Over a sixteen year period, DCF and its private contracted community based providers in Miami-Dade County, FL failed to have the child appropriately assessed, failed to provide an increased foster care board rate despite the child’s significant needs, failed to ensure the child received services from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, and put financial incentives of management ahead of helping foster children.
Over a sixteen year period, DCF and its private contracted community based providers in Miami-Dade County, FL failed to have the child appropriately assessed, failed to provide an increased foster care board rate despite the child’s significant needs, failed to ensure the child received services from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, and put financial incentives of management ahead of helping foster children. The case was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida by children civil rights lawyers, Howard Talenfeld and Stacie Schmerling against DCF, private child welfare agencies in Miami-Dade County, and individual employees and established important legal precedent establishing foster children’s rights to be safe and receive disability services.
Plaintiff Soung Lanaza, shortly after her birth, became a ward of the State of Florida, in the legal custody of the State of Florida Department of Children and Family Services (“DCF”) and lived in a shelter until 1995, when she was moved to a group home until 1999, at which point moved to New York City to live with Woodburn as her foster parent. Lanaza allegedly remained a ward of the State of Florida throughout this period, including her time in Woodburn’s care. Our Kids was a private corporation under a contract with DCF to provide community-based foster care services in Miami–Dade County. In summary, she reasserts that Our Kids became involved with her as part of the transition to community-based care in May of 2005, while Lanaza was living in New York. Lanaza also reasserts that the Defendants, including Our Kids, failed to provide her with any support services while she lived with Woodburn, including failure to secure certain benefits (such as Medicaid waiver benefits, which allegedly would have provided financial support based on Lanaza’s disabilities. She further alleged: (1) that Our Kids established a systematic policy of accepting responsibility for the care of children from DCF despite knowing that the files of many children, including those of Lanaza, were incomplete and lacked critical documents and information; and (2) that Our Kids made no independent assessment or took no further action to locate the information and complete the files, thereby threatening the safety and well-being of the children. Moreover, Our Kids allegedly delegated all care responsibility to Defendant One Hope United, Inc. (“One Hope”), despite knowing that the files were incomplete, and without any direct supervision over or participation in One Hope’s caregiving practices, thereby ignoring the risk that necessary information would go unknown and children’s needs would go unmet. Additionally, Lanaza alleged that Our Kids established and enforced policies or practices that resulted in children like Lanaza staying in foster care in excess of the statutorily prescribed maximum of one year, and longer than children in other Florida districts, thereby prioritizing the financial interests of Our Kids over the interests of the children. Lanaza alleged that Our Kids maintained policies that: (1) failed to ensure that children placed out of state under the ICPC were adequately assessed and provided with necessary medical services; (2) failed to ensure the adequate safety and nurturing of children placed out of state under the ICPC; (3) failed to ensure that children’s social, mental, and physical needs were met under its care; (4) failed to provide a comprehensive health assessment for each child under its care; (5) failed to identify which children were eligible for disability services and ensure that such children received those services; (6) failed to adequately educate and train caregivers like Woodburn to meet the special needs of children like Lanaza; (7) failed to ensure that special needs children like Lanaza received adequate transportation services; (8) failed to provide a complete and adequate case plan for each child under its care, to regularly review that plan, and to develop that plan in collaboration with caregivers; (9) failed to ensure that children placed out of state were treated equally with children located within Florida; (10) failed to ensure that service providers completed reports regarding the services they provided to children under Our Kids’ care; (11) failed to obtain benefits for eligible children, such as Medicaid certification and waivers, which would provide necessary medical support; (12) failed to make efforts to reduce the length of stay of children in foster care pursuant to statewide goals; and (13) failed to effectively staff cases. Finally, Lanaza alleged that Our Kids knew that a disproportionate share of children in Florida’s foster care system for the longest time—25 of the top 100—were within its care and took no action to achieve permanency for these children despite knowing the risk of harm of continued foster care for them. Lanaza alleged that Our Kids took the above actions knowing that they would expose children like Lanaza to a substantial risk of serious harm, and that they took no action to ensure the safety of children like Lanaza despite having the authority and means to do so, constituting deliberate indifference to the risk of harm. As a result, Lanaza alleges that she and other children in her position suffered physical harm, developmental harm, psychological trauma, pain and suffering, and deterioration. Id. As the District Court stated for § 1983 purposes, Our Kids qualifies as a state actor. Where the “state actor” is a private entity contracting with a municipality, a complaint must allege that the violation of rights resulted from an “official policy or custom
The case resolved for a confidential settlement amount.
Disclaimer: Most cases result in a lower recovery. Results may not be typical and reflect awards before deduction for attorneys’ fees and expenses. It should not be assumed that your case will have as beneficial a result.