CHARLESTON – While dismissing a lawsuit that targeted the state foster care program, a federal judge said state leaders need to make needed changes to repair the system.
On February 28, U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin dismissed a highly publicized and heavily debated foster care case – styled Jonathan R. et al. v. Patrick Morrisey et al. – citing a lack of standing, particularly redressability.
“This court cannot take over the foster care system of West Virginia,” Goodwin wrote in the opening of his 19-page opinion and order. “Constitutional limits prevent the court from crafting public policy and administering state agencies.
“West Virginia’s foster care system has cycled through inaction, bureaucratic indifference, shocking neglect and temporary fixes for years. The blame squarely lies with West Virginia state government. When elected officials fail, the ballot box is the remedy.
“In recent times, the public has turned to the courts for answers to intractable policy issues. It is not difficult to understand why. When government fails — when promises are made and usually broken, when reforms are always delayed or abandoned — people turn in desperation to the judiciary. But there are limits to what the courts can do.”
Goodwin said the court can’t assume the responsibilities of those who were elected to lead the state.
“The constitutional doctrine of standing requires that an injury be redressable by a judicial order,” he wrote. “Here, it is not. For this reason, the court sua sponte dismisses this case for lack of jurisdiction.”
The lawsuit was filed in September 2019 by a class of children in state foster care custody claiming state officials violated their constitutional and statutory rights through the Department of Human Services policies and practices.
There are about 6,000 children currently in the state’s foster care system.
“The filings paint a grim picture of a dysfunctional foster care system,” Goodwin noted. “Plaintiffs ask this court to declare DHS’s actions unconstitutional, craft policies to reform DHS and appoint a monitor to study and supervise defendants.
“In sum, plaintiffs ask this court to take over the foster care system during and until it is reformed to their satisfaction. … Defendants, accepting that foster care in West Virginia is far from perfect, assert that changes in policies, programs, and procedures have improved the system. In response, Plaintiffs argue that those purported changes have been ineffectual, and West Virginia foster care has further deteriorated.”
Goodwin again said the federal court interprets and applies law.
“Courts do not set policy,” he wrote. “They do not legislate. They do not govern. These principles are not abstractions — they are the foundation of constitutionally-established tripartite government.
“Plaintiffs, however, ask this court to step beyond constitutional limits. They seek judicially crafted policies that would, in effect, place West Virginia’s foster care system under indefinite federal control. They ask this court to systematically reform DHS to oversee agency hiring, budget allocations, and caseworker caseloads. None of that is within the constitutional authority of a federal judge.”
He said the plaintiffs asked the court to engage in long-term institutional reform, or “the kind of structural overhaul that belongs in the hands of policymakers held accountable to the public.”
Goodwin said the plaintiffs don’t have standing here because the court can’t order the relief they seek without usurping powers of the political branches.
“Plaintiffs requested relief implicates redressability,” Goodwin noted. “As is true in every standing analysis, an examination of the relief requested is key to determining that issue.
“The court must ask two questions. First, does the court have the power to grant the plaintiffs’ requested relief? … Second, is that relief likely to remedy plaintiffs’ injuries?”
He says the answer to the first question is no.
“This court cannot order the relief plaintiffs seek,” Goodwin wrote. “The Constitution does not grant the court ‘some “amorphous” power to supervise “the operations of government” and reimagine [them] from the ground up.’ The Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court [have] made clear that the judiciary should not be in the business of administering institutions. …
“The court cannot write a state budget, hire state employees, or oversee child welfare administration as plaintiffs request. … The court cannot move state funds and shift local priorities to enact statewide reform. … Nor can the court craft DHS policy that defines ‘adequate,’ ‘appropriate,’ ‘sufficient,’ ‘unnecessary’ and ‘unreasonable’ as the plaintiffs ask.
“This is for good reason — the U.S. Constitution prevents federal courts from intervening in complex state institutions. … Instead, state government is better suited to solve domestic issues, especially as the public pressures its representatives to act. …
“So I return to the plaintiffs’ requested relief: create policies to reform the West Virginia foster care system, make continuing assessments of the quality of foster care services, and appoint a monitor to make recommendations and scrutinize compliance. Each one falls outside the court’s power to redress plaintiffs’ injuries. The constitutional bar of standing prevents this court from granting plaintiffs’ relief and becoming a West Virginia policymaker.”
Goodwin also noted examples of how courts have intervened in state-run foster care, education, prison and mental health systems before with many of the cases ending up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“These examples all point to one conclusion: the court has no business in reforming state institutions,” Goodwin wrote. “Intervention inexcusably exhausts judicial resources, usurps state and local authority and creates disputes that polarize the judiciary. Without redressability, the plaintiffs have no standing to pursue their claims.”
Since Goodwin took over this case, he often has expressed concern in court filings that the court lacks the kind of power sought by the plaintiffs.
“The voluminous record in this case shows that West Virginia’s foster care system is a complex administrative system that properly relies on the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government,” Goodwin wrote. “It is burdened by uniquely West Virginia problems. The relief requested requires this court to create state policy. That is not the role of the federal courts.”
In closing, Goodwin said he realizes his ruling might be “an unsatisfying result” to the situation.
“I know that there are children who deeply suffer in the custody of the state,” he wrote. “This compelled dismissal is in no way an endorsement of the system as it remains. But the United States Constitution prohibits this court from assuming control of West Virginia’s foster care agency.”
Still, he noted the plaintiffs have further options.
“The state government retains every tool to improve the foster care system, and elected officials are entrusted and obligated to do so,” Goodwin wrote. “If they fail, they can be thrown out of office. State officials can no longer hide behind this lawsuit to avoid the consequences of their political decisions.
“Now the legislature, the governor, and his appointees must do their job.”
The state’s foster care system has been under much scrutiny of late, and the courts have stepped in at times.
Just last week, Kanawha Circuit Judge Maryclaire Akers ordered that a monitor oversee placement of children in hotels and camps after a 12-year-old boy in state care attempted suicide in a hotel.
And in early February, Pleasants Circuit Judge Tim Sweeney ordered state officials to serve as child protective services workers because of extreme CPS understaffing issues.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 3:19-cv-00710