AUSTIN, Texas — A controversial lawsuit aimed at reforming Texas’ foster care system has garnered renewed attention as attorneys representing vulnerable children seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, which has spanned more than a decade, challenges the treatment and oversight of children in state custody where conditions have been described as damaging.
On Monday, lawyers filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court to review a recent decision made by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling overturned a contempt order against the state and removed U.S. District Judge Janis Jack from overseeing the case. Judge Jack had been a pivotal figure in the lawsuit since its inception in 2011, having determined that children in state care often left worse off than when they arrived, citing systemic issues of abuse and neglect.
Judge Jack originally placed the foster care system under federal oversight, a move that the state unsuccessfully contested for years. Her oversight included multiple findings of contempt against the state for failing to adhere to mandated reforms aimed at protecting the welfare of these children. The most recent contempt judgment, issued in April, resulted in a daily fine of $100,000 until the state proved it was adequately investigating claims of abuse among children with significant disabilities.
In a significant turn of events, the 5th Circuit’s October ruling not only reversed Jack’s contempt order but also concluded her judicial oversight of the case, assigning U.S. Chief District Judge Randy Crane as her replacement. The appellate court criticized Jack’s approach, suggesting her demeanor showed a disregard for the state’s officials while favoring the plaintiffs’ counsel.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, advocates for the affected children argued that the appellate court’s decision represented an unwarranted overreach. They contended that reassignment of judges should be an exceptional measure rather than a tactic employed by dissatisfied parties. Lead counsel Paul Yetter expressed his concern, stating that the removal of Judge Jack sends a disheartening message regarding the accountability owed to children in the foster care system, particularly those with disabilities who are at heightened risk.
Jack’s contempt order specifically targeted a vulnerable subset of approximately 100 children who require constant care due to developmental and intellectual disabilities. While the bulk of Texas’ 9,000 foster children are managed by the Department of Family and Protective Services, these particularly at-risk children fall under the oversight of the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have asserted that HHSC maintains divergent standards when investigating abuse, allowing gaps in accountability that endanger the most vulnerable within the system. Judge Jack had previously found HHSC Commissioner Cecile E. Young personally in contempt for failing to adequately address allegations of abuse, a judgment that the 5th Circuit later overturned, suggesting the agency was mostly compliant with investigative obligations.
Some judges on the 5th Circuit expressed dissent regarding the overall conclusion of compliance, highlighting that relegating children with disabilities to a separate investigative system is inadequate. Judge Stephen Higginson, among others, criticized the decision to remove Judge Jack, suggesting that appellate courts should use caution when taking such actions against district judges.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs have referenced Judge Higginson’s dissent as a basis for reinstating both Judge Jack and the contempt order. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and the Health and Human Services Commission have opted not to comment on the matter through spokespersons.
The Supreme Court is expected to announce later this summer whether it will take on this critical case, which has significant implications for the future of Texas’ foster care reforms.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.