Katie A. v. Bonta
Update: On January 11, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for preliminary injunction,
asking Judge A Howard Matz of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California to order the
State of California to provide wraparound services
and therapeutic foster care to children in or at
risk of entering foster care. The motion was filed
to address the issues raised by a decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that
reveresed and remanded on narrow grounds Judge Matz’ March
2006 order granting the plaintiffs’ first Motion
for Preliminary Injunction). On September 22, 2008, Judge Matz ordered the parties to meet promptly and report back to him by October 29 on how wraparound services can be covered by Medi-Cal and properly billed—thereby ensuring that mental health care providers will be reimbursed for delivering these critical services, to children in foster care. Effective April 15, 2009, Judge Matz appointed a special master, Rick Saletta, to facilitate agreement between the parties. |
|
|
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.
|