Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
M.E. v. Chiles
No. 90-1008-CIV-KEHOE (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 45828
Description
Court Certifies Class in Challenge to Florida’s Failure to Provide Mental Health Treatment to Children in State Custody
Abstract
The court certified a class and denied defendants’ motion to
abstain in this action challenging Florida’s failure to
provide mental health treatment to children in legal or physical
custody of the state. Plaintiffs alleged that, in violation of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act, and the substantive due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the State provides
only a fraction of the mental health treatment that it has
determined exists for children in its custody. The court certified
a class of children who are now or in the future will be in the
physical or legal custody of the state, including children who are
dependent or delinquent, whom the State knows or should know have a
need for mental health services or developmental services. In a
separate order the court denied defendants’ motion to abstain
from hearing federal statutory and constitutional claims. According
to the court, the Younger abstention doctrine, enunciated in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), does not apply because this
litigation will not interfere with any ongoing state proceedings
involving the same plaintiffs and because those state proceedings
do not afford the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to raise the
federal statutory and constitutional challenges which are the
subject of this case. Neither does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
developed from District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
(1923), apply because the plaintiffs did not have a
"reasonable opportunity" to raise their federal claims in
state proceedings.
