IBJNews

Local law firm seeks class action over state adoption subsidies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based law firm Cohen & Malad LLP filed a lawsuit Monday against the Indiana Department of Child Services that claims the state failed to pay millions of dollars in promised subsidies to families who adopted children from the state foster-care system.

The lawsuit, filed in LaPorte County on behalf of Debbie Moss of LaPorte, seeks class-action status for 1,400 families on a waiting list for money meant to help them raise adopted children. A judge has to approve the case before it becomes a class action.

Moss has three grandsons that she adopted out of foster care.

Cohen & Malad was joined in the suit by LaPorte-based law firm Friedman & Associates.

Cohen & Malad attorney Richard Shevitz said DCS negotiates adoption rates with many families who qualified for them and signed contracts, but later told the families they would be placed on a waiting list until the money was available.

At the same time, DCS returned nearly $240 million to state coffers between 2009 and 2013.

“The state’s failure to pay adoption subsidy payments DCS promised to pay in a contract puts children and their caretakers at a considerable disadvantage,” Cohen & Malad attorney Lynn Toops said in a prepared statement. “Our lawsuit aims to make DCS follow through with its promises to these children and families.”

Former DCS Director James Payne removed adoption subsidy money from the agency's budget in January 2009 at a time when former Gov. Mitch Daniels was requiring agencies to return some of their allocated funds so Indiana could balance its books.

Nonpayment of the subsidies amounts to a breach of the contracts DCS signed with the adoptive parents, Shevitz said.

"This is obviously something that has real consequences for real people," Shevitz said during a news conference, the South Bend Tribune reported.

DCS spokesman James Wide said the agency has no comment on the lawsuit.

After Moss adopted her three grandsons in July 2012, she would have been due about $40,000 in payments based on the daily payments she had negotiated with DCS, Shevitz said.

One of Moss' daughters, the mother of the boys, lost her parental rights because she failed to protect them from abuse. Moss acted as a foster parent to the boys before adopting them.

As a foster parent, Moss had been reimbursed $25 per day per child. After she adopted the boys, Moss and the state negotiated a rate of $18.88 a day.

Cohen & Malad said the state, even when it pays the adoption subsidy, saves thousands of dollars per child annually when they are adopted from foster care because of the lower reimbursement rate.

Failure to pay, however, has reduced the willingness of foster parents to adopt children. The law firm said Indiana has seen a 35-percent drop in adoptions since 2011.

“This decline in adoptions from the DCS foster care system is likely attributable to Indiana’s failure to pay the promised adoption subsidies because 60 percent of children adopted in Indiana are adopted by foster care parents receiving $25-per-day foster-care assistance payments,” the lawsuit says. “A recent survey shows that 58 percent of adoptive families said they could not have adopted without a subsidy.”

Indiana is the only state not paying an adoption subsidy, the lawsuit says.

Cohen & Malad has built a national reputation with class-action suits. Last year, the firm collected $6.3 million in a class action against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles after it was caught overcharging for driver’s licenses. Plaintiffs in the case were awarded refunds of $3.50 to $15 each.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Skeptic is Right
    What a shame that the state would seemingly prefer to pay a bunch of lawyers than fulfill its contractual obligations. Lawyers win. Children lose. Whoever made this decision should be ashamed.
  • Narrow Focus Wrong
    If you keep a narrow focus, I can see how it would be possible to criticize a grandmother for getting State reimbursement for raising her grandchildren. But if you look at all of us in a community, it sheds more light on the benefit to citizens of Indiana to help families adopt by providing a subsidy. It is difficult to work and raise small children at the same time; age and job skills may also make it difficult to have resources to all at once take on raising children. But there are also 2 other alternatives that thoughtful readers might consider. First, the State of Indiana is apparently the only state that doesn't pay a subsidy. And they agreed to do so under contract. Second, adoption is the alternative to having children shuffled from foster home to foster home. a step that's more expensive and sometimes leads right to a gateway to jail and kids graduating into the "system" of poverty and an at risk life. Adoption, I expect, is considered to be more stable and leads to a better chance for children to grow up to be successful adults. So, take your choice-- support adoptive families now --as agreed by the State before the Governor took the funds to put into his "reserve", or spend more on these children for their entire lifetime?
  • Wrong Plaintiff
    While I certainly agree the DCS needs to be made to fulfill the financial obligations to which it committed, I think Ms. Moss is the wrong plaintiff for this case. First of all, these are her grandchildren. Why should the state be forced to pay Ms. Moss for "adopting" her own child's children? The slippery slope this creates is not one the state should be riding. Second, what kind of person is Ms. Moss if she is not willing to raise her grandchildren without the state compensating her? Finally, while I realize Ms. Moss is not responsible for the failures of her adult daughter, she must bear some of the responsibility for raising a child that is unfit as a mother to three kids.
  • Money for lawyers
    Class actions infrequently do anything to help the injured parties, other than give them a couple bucks. Watch as the plaintiffs' lawyers take millions upon millions in fees.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT