years

13 now, right?

14 A. Garry? Garry Gregg?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Maybe. I don't know. I don't keep up with

17 years.

18 Q. Who else is on screening and placement with

19 you?

20 A. With me now?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. Garry, Jada, Mr. Pendergast, myself.

23 Q. All right. You would agree with me that Jada

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 11 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Page 38

1 doesn't have the expertise to make treatment

2 decisions regarding children?

3 A. I can't say that. I don't know.

4 Q. Do you think Jada has the educational or

5 experience to make treatment needs regarding

6 children?

7 MR. PERRY: You just asked her and

8 she just answered.

9 Q. You can go ahead and answer.

10 MR. PERRY: You didn't like her

11 answer. You want to make her

12 change it?

13 A. I honestly do not know.

14 Q. Okay. Do you know what Garry's background is?

15 A. I know he works with community service.

16 Q. Okay. Queen, with all due respect, other than

17 your education, tell me who on that committee

18 is qualified to make placement decisions

19 regarding that child based on anything other

20 than age, gender, and risk?

21 A. Me? Ask that question, please, again. I

22 don't want to give you the wrong answer.

23 Q. There's not a right or wrong answer.

Page 39

1 MR. DRUMMOND: Julie, can you read

2 it back.

3 COURT REPORTER: Question: Queen,

4 with all due respect, other than

5 your education, tell me who on

6 that committee is qualified to

7 make placement decisions

8 regarding that child based on

9 anything other than age, gender,

10 and risk?

11 A. I think the others are. I can assume that

12 they are.

13 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't understand.

14 A. I do the education and I help make decisions

15 about the kids and where they are going. So I

16 guess you're saying I'm not qualified to do

17 that.

18 Q. That's not what I said. I said other than the

19 education component, who is qualified to make

20 those decisions on that committee?

21 A. Mr. Pendergast and Jada and Garry, if you

22 eliminate education, which is mainly, you

23 know, what I'm looking at. And I do look at

Page 40

1 other things.

2 Q. Sure. Why do y'all only meet once a week?

3 A. We meet once a week.

4 Q. Why do you only meet once a week?

5 A. Why?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. We usually get the folders -- I mean, we get

8 children's records sent in starting on Friday

9 afternoon up through Wednesday.

10 Q. Well, Queen, if all the records are in on

11 Wednesday or Thursday, everything is there,

12 why should a child, particularly a child in

13 detention, have to wait a whole week before

14 y'all make a recommendation regarding that?

15 A. I didn't say they were in on Thursday. We

16 meet on kids whose records tend to start

17 coming in maybe that Fridayor maybe that

18 Monday. And it's not all the time that it

19 happens like that, so ...

20 Q. Queen, are you aware that every day completed

21 packets are sent to DYS?

22 A. We may get packages.

23 Q. Okay. And my question to you is, why should a

Page 41

1 child, particularly in detention, have to wait

2 an entire week before a committee meets to

3 make a recommendation about where he'll be

4 placed?

5 A. We may be waiting on something that's not in

6 the records --

7 Q. No, ma'am.

8 A. -- when it's sent to us.

9 Q. My question is, the entire packet is complete,

10 everything is there, why should a child have

11 to wait up to a week to get staffed?

12 A. I'm not saying that he's waiting, he or she is

13 waiting a week. Because we're talking about

14 maybe three days after we meet.

15 Q. Are you saying that because you believe that

16 the packets are put together on Friday and

17 then y'all can begin looking at them on

18 Monday?

19 A. No. I'm saying that packages are put together

20 when they come in. And once they are put

21 together -- they may come in on Monday,

22 Tuesday, Wednesday prior to our meeting. We

23 get those packages, and we read them. I read

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 12 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Page 42

1 this morning before I had to come here.

2 Q. Queen, do you understand DYS receives

3 completed packages every day of the week? Do

4 you understand that?

5 A. I'm sure they probably do.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And my question is to you, why should a child

9 have to wait up to a week before y'all review

10 that child and make a decision about where

11 he'll be placed?

12 A. I don't know. I don't know.

13 Q. Queen, if a --

14 MR. DRUMMOND: What's the time?

15 MR. PERRY: About ten minutes.

16 Q. Queen, do you agree with me and do you

17 understand it's DYS policy that if a child has

18 a need, whatever facilityhe's at, DYS is to

19 secure that service for him to meet that need?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you know that to be DYS policy?

22 A. In good faith they try.

23 Q. And so you're familiar with electronic

Page 43

1 monitoring?

2 A. I've heard about it.

3 Q. You're aware that a child who has been

4 committed to DYS could be placed on electronic

5 monitoring by DYS, aren't you?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. All right. Well, have you ever considered

8 during your time on screening and placement of

9 placing a child on electronic monitoring while

10 they're waiting for their placement?

11 A. No.

12 Q. A child could have their service plan

13 developed in detention, couldn't they?

14 A. You said I'm not qualified to do that.

15 Q. No, I didn't say you do it. I just said

16 screening and placement could -- DYS could

17 develop service plans for kids in detention

18 while they're waiting, couldn't they?

19 A. I can't say that. I'm not on a service

20 plan -- you know, people who develop the

21 service plans.

22 Q. Well, we've already established that you make

23 recommendations to send kids to the HIT

Page 44

1 program, correct? Right?

2 A. Right.

3 Q. And that's a treatment decision as we've

4 talked about, right?

5 A. We make decisions, screening and placement.

6 We don't make -- you said earlier, and I

7 agreed, we don't do treatment plans. We make

8 decisions as to what facility may be able to

9 be the best place for the treatment.

10 Q. Well, Queen, since you, other than Pat, have

11 the most seniority on that committee, how many

12 times have you sent a child on -- placed him

13 at home under home supervision and gone ahead

14 and done their evaluation and developed their

15 service plan while they're waiting to come in?

16 A. It's hard. I can't determine numbers, how

17 many times. I know that there were kids who

18 were evaluated while they were at home.

19 Q. Okay. But kids that are in detention, DYS can

20 place those kids at home, can't they?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Okay. Have you ever contemplated having a kid

23 in detention -- making a recommendation that

Page 45

1 he be placed at home or placed on electronic

2 monitoring?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Okay. So, Queen, in reality, what y'all do is

5 you take your list of facilities that exist

6 within the system, correct? You take that

7 list and you decide where that child should be

8 placed initially?

9 A. With other variables in mind, court decisions,

10 PO recommendations, what's needed in

11 treatment. I like to feel that what we're

12 doing makes a difference in the child's life.

13 Q. Do you think it makes a difference in a

14 child's life to be sitting in detention for a

15 month to go to a twenty-eight day program?

16 A. I can't make a decision about that. That's

17 out of my control.

18 Q. Queen, how many times have you recommended

19 during your six years that a child be placed

20 on electronic monitoring and sent home from

21 detention pending placement?

22 A. Never.

23 Q. How many times have you recommended that the

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 13 of 14
Deposition of Queen Barker J.B. vs. WOOD August 1, 2007

13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Page 46

1 child be placed back at home under some rules

2 established by the department and that he come

3 to one of the campuses and participate in

4 various programs?

5 A. Never.

6 Q. How many times have you or screening and

7 placement recommended that a child be at home

8 and participate in the CAPS program at the

9 Mt. Meigs campus?

10 A. I have never.

11 Q. Okay. How many times have you, as part of

12 screening and placement, ever even

13 contemplated those options?

14 A. Never.

15 MR. DRUMMOND: Mr. Perry may have

16 some questions for you. If not,

17 we're done.

18 MR. PERRY: No.

19 MR. DRUMMOND: Thank you, ma'am.

20 It's nice seeing you again.

21 THE WITNESS: Good seeing you too.

22 (The deposition concluded at

23 approximately 2:30 p.m.)

Page 47

1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2 FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT

3 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4

5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

6 STATE OF ALABAMA:

7 BUTLER COUNTY:

8

9 I, Julie A. Duncan, Court Reporter and

10 Commissioner for the State of Alabama at Large, do

11 hereby certify that I reported the deposition of:

12 QUEEN BARKER

13 who was first duly sworn by me to speak the truth,

14 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the

15 matter of:

16 J.B., a minor child, by and through

17 his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

18 behalf of himself and all others

19 similarlysituated,

20 Plaintiff,

21 vs.

22 WALTER WOOD, in his individual

23 capacity,

Page 48

1 Defendant.

2 CASE NO: 02:06cv755-MHT

3 * * * * * * * * * *

4 J.B., a minor child, by and through

5 his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

6 behalf of himself and all others

7 similarly situated,

8 Plaintiff,

9 vs.

10 WALTER WOOD, in his individual

11 capacity,

12 Defendant.

13 CASE NO: 02:06cv908-MHT,

14 In the United States District Court

15 for the Middle District of Alabama

16 Northern Division,

17 on Wednesday, August 1, 2007.

18 The foregoing 48 computer-printed pages

19 contain a true and correct transcript of the

20 examination of said witness by counsel for the parties

21 set out herein. The reading and signing of same is

22 hereby waived.

23 I further certify that I am neither of kin

Page 49

1 nor of counsel to the parties to said cause

2 nor in any manner interested in the results

3 thereof.

4 This 9th day of August, 2007.

5

6

7 _____________________________

Julie A. Duncan,

8 Court Reporter and

Commissioner for the State

9 of Alabama at Large

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 59-4 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 14 of 14