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
Braam v. Washington
No. 98-2-01570-1 (Wash. Super. Ct. Whatcom County filed, July 31, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54493
Description
Settlement Reached in Class Action Lawsuit Against Washington State’s Child Welfare System
Abstract
The parties entered into a final settlement agreement in this class
action lawsuit filed in 1998 on behalf of a class of Washington
State foster children who were in up to twenty different
placements. In the settlement the defendants agree to make
“specific, measurable, and enforceable commitment” in
the six general areas that were the subjects of plaintiffs’
complaint: placement stability, mental health, foster parent
training and information, unsafe or inappropriate placements,
sibling separation, and services for adolescents. A five-member
oversight panel will monitor compliance, and in the event of
enforcement proceedings the agreement creates a rebuttable
presumption that the panel’s factual findings are correct.
The agreement sets out different enforcement procedures depending
on whether noncompliance stems from failure of implementation or
lack of funding or both. In the event of noncompliance due to lack
of funding the agreement provides that plaintiffs may immediately
commence an enforcement action in court, which “can order
expenditures to enforce constitutional mandates only if the court
finds that non-compliance results in failing to provide
constitutionally adequate care to children in the plaintiff
class.” The case began as a damages action on behalf of
thirteen children; in 2000 it was expanded to include a class of
children subjected to multiple placements. After a seven-week trial
in 2001 a jury found that the state violated the constitutional
rights of children in state care; in 2003 the Washington Supreme
Court upheld the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights but
ordered a new trial due to an error in jury instructions. The
parties then entered into settlement negotiations.
Additional Information
Files
- Motion to Certify as Class Action
- Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss
- Defendants' Reply Brief
- Order
- Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Defendants' Reply Brief
- Amended Motion to Certify as Class Action
- Amended Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification
- Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment
- Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Certify as Class Action
- Defendants' memorandum supporting summary judgment
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Bifurcation
- Memorandum in Support of Motion for Bifurcation
- Defendants' Response to Motion for Bifurcation
- Motion to Intervene
- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification
- Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Intervene
- Plaintiff-Intervenor Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
- Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Defendants' Reply in Support of Summary Judgment
- Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Renewed Motion to Prohibit Admission of Evidence
