Mary Price, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Indiana Department of Child Services Director, Indiana Department of Child Services
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 391
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mary Price, a DCS family case manager in Marion County, filed a verified class action alleging DCS violated I.C. § 31-25-2-5 by maintaining caseloads far above statutory maxima (should be ≤17 children for permanency workers); her caseload was ~43.
- Price sought declaratory/injunctive relief and an order of mandate compelling DCS to comply with the statutory caseload limits; she also sought class certification for all DCS FCMs.
- DCS moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing there is no private right of action to enforce the caseload statute and that Price had an adequate administrative remedy (Indiana Civil Service Complaint procedure).
- The trial court dismissed, holding (1) the statute confers only public benefits (no private cause of action) and (2) mandate was inappropriate because Price had not exhausted the Civil Service Complaint procedure.
- On appeal the court affirmed that no private cause of action exists under I.C. § 31-25-2-5 but reversed as to mandate, holding Price has public standing, administrative remedies are inadequate for this systemic claim, and the statute imposes a clear ministerial duty subject to a mandamus action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 31-25-2-5 creates a private cause of action | Price: statute confers private benefits to FCMs (manageable caseloads, less burnout) and thus should be privately enforceable | DCS: statute is aimed at protecting public (children/families); benefits to FCMs are incidental, and the statutory scheme does not create a private remedy | No private right of action — statute protects public interests and does not impose individual-specific duties |
| Whether Price can pursue mandamus to compel DCS compliance with statutory caseloads | Price: mandate is appropriate because DCS has a clear, mandatory duty under the statute and administrative remedies are inadequate for a systemic claim | DCS: mandate is inappropriate because administrative remedies (Civil Service Complaint) are available and compliance would require discretionary budgetary/funding actions beyond agency control | Mandamus allowed: Price has public standing; exhaustion is not required because the administrative scheme cannot remedy a systemic failure; the statute imposes a clear, mandatory duty on DCS |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockett v. Planned Parenthood of Ind., 42 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. Ct. App.) (analyzing when statutes create private causes of action)
- Whinery v. Roberson, 819 N.E.2d 465 (Ind. Ct. App.) (statutes conferring both public and private benefits may permit private actions)
- Galloway v. Hadley, 881 N.E.2d 667 (Ind. Ct. App.) (similar discussion of public/private benefit analysis)
- Cittadine v. Indiana Dep’t of Transp., 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind.) (recognizing public standing doctrine for public-rights enforcement)
- Whitney v. Board of School Trustees, 416 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind.) (mandamus is extraordinary; not available when adequate remedy exists)
- Hayes v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 902 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App.) (mandamus requires a clear, imperative statutory duty)