State must pay juvenile care centers Contested payments for 2004-06

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/state-must-pay-juvenile-care-centers#comment-124015

State must pay juvenile care centers
Contested payments for 2004-06
By Daniel Barrick / Monitor staff
May 12, 2010

A judge has ordered the state to pay more than $3.5 million to a group of nonprofit centers that care for juvenile delinquents and abused children.

The ruling in Merrimack County Superior Court last week, affirming earlier court decisions, found that the state had underpaid the centers when reimbursing them for providing court-mandated care for the children. The payments under dispute span several years, dating back to 2004. And last week's ruling, by Judge David Sullivan, comes at a precarious financial time for the state. Lawmakers are in the midst of negotiations to close a $200 million budget gap, making any unforeseen expense especially unwelcome.

A lawyer with the attorney general's office said the state may appeal the decision.

The case centers on a lawsuit brought by a group of seven nonprofit residential child-care facilities that are certified by the state to provide services to troubled children. The state relies on the centers to carry out court-mandated care for the children and reimburses them at prearranged rates for those services. The rates under dispute are established by a formula set by state rules. In their suit, the centers said that the Department of Health and Human Services had underpaid them for those expenses since 2004. Department officials argued that they never received enough money from the Legislature to fully cover those reimbursements.

The centers appealed on several occasions to a state panel, which agreed that they had been underpaid. The state Supreme Court upheld those rulings in 2007 but said it did not have the authority to order the state to pay the centers and told the centers they would have to sue in superior court to get the retroactive payments.

Sullivan's ruling put the amount that the centers were underpaid at slightly more than $3.5 million.

The ruling noted that despite the health department's claims that it did not get enough money from lawmakers to pay the full reimbursements, there was money in other department accounts left over at the end of the budget year. The ruling also offered a rebuke to then-Commissioner John Stephen, noting he boasted of returning money at year's end to the state's treasury. The ruling quotes Stephen, now a Republican candidate for governor, telling a magazine in 2006 that he "lapsed almost $65 million to taxpayers."

"We have a surplus today while providing essential services," Stephen said at the time.

In his ruling, Sullivan refers to that claim as proof that the state had enough money to pay the care providers at their full rate.

"The court finds that . . . it was inappropriate for (the Department of Health and Human Services) to lapse funds to the state before paying its full contractual obligation," the decision reads.

The ruling also said that Stephen failed to seek other options for paying the child-care centers, such as going to the Legislative Fiscal Committee to move money from another account.

Greg Moore, a spokesman for Stephen's campaign, said the initial reimbursement rate under dispute was set several months before Stephen took over as head of the department. He also said the department was unable to fully pay the service providers because lawmakers did not put aside enough money for those services in the budget.

"Because the budget is the last law that's set every year, that's the one you follow," Moore said. "As commissioner, what John did was follow the budget as the prevailing law."

Senior Assistant Attorney General Nancy Smith, who represented the state on the case, said she is reviewing last week's ruling and said the state may appeal the decision.

"We think there are still legal issues that need to be decided," Smith said. "It's still very much an active case."

Last week's court ruling only covers payments made by the state from 2004 to 2006. The centers are also contesting the reimbursements they have received since 2006 in administrative hearings.

Dr. Paul Dann, executive director of NFI North, one of the centers behind the lawsuit, said lower reimbursements from the state have forced his organization to make difficult financial decisions, such as taking out a line of credit and delaying capital improvements. He said the lower state payments have also contributed to a decision by NFI North to temporarily close one of its programs in Bethlehem.

"For us, what's important is that the children get the kind of resources that they need so we can do the work we are mandated to do for the state," Dann said.

State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare Republican who was chairman of the House Finance Committee at the time of the first contested payments, said providers who enter contracts with the state should understand that their reimbursement rates are subject to the amount of money lawmakers decide to put aside in any given year.

"If there isn't enough money and the Legislature decides to pay these guys less, I'm not sure that's a sufficient basis to say that they should win (in court)," Kurk said. "There should have been no legitimate expectation by providers that they would get the entire amount."

Lisa Snow Wade, the lawyer representing the child-care centers, said the court's ruling underscored an element of fairness that's expected in the state's dealings with outside groups.

"It's important for the department to recognize that when it sets the rules, it needs to play by the rules," Snow said. "That's all we're asking. If you request us to provide a certain level of service to these children, we need to be able to pay for that. There's kind of a legal and moral obligation to take care of these kids."

EmailComments (12)Share
Print
comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Unhappygrammy
By Shannon - 05/12/2010 - 2:49 pm
Where on earth do you get off? I really want to know. Why on earth would you think kids are taken illegally? Is it because I don't know...they were neglected or abused? NO...that can't possibly be it. I was one of those kids that were neglected...my Mom is a schizophrenic with manic depressive tenancies and my dad an alcoholic. I had nobody to care for me to feed me...nobody to make sure I didn't end up ...I had NOTHING...I wasn't fed...wasn't given clean clothing, wasn't brought to the doctor's when I was HIT BY A CAR. But you are right...I was taken illegally. ANYONE can be a parent...so don't go there. When I was in 3rd grade I was placed into a group home. I was there until midyear of my Junior year in High School. I was never placed on medicine, I did see a counselor to help me cope with my life as I knew it and how to grow. My Group home wasn't for troubled kids, there were Staff Members that not only cared for me, but it was their role to be my role models and parental figures. They stayed with us in shifts over night. There are cost with heating a place/staffing a place and feeding a place with LOTS of people there. I am now a grown women with a house, husband and 3 kids. I volunteer in my community,,,I have never done drugs and have always led with my best foot forward. I WOULD NOT have been able to say that today if I wasn't according to you removed from my house ILLEGALLY.
reply report post a new comment

Not all kids taken ILLEGALLY!
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:34 pm
I didn't say All kids are taken illegally. But a huge majority are. DCYF needs to concentrate on the children that ARE truly being abused and neglected. But they don't. Many children are still suffering abuse and neglect in their homes, because DCYF does NOT step in to help these children. Calls for help are unheeded.They are too busy railroading MANY INNOCENT parents! From your statement, you definitely were one of the children who needed help. Back when you were a child, DCYF did NOT step in and take kids fraudulently. But they do now thank's to the Adoption Promotion Act. For every child taken and placed in foster care, the State receives incentive money. Then for every child placed for adoption, the state is rewarded with more Federal money. In your day it wasn't about the money. Today it's all about the money, not the best interests of a child!

edit reply report post a new comment

Thanks
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:34 pm
Thanks for that comment Shannon. People need to hear about what the State really does for kids. Congratulations on your success, and I wish you continued good fare.

Why Should Parents Pay When their Children Were Taken ILLEGALLY?
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 8:34 am
Isn't three hundred dollars per day, per child just a bit expensive to pay for a child placed in a childrens home? It doesn't take half that amount of money to care for a child. When the court orders placement for these children, why should the parent pay? It wasn't the parents choice. If the court and DHHS want to keep removing children from their families ILLEGALLY, why shouldn't the state get stuck with the bill? The state fails to admit that the Federal government pays them an astronomical amount of money for every child removed from families and then even more money for every child adopted out to strangers. They also fail to mention that many of these children placed in childrens homes and on psychiatric drugs, had NO psychiatric issues before being illegally removed from their families. Don't let the state fool you. They are making millions off these un-abused, non-neglected children. If they want to continue to take these children under false allegations, let them pay!
reply report post a new comment

Uh huh...
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:25 pm
Sorry, but that's just nuts. Exactly how is the State making money when it must pay for out-of-home care of these kids (group homes and foster homes), and pay the salaries of the case managers working with the kids?

The federal money you're referring to is "match" money. When the state expends money in certain categories, like residential care, the federal government matches the amount spent. In other words, if the bill is $100 a day, the state pays half and the federal government pays half. Exactly how does the state make money that way?



reply report post a new comment

More than match money
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:40 pm
Why is a child placed in foster care, instead of with relatives? Because the Federal government pays the state for every child placed in foster care. Placing the child with relatives, the state would lose money. Then the federal government pays more money for each child adopted. Foster strangers get monthly payments, even after adoption. There is no match. Your tax dollars are paying for kids taken and placed in foster care. The more kids DCYF takes, the more money they get!

edit reply report post a new comment

Why do some laws get ignored but others can't be touched
By jim... - 05/12/2010 - 6:31 am
"If there isn't enough money and the Legislature decides to pay these guys less, I'm not sure that's a sufficient basis to say that they should win (in court)," Kurk said. "There should have been no legitimate expectation by providers that they would get the entire amount." So why can the city and state not say to workers you will not be getting everything in the union contract. We just do not have the money. Here the state makes a LAW and then just decides not to do it. The Union may have a contract but these people have a state law. OH wait - these kids don't vote...
reply report post a new comment

Obligation to care for children
By kraftypat - 05/12/2010 - 5:16 am
Aren't the parents of these children under an obligation to pay for the care of these children? There is not a single word in this article that even hints that maybe the parents are the responsible party. Can't the state bill the parents? Granted, some parents are not able to pay anything, but shouldn't the state make the attempt to collect the money from the parents?

What is wrong with this picture!

Pat Kraft

reply report post a new comment

The article was not clear
By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:32 pm
NFI North is a residential center for kids removed from their homes. I presume the other providers in the lawsuit are similar programs. It's not like the Boys & Girls club where kids go during the day.

Kids are in these programs due to abuse or neglect, or because their delinquent behavior cannot be managed in their own homes.

By the way, the State DOES bill parents for services. Most courts order parents to reimburse the state for services provided to their kids, within their means to do so - sort of like calculating child support. However, very few parents have the means to completely pay back the services that have been provided. The state gets back a fairly small percent.

reply report post a new comment

Services?
By unhappygrammy - 05/12/2010 - 10:56 pm New
Services are NOT provided before a child is taken. There are some parents who are billed by the state for foster care, but for the most part, children are usually taken from families who can't afford their own Lawyer. DCYF knows these people can't afford to fight back. These parent's are given court-appointed Lawyer's, paid for by the DCYF fund. Being paid by DCYF, most of these Lawyer's do absolutely NOTHING for the accused parent. They even admit they are working for the court. It's no wonder all parents lose at the parental rights termination hearings in NH . No if's ands or buts. Parents are told long before the TPR that they are NOT getting their child back. The Lawyer's even tell them they are Not going to win, because it's already set in stone. It doesn't matter that innocence is proven. The Judge just writes the opposite of the testimony present in cout and get's away with it. No parent in NH wins a TPR against DCYF and the NH Supreme Court Appeals are NEVER reversed. Ask any social wrecker. Their the one's that made this statement to me. I was also told, DCYF can do whatever they want, because our government gave them the power to do so. So why waste money on TPR's and appeals, when the parent loses no matter what? Why even have Judges when DCYF tell's them what to do. Makes no sense. DCYF has more power than the Judges.

edit reply report post a new comment

Parents should pay
By stewie - 05/12/2010 - 12:53 pm
A lot of of towns also have youth centers and directors for troubled youths, which is good, but bad for my wallet. There are handful of youths that are always in need of these services while the taxpayers are forced to pay for it.

Why can't the parents pay for the service themselves? If my children need this kind of service then I should have to pay for it myself. Just like I pay for everything else for them. My children are my responsibility, and if they need interventions because they made the wrong decision, then this falls into my lap as a parent.

But unfortunately the taxpaying parents seem to have to continue to pay these bills for all the other parents, for these services and others, because too many parents are divorced or can't afford it. This is the way it will always be....we will always have to pay for other peoples mistakes. Why should people pay for their own mistakes when the town and state is more than willing to pick up the tab with taxpayers money? No incentive to be a hands on, moral, traditional family these days....

BTW I do NOT put children with severe disabilities in with these groups of children that are in need of services due to their own bad judgement. I do not have a problem helping families that are in need due to no fault of their own. And I do not think parents should have to pay if they are NOT allowed to make decisions for their own children. To many broken homes where some parents DO NOT have a choice on how their own children are raised. Too many vindictive, bitter parents out there that do not have their children's best interest in mind. Too many single parents that think they could raise their children without the support of both parents. Having kids seems to be a "fun thing to do at the time" for some and a" pawn in a game", for others.

What is wrong with this government and all their decisions? The government seems to reward bad parents.



Maybe there are no parents,
By Honest Abe - 05/12/2010 - 6:03 am
Maybe there are no parents, or the parents are living on welfare or in prison themselves. What then?