Case: W.R. et al. v. Conn. Dept. Of Children
and Families
___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5128 (D. Conn. 2003)
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Mental Health
:
Federal District Court, District of Connecticut
March 24, 2003
In this important civil
and disability rights class action filed on behalf of children in
state care and custody, a federal district judge denied the bulk
of the state’s motion to dismiss, primarily because the record did
not support any significant findings in the case at this time. Filed
on behalf of minors in state Department of Children and Families
(“Department”) custody, this action challenges the Department’s
failure to provide children community based residential placements.
The plaintiffs, all of whom possess mental and emotional disabilities,
allege that the Department’s failure to provide residential community
placements violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”), Conn.
Gen. Stat. §§ 17a-3 and 17a-6, and the Twenty First Amendment of
the Connecticut Constitution. The complaint further alleges that
the Department is mandated by law to place the children in programs
with additional professional staffing if necessary to meet their
needs.
The motion to dismiss raised
four issues, all of which but one were rejected by the court. First,
injunctive relief under the ADA and the Rehab Act is still an open
question, given the dearth of factual information in the record.
The Department contends it is not required to create new programs
for disabled individuals, as indicated in Rodriguez v. City of
New York, 197 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs claim that
such a responsibility is mandated by the disability acts, and contend
that the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead, 527 U.S. 581
(1999) controls. Second, the court declined to apply the long-standing
abstention doctrines outlined in Younger v. Harris, and Burford
v. Sun Oil, both relied on by the Department. Whether the pending
state proceedings involving the Department and the KidCare initiative
carry the day is a question the court declined to address, given
the paucity of information in the record at this time.
Third, the court explicitly
rejected the Department’s claim that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust
their administrative remedies, because “it is not clear that the
plaintiffs have an administrative remedy available to them.” Finally,
the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for money damages under
the Rehab Act, finding that absent an express waiver of sovereign
immunity, the state is not subject to damages liability. Under the
ADA, however, the record is not clear whether the Department’s actions
met the “discriminatory animus or ill will” standard necessary to
recover money damages.
