Parents keep up foster care law fight
Proposal would give preference to relatives
Valerie Olander / The Detroit News
Dearborn -- Ahmed and Rehab Amer of Dearborn, who had three children taken from them and raised in Michigan's foster care system, have been pushing to require the state to give special consideration to relatives when placing children.
"My children fell through the system. I do not want to let that happen to others," Rehab Amer said.
The Amers lost custody of their children when the mother, Rehab, was accused of killing her 2-year-old son, Samier, in 1985. She was acquitted by a jury a year later but never regained custody of an older son and Samier's twin sister.
Advertisement
A fourth child, Zinabe, was taken by social workers four months after the acquittal.
Nearly 20 years after the boy's death, Wayne Circuit Court ordered the cause of death be changed to accidental on the death certificate. Medical experts said Samier had a rare brittle bone disease.
In the meantime, the children were adopted, their names were changed and they were raised in a Christian home in Clarkston. The Amers are Muslim.
The children are in their 20s now, and Rehab said she has an on-again, off-again relationship with them. They were raised believing she was involved in her son's death.
"My brother-in-law filed to be a foster parent. He was accepted to take other children, but not mine," she said.
The bill, known as the Amer Act, was introduced in 2005. Last year, when the bill was reintroduced by Rep. Gino Polidori, D-Dearborn, it was approved by the House within three months. But for the past 16 months, the bill has been sitting idle in the Senate Committee for Families and Children's Services, chaired by Sen. Mark Jansen, R-Gaines Township.
Polidori will be term-limited out of office in November, meaning the push to have the Senate take action is crucial, Rehab Amer said.
"Sen. Jansen has never returned any of my e-mails and his staff won't talk to me," she said.
Jansen's legislative director, Kelly Miller, said the senator and his staff are aware of the legislation and have been making sure it is compliant with the reforms ordered by a federal court as part of a lawsuit settlement with the nonprofit group Children's Rights.
The children's advocacy group put the Department of Human Services on notice in March, claiming the state is not compliant with the court order.
"It's not that Sen. Jansen is opposed to this bill. We're just doing our research," Miller said.
Department of Human Services policy gives preferential treatment to relatives, she said. The bill, HB 4118, would make that law.
Rehab Amer believes the delay is financial.
"I believe state gets more money from the federal government if a child is passed to a nonrelative's home. I believe that's what's going on," she said.
According to the House Legislative analysis of the bill, the financial ramifications depend on whether the relative becomes licensed as a foster parent.
It costs the state less to pay relatives who are not licensed.
However, the Children's Rights settlement "mandates that the state attempt to license all relative caregivers as foster parents, but provides an exemption for 10 percent of these cases," the legislative analysis says.
volander@detnews.com (313) 223-3320
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100708/METRO01/7080414/1409/Parents-keep-up-foster-care-law-fight#ixzz0t94suODL
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Grandparent's Rights Bill for NH
This letter is being sent to ALL Senators, State Representatives and Candidates in the State Of New Hampshire
Dear New Hampshire Senators, State Representatives and Candidates running for office,
The Grandparents of New Hampshire are interested in finding out what your position is regarding a subject of interest to every person in this state. The response we receive from every legislator from every part of the state, or the fact that there was no response, will be made public on my website and blog. That website is :
http://unhappygrammy-grandparentsblog.blogspot.com/
If you would like to take a look at the web-site http://www.grasc.org/ you will find a brief synopsis of the law pertaining to grandparents from all 50 states on that site. Sadly, there is not much in any state’s law related to grandparents having custody of grandchildren when parents are not suitable, but several do make reference to what should happen in some specific situations. New Hampshire is NOT one of those states. Grandparents are not even mentioned in New Hampshire law as far as we have been able to see.
Every voter in New Hampshire either is, has, was, or will have grandparents. In thousands of families throughout the state, those grandparents are deeply involved, and in many cases, have had to totally take over, the raising of grandchildren. The number of grandparents in this situation is continually rising for many reasons. The fact that they are grandparents, gives them a little more age and experience than the younger parents, but it is the age that is of concern. Right now, in New Hampshire, there are very few children being raised in homes that are predominantly controlled by the grandparents, for the reason being New Hampshire DCYF and the Court's state grandparent's have no standing in petitioning for custody of their grandchildren.
According to the research we have done, here in New Hampshire, there are NO laws specifically protecting the rights of grandparents who are doing everything they can to keep the family together by taking on the responsibility of their grandchildren. In fact, the law specifically states that if the parental rights of parents are removed, the rights of the grandparents go right along with them, leaving the children, many of whom have been raised from infancy, with NO legal grandparents or any other relative who has any right to raise them. At that point, the state can simply take those children from sometimes the only home they have ever known, and put them in a broken and overloaded foster care system, and up for adoption. In many cases, those children end up spending their early lives under the thumb of DCYF until they are 18, then they are told to just go be an adult. This is a deplorable situation that must be changed.
With nothing on the books mentioning grandparents, family court judges have no choice but to ignore the fact that a child may have been raised in a loving home by their grandparents, simply because of the lack of a law allowing them to live with grandparents when parental rights are being removed. In the vast majority of cases, those grandparents would gladly give the children a loving home among family, rather than see them forced into foster care.
We are not in favor of usurping the authority of good parents, rather, give the children the right to stay with their own loving family in cases where the parents either can’t or won’t take the responsibility themselves. With all this in mind, we want to know how you stand.
1. Do you support legislation which would protect grandparents and their grandchildren from being separated when parental rights of the children’s parents are being terminated and allowing the grandparents the right to adopt said children?
2. Would you consider introducing such legislation?
3. Do you consider grandparents appropriate caregivers for children whose parents either can’t or won’t take responsibility for them?
4. Do you consider age and/or minor disability a disqualifying factor when considering grandparents as caregivers or adoptive parents?
We would appreciate your response to this survey as soon as convenient for you. As stated at the first, all responses, or lack thereof, will be posted along with the complete text of this letter on my website. We feel that the citizens of New Hampshire have the right to keep their families together as best they can under even difficult circumstances. It should be the mandate of the state to help in that goal, rather than finding excuses to rip those families apart just because the parents may be irresponsible. There are cases pending in family courts at this instant where DCYF is attempting to tear families apart just because the grandparents have helped their own children and have been blamed for the mistakes their children have made, along with any other made up excuse to prevent the grandparent custody of their grandchildren.” to properly take care of the children. Our grandchildren are being severely traumatized by being ripped away from the grandparent's they have grown up with. The grandparent's in many cases, who have basically raised them since birth. The grandparents these children have been led to believe have disowned them.
We need Law's in New Hampshire that protect the child/grandparent relationship. Federal government mandates are NOT being followed. New Hampshire DCYF need's Law's to abide by, not Rules, which are NOT followed.
Thank you for your time and response,
Dorothy Knightly-Supporter of Grandparent's Rights in N.H
Dear New Hampshire Senators, State Representatives and Candidates running for office,
The Grandparents of New Hampshire are interested in finding out what your position is regarding a subject of interest to every person in this state. The response we receive from every legislator from every part of the state, or the fact that there was no response, will be made public on my website and blog. That website is :
http://unhappygrammy-grandparentsblog.blogspot.com/
If you would like to take a look at the web-site http://www.grasc.org/ you will find a brief synopsis of the law pertaining to grandparents from all 50 states on that site. Sadly, there is not much in any state’s law related to grandparents having custody of grandchildren when parents are not suitable, but several do make reference to what should happen in some specific situations. New Hampshire is NOT one of those states. Grandparents are not even mentioned in New Hampshire law as far as we have been able to see.
Every voter in New Hampshire either is, has, was, or will have grandparents. In thousands of families throughout the state, those grandparents are deeply involved, and in many cases, have had to totally take over, the raising of grandchildren. The number of grandparents in this situation is continually rising for many reasons. The fact that they are grandparents, gives them a little more age and experience than the younger parents, but it is the age that is of concern. Right now, in New Hampshire, there are very few children being raised in homes that are predominantly controlled by the grandparents, for the reason being New Hampshire DCYF and the Court's state grandparent's have no standing in petitioning for custody of their grandchildren.
According to the research we have done, here in New Hampshire, there are NO laws specifically protecting the rights of grandparents who are doing everything they can to keep the family together by taking on the responsibility of their grandchildren. In fact, the law specifically states that if the parental rights of parents are removed, the rights of the grandparents go right along with them, leaving the children, many of whom have been raised from infancy, with NO legal grandparents or any other relative who has any right to raise them. At that point, the state can simply take those children from sometimes the only home they have ever known, and put them in a broken and overloaded foster care system, and up for adoption. In many cases, those children end up spending their early lives under the thumb of DCYF until they are 18, then they are told to just go be an adult. This is a deplorable situation that must be changed.
With nothing on the books mentioning grandparents, family court judges have no choice but to ignore the fact that a child may have been raised in a loving home by their grandparents, simply because of the lack of a law allowing them to live with grandparents when parental rights are being removed. In the vast majority of cases, those grandparents would gladly give the children a loving home among family, rather than see them forced into foster care.
We are not in favor of usurping the authority of good parents, rather, give the children the right to stay with their own loving family in cases where the parents either can’t or won’t take the responsibility themselves. With all this in mind, we want to know how you stand.
1. Do you support legislation which would protect grandparents and their grandchildren from being separated when parental rights of the children’s parents are being terminated and allowing the grandparents the right to adopt said children?
2. Would you consider introducing such legislation?
3. Do you consider grandparents appropriate caregivers for children whose parents either can’t or won’t take responsibility for them?
4. Do you consider age and/or minor disability a disqualifying factor when considering grandparents as caregivers or adoptive parents?
We would appreciate your response to this survey as soon as convenient for you. As stated at the first, all responses, or lack thereof, will be posted along with the complete text of this letter on my website. We feel that the citizens of New Hampshire have the right to keep their families together as best they can under even difficult circumstances. It should be the mandate of the state to help in that goal, rather than finding excuses to rip those families apart just because the parents may be irresponsible. There are cases pending in family courts at this instant where DCYF is attempting to tear families apart just because the grandparents have helped their own children and have been blamed for the mistakes their children have made, along with any other made up excuse to prevent the grandparent custody of their grandchildren.” to properly take care of the children. Our grandchildren are being severely traumatized by being ripped away from the grandparent's they have grown up with. The grandparent's in many cases, who have basically raised them since birth. The grandparents these children have been led to believe have disowned them.
We need Law's in New Hampshire that protect the child/grandparent relationship. Federal government mandates are NOT being followed. New Hampshire DCYF need's Law's to abide by, not Rules, which are NOT followed.
Thank you for your time and response,
Dorothy Knightly-Supporter of Grandparent's Rights in N.H
State foster care system to go on (Oklahoma Lawsuit)
State foster care system to go on
Marcia Robinson Lowry and another attorney walk to a Wednesday hearing in Tulsa on a class-action lawsuit seeking changes in the state's foster-care system. Robinson Lowry, an attorney for the plaintiffs, pushed for the scheduling of a trial next summer. SHERRY BROWN/ Tulsa World
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/8/2010 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 7/8/2010 6:10 AM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious" in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts" to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell's 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs' request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial "discovery" materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider "draconian."
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs' lawyers
in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of "systemic" information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs' claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
About the lawsuit
The lawsuit, which alleges deficiencies in the state’s foster-care system, was filed against various DHS officials in Tulsa federal court in February 2008.
The plaintiffs ask for improvements in the following areas:
Caseloads for DHS workers and supervisors.
Education and training for agency employees, foster parents and adoptive parents.
Monitoring of the safety of children in state custody.
The original plaintiffs were nine children who are alleged to have suffered in DHS placements. The case has since become a class-action lawsuit with thousands of children in DHS custody as plaintiffs.
Original Print Headline: 2011 trial date set for suit on state foster-care system
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100708_14_A1_Marcia556191&archive=yes
Marcia Robinson Lowry and another attorney walk to a Wednesday hearing in Tulsa on a class-action lawsuit seeking changes in the state's foster-care system. Robinson Lowry, an attorney for the plaintiffs, pushed for the scheduling of a trial next summer. SHERRY BROWN/ Tulsa World
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/8/2010 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 7/8/2010 6:10 AM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious" in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts" to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell's 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs' request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial "discovery" materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider "draconian."
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs' lawyers
in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of "systemic" information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs' claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
About the lawsuit
The lawsuit, which alleges deficiencies in the state’s foster-care system, was filed against various DHS officials in Tulsa federal court in February 2008.
The plaintiffs ask for improvements in the following areas:
Caseloads for DHS workers and supervisors.
Education and training for agency employees, foster parents and adoptive parents.
Monitoring of the safety of children in state custody.
The original plaintiffs were nine children who are alleged to have suffered in DHS placements. The case has since become a class-action lawsuit with thousands of children in DHS custody as plaintiffs.
Original Print Headline: 2011 trial date set for suit on state foster-care system
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100708_14_A1_Marcia556191&archive=yes
DHS denies stalling in Oklahoma foster-care case
DHS denies stalling in Oklahoma foster-care case
A federal judge has set an October 2011 trial date in a class-action lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services alleging deficiencies in the state's foster-care system. DHS has denied stalling after case files were shared with plaintiffs at a slower pace than expected.
BY DAVID HARPER - Tulsa World 0
Published: July 8, 2010
TULSA — The trial date of well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
MORE INFO
ONLINE
"�Continuing coverage
Read past DHS
stories. newsok.com/
news/dhs
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
The lawsuit, brought by New York-based Children's Rights, alleges deficiencies in the state's foster-care system.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/dhs-denies-stalling-in-oklahoma-foster-care-case/article/3474332#ixzz0t6R2bRry
A federal judge has set an October 2011 trial date in a class-action lawsuit against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services alleging deficiencies in the state's foster-care system. DHS has denied stalling after case files were shared with plaintiffs at a slower pace than expected.
BY DAVID HARPER - Tulsa World 0
Published: July 8, 2010
TULSA — The trial date of well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state's foster-care system.
MORE INFO
ONLINE
"�Continuing coverage
Read past DHS
stories. newsok.com/
news/dhs
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date "may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that "it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
The lawsuit, brought by New York-based Children's Rights, alleges deficiencies in the state's foster-care system.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/dhs-denies-stalling-in-oklahoma-foster-care-case/article/3474332#ixzz0t6R2bRry
Trial date set in Oklahoma foster-care lawsuit
Trial date set in Oklahoma foster-care lawsuit
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/7/2010 10:56 PM
Last Modified: 7/7/2010 10:57 PM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state’s foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date “may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that “it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell’s 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs’ request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial “discovery” materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider “draconian.”
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of “systemic” information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published: 7/7/2010 10:56 PM
Last Modified: 7/7/2010 10:57 PM
A trial date that is well more than a year away was scheduled Wednesday in a class-action lawsuit that seeks changes in the state’s foster-care system.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell set the trial for Oct. 17, 2011, but said the date “may be a bit ambitious” in light of the scope of the case. He told attorneys that “it will require all of your efforts” to attain the goal.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, had asked that the nonjury trial be scheduled for next summer. However, Frizzell said a setting some 15 months in the future is more realistic.
Even though the lawsuit was filed in February 2008, it essentially became a new case earlier this year after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frizzell’s 2009 decision to grant the plaintiffs’ request for class-action status, the judge said.
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, attorney Donald Bingham apologized for the slower-than-anticipated pace of providing pretrial “discovery” materials to the plaintiffs. His apology reiterated that made last Thursday by co-counsel David Page at a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Frank McCarthy.
McCarthy had expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of case files that had been shared with the plaintiffs, and he said that if improvements are not made, the court could issue orders that DHS might consider “draconian.”
McCarthy said the approximately 44 complete case files that were supplied to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in June — as well as the more than 1,400 hours DHS devoted to the effort that month — was unacceptably low and far less than DHS had estimated it could accomplish.
Page told Frizzell on Wednesday that DHS has shared with the plaintiffs 15 more complete case files since then. As of this week, he said, 10 more employees are working full-time on the project and will continue to do so over the next two months. That will more than double the effort that was expended in June, he said.
After the initial 200 case files to be produced have been shared, another group of 200 will be assembled and disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Also, the defense received a request from the plaintiffs just this week for information pertaining to more than 200 children who they say may have been victims of abuse while in state custody. It was not clear Wednesday whether any of those children are among the 400 whose case files were already requested by the plaintiffs.
Saying DHS is not stalling, Bingham noted that since March 26 the defense has turned over more than 155,000 pages of documents that contain the sort of “systemic” information about DHS that is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.
He did not suggest a specific trial date, advocating instead that the lawsuit progress in stages until a realistic date becomes apparent.
Lowry said a firm setting was important to the progress of the case.
In the meantime, McCarthy has asked for written updates on the discovery issues from each side by Aug. 6, with a hearing set for Aug. 10.
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100707_11_0_Atrial29601
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)