Stay up to date on the latest news and legislative alerts in mental health law: Email   ZIP For RSS readers

News updates Ruling in Katie A. Class Action Moves California Closer to Providing Mental Health Services Needed by Foster Children (9/22/08) Court Asked to Order Effective Community Mental Health Services for California Foster Children (1/11/08) Judge orders Los Angeles County to fix implementation plan (11/21/06) Court Orders Community Mental Health Services for Thousands of California Foster Children (3/14/06) Court Asked to Require Los Angeles County to Comply with 2003 Foster Care Agreement (2/14/06)

Court documents Documents Related to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Documents Related to Ninth Circuit Appeal Documents Related to Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Preliminary Injunction Documents Related to Plaintiffs’ Settlement with Los Angeles County The 2002 Katie A. Complaint

More resources Wraparound and TFC and Their Implications for Taxpayers Examples of Katie A. Plaintiffs Practice Principles Decision from a similar case in Massachusetts: Rosie D. v. Romney

Katie A. v. Bonta

The class action known as Katie A. v. Bonta was filed in July 2002. It challenges California’s failure to provide home-based and community-based mental health services to children who are in the foster care system or at risk of removal from their families. Of special concern is California’s practice of confining children with mental health needs in hospitals and large group homes instead of providing services that would enable them to stay in their own homes and communities.

In 2003, Los Angeles County settled its portion of the lawsuit, agreeing to close the notorious MacLaren Children’s Center and develop appropriate services in the community. However, an expert panel found in August 2005 that the county had not yet even developed a plan to provide community services to the 50,000 children in its foster care system--the nation’s largest. In an effort to refocus the county’s efforts, lawyers for the children asked the district judge to compel the county to comply with the settlement agreement.

In November 2006, the district judge ordered Los Angeles County to address deficiencies in its implementation plan and to report regularly to the expert panel, plaintiffs and the court on progress in implementing the plan.

As part of the implementation process, the County committed an additional $90 million for home- and community-based services. Also, the parties have reached agreement on Practice Principles for delivery of community services to class members in Los Angeles County and an operational definition of those services.

In the overall suit against the state, Judge Matz was asked to give the health and social services agencies 30 days to develop a plan and another 30 days to actually begin providing the two most critical services statewide: family-based “wraparound” and therapeutic foster care (TFC). Experts contend that these two services “can turn around a child’s negative trajectory and produce virtual miracles,” according to papers filed with the court. “Each day that passes marks another day lost,” the request points out, for children “whose conditions steadily worsen without access to wraparound and TFC.”

In March 2006, Judge Matz granted the plaintiffs’ request. However, in March 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Judge Matz’ order on narrow grounds. The plaintiffs have recently filed a renewed motion for preliminary injunction.

A consortium of state and national public interest groups represents the children, including Protection & Advocacy, Inc., the Bazelon Center, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, the National Center for Youth Law and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, along with the law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP

In a similar case in Massachusetts, Rosie D. v. Romney, the federal court ruled in January 2006 that Medicaid-eligible children with challenging mental health needs are entitled to comprehensive assessments, developed with their participation and their family’s, and to receive case management and in-home behavioral support services.