Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick
985 F. Supp. 2d 129
D. Mass.2013Background
- Class action by ~8,500 anonymized foster children in Massachusetts alleging systemic constitutional and statutory deficiencies in DCF foster-care administration; named plaintiffs brought claims under substantive and procedural due process, familial association, and AACWA (Title IV-E) provisions.
- Extensive fact record: bench trial with Plaintiffs’ experts (case-file reviews, a 484-file CRC longitudinal study, psychotropic-medication review, and management reviews) documenting problems in maltreatment rates, placement stability, visitation, case plans, medical oversight, psychotropic prescribing, caseloads, staffing, training, and accountability.
- Federal and state context: Title IV-E funding and Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) set national outcome/data standards; COA and CWLA best-practice standards inform professional norms but are not binding law.
- DCF performance: mixed—Massachusetts ranked in the lower quartile on several national metrics (e.g., absence of maltreatment, timeliness of adoption, reentry rates); evidence of substantiated maltreatment in care and substantial gaps in visitation, case plans, medical screenings, and psychotropic oversight.
- Procedural history: complaint (2010), class certified, trial began January 2013, Plaintiffs presented case-in-chief; Defendants moved for judgment on the record; on Sept. 30, 2013 the court granted Defendants’ motion and entered judgment for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — special-relationship duties | DCF’s systemic failures deprived foster children of reasonable care, safety, services, and permanency in violation of substantive due process | Defendants: no constitutionally cognizable systemwide deprivation; any failures reflect resource limits or isolated mistakes, not conscience-shocking conduct | Court: Plaintiffs failed to prove a classwide, conscience-shocking substantial departure from accepted professional judgment; claim denied |
| Familial association | Plaintiffs: DCF policies/practices deny meaningful family contact and placements with kin, infringing familial-association rights | Defendants: Plaintiffs failed to show intent or conduct directly aimed at disrupting family relationships; issues due to resources | Court: Performance poor but not shown to produce a classwide constitutional deprivation; claim denied |
| Procedural due process (notice, hearings, case reviews) | Plaintiffs: DCF routinely fails to provide required notices, timely reviews, and fair hearing access | Defendants: procedural gaps stem from budgetary/administrative limits, not unconstitutional process denial | Court: Recognizes protected interests but Plaintiffs failed to prove systemic constitutional deprivation; claim denied |
| AACWA statutory claims (maintenance payments and case plans) | Plaintiffs: DCF failed to pay USDA-level foster care maintenance and failed to develop/maintain required case plans | Defendants: DCF corrected maintenance rates (March 2012) and resource constraints explain recordkeeping gaps | Court: Maintenance-payment claim rendered nonactionable prospectively because rates were brought to USDA levels; case-plan deficiencies insufficient to show statutory violation warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (general rule that government ordinarily has no affirmative duty to provide protection absent a special relationship)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (state must provide reasonable care and safety to persons in its custody; professional decisions presumptively valid absent substantial departure from accepted judgment)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard in Eighth Amendment medical-care claims; discussed in due-process context)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (shocks-the-conscience test for substantive due process; high threshold)
- J.R. v. Gloria, 593 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2010) (First Circuit discussion of state duties to foster children and applicable substantive-due-process standards)
- Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick, 771 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Mass. 2011) (prior District of Massachusetts opinion in this litigation analyzing standards and certifying the class)