--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: D5S00003Date: 05/23/96 From: RICK THOMA Time: 01:05am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: (Globe Part 5 of 5) Splintered family gets on with life BY JUDITH GAINES, GLOBE STAFF, 04/25/96 In the half a year since Brenda's four children were taken from her, two of them celebrated birthdays. Corey turned 8 and Michael 10. They gained inches and confidence. Only Brenda didn't grow at all. Thirty- eight in December, she was still refusing help from social workers, still determined to raise her own children her way. BROCKTON - All week long, Brenda Austin-Thomas had fretted about what to wear to her hearing in Brockton District Court. A judge was going to decide whether she was a good enough mother to have her four children back. She wanted to look the part. A sleek black dress with a deep v-neck, her blue satin push-up bra barely showing, seemed just the thing. Then she selected white stockings, with 3-inch black-and-white heels to match. An elaborate teased hairdo, which she had painstakingly shaped and lacquered, completed the look. Brenda was trying to be what she thought the judge and social workers wanted her to be. But the 38-year-old mother never had understood what the system expected of her. In any case, it was too late now. A week earlier, therapists, counselors and other workers assigned to her case had gathered in a sterile, windowless room at the Brockton offices of the Department of Social Services to swap assessments of her progress. The reports were grim. Janice Peneno, Brenda's therapist, described her as defensive. Brenda had been unwilling to talk about important issues, such as her drinking and her foggy, confused thinking. Peneno had suggested Brenda attend self-help groups for alcoholics and battered women to learn how other women deal with their problems. But Ellen Sheehan, who led the battered women's group, reported that Brenda usually came late or left early, and said little or nothing. Brenda Brown, who supervised the hour-long visits between Brenda and the children each Thursday, said Brenda was late to many of those sessions, too. Sometimes she didn't show at all, disappointing her children yet again. When she was there, ``most of the time mom's watching her kids, not interacting with them.'' Over the months, the therapists' insights into the children's home life with Brenda had begun to alarm them. ``I keep wondering, what did they see in that home?'' said Teresa Barnette, the social worker in charge of Brenda's case. Three-year-old Melanie, for instance, was surprisingly articulate about oral sex and sexual intercourse. Once, her foster mother had found her ``humping'' a chair. Tanya, 6, was recovering well from surgery but remained confused about how to touch other people and let them touch her. ``Her symptoms are consistent with someone who's been sexually abused,'' said Lisa Watson, her therapist. Michael, 10, was angry, bottled up, and had trouble expressing his emotions. He said that once, when he was playing football with one of his mother's boyfriends, a packet of cocaine fell from the man's pocket. For Christmas, he asked Santa to send the guy to jail, so he would never come near his mother again. Through all the revelations, Brenda had avoided a psychological examination, which Teresa considered essential for unraveling the enigma that she was to them. But Brenda feared the exam would be used to trap her, that she'd never get her children back. On her own, Brenda wasn't making much progress. But at least her children seemed to be doing better. Slowly, reluctantly they were starting to relax in their foster homes. Michael, despite his frustrations, was happily absorbed with a basketball team and finally had a strong male presence in his life - his 6-foot, 7-inch foster father. Tanya and Melanie had settled into the home of Joesell and George Mitchell, active Pentecostals who were giving their young lives structure and routine. Corey's situation was the most troubling. He was swearing, hitting, refusing to eat with utensils, flinging food. His foster mother, overwhelmed by all his needs, was threatening to send him away if his behavior didn't improve. ``She's reinforcing his feelings of rejection, telling him he'll be abandoned if he's bad,'' said Greg Wilders, Corey's therapist. From their point of view, the counselors and Teresa felt they could help the foster mother change her behavior. They hadn't discovered how to get through to Brenda. Finally, on March 20, nearly five months after DSS took her children, Brenda lost whatever chance she might have had to get them back any time soon. Shortly after dawn on that March morning, four members of the FBI's fugitive task force on violent felons converged on Brenda's apartment. They were looking for Karen Gibson, who shared the apartment and had looked after the children. Karen, who had a long criminal record, was wanted for a probation violation. During a shoplifting spree at a local Caldor's department store in December, Karen had shouted, ``Stay back, I've got a gun,'' when two security guards stopped her. Instead, they tackled her. Later, she admitted she stole the merchandise, and got a two-year suspended sentence and probation. Now, while making the arrest, FBI agents found a crack pipe in Karen's bedroom dresser. She claimed it belonged to a former boyfriend. ``I didn't even know it was there,'' Karen said. She was arrested and released on $300 bail. With everything that had been going on, only Brenda was surprised when she and Teresa emerged from the courtroom nearly a week later. DSS had recommended, and presiding Judge Gail Garinger had agreed, that the agency should keep Brenda's four children for now. Her case would be reviewed in three months, and a trial would be scheduled for late summer or fall. At that time, Brenda and her court- appointed lawyer could present her defense. Brenda felt deceived. She had waived her right to a hearing 72 hours after her kids were taken - but never understood how she had done this. At the March hearing, she had wanted to explain herself to the judge but had not been given the chance. No one was taking her side. She didn't like or trust her lawyer. And she was furious at Teresa. Brenda, after all, had passed three drug tests and felt that should have exonerated her. On the courthouse steps, she confronted Teresa about the pipe found in the house. ``They didn't find that stuff in my room,'' she told Teresa. ``I'm not making any allegations,'' Teresa said. ``But if the kids are going to come home, I have to consider the environment they'll be in, how safe it would be for them. It's your home, Brenda.'' Teresa also told Brenda that she was concerned about an incident when one of Brenda's boyfriends showed up unexpectedly at the end of a supervised visit. A painter with an extensive criminal record, he had brought along a roll of $100 bills and given at least --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Parens patriae Resource Center for Parents 540-896-4356 (1:2629/124) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: D5S00004Date: 05/23/96 From: RICK THOMA Time: 01:05am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: (5 of 5 : 02) one of them to Brenda's amazed children - before a security guard made the boyfriend take it back. Brenda didn't see anything wrong with her friends giving her children money. Once again, she felt unfairly treated. ``I'm always wrong, and whatever she does is right, right, right, '' Brenda said. But Teresa, not given to self-doubt, wasn't always as certain as Brenda imagined. One issue that was never resolved to Teresa's satisfaction was the possibility that someone had sexually abused 6-year-old Tanya. Tanya had told Teresa that her mother and her aunt Karen had touched her ``down there,'' and pointed to her genitals. Of course they did that, Brenda and Karen explained, but only to wash her and teach her to bathe herself. Brenda was incredulous that something as innocent as washing her daughter could be used against her. ``I ain't no pervert,'' was how Brenda put it. ``I'd kill anyone who touched my kids.'' Tanya's surgery had revealed signs of possible sexual abuse. It was ``the sort of muscle damage common among persons who have suffered anal penetration by a person using an object,'' a doctor said. But doctors could not determine whether the girl had been sexually abused or born with unusually scarred rectal tissue. The charges against Brenda and Karen were unprovable. The lack of certainty showed in the social service agency's conclusion: ``unknown'' perpetrators may have hurt Tanya. Now Teresa was again hoping that the family could be reunited. On an April morning, she proceeded to Brenda's apartment to discuss what the mother needed to do to get her children back. At the appointed hour, Teresa knocked on the unpainted plywood door. All the blinds were drawn, as usual. Rock music could be heard playing on a radio inside, and the meowing of cats. But no one came to the door. Either Brenda had forgotten another appointment or she was avoiding Teresa. ``There's been this mystery about this case, right from the start. What's going on with this family?'' Teresa said, between knocks. Brenda's children had always been clean, well-fed, well-dressed. She seemed to love them. But she never showed an interest in their schooling, or played games with them, or held them when they were upset. And she continually refused to accept help. Brenda had to be willing to work with Teresa. But she was closed in her perpetually sunless apartment, still in the dark about how to be the mother her children needed. After a few more futile knocks, the social worker drove away. Last week, she was back. And for the first time, Teresa and Brenda had a frank talk. Brenda told Teresa that she and Karen weren't half- sisters after all. She said she had kicked Karen out of the apartment. She said she was trying. Teresa wanted to believe her. SIDEBAR OUT OF FOSTER CARE Last year 9,293 children left foster care. Here's where they went: Returned home 4,832 Adopted 1,102 Placed in long-term care 814 Includes group homes, respite care etc. Placed in guardianship* 594 Turned 18, left system 372 Placed in independent living programs 325 Unspecified placement 1,254 *NOTE: Guardianship gives legal rights for school and medical purposes to the guardian and is one step less than adoption. Globe Staff Chart This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe on 04/25/96. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Parens patriae Resource Center for Parents 540-896-4356 (1:2629/124) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: D5U00000Date: 05/24/96 From: ROGER BROWN Time: 11:13pm \/To: RICK THOMA (Read 3 times) Subj: Transactional Records Access Clearinghou23:13:0005/24/96 I spoke with investigative reporter David Burnham (author of ABOVE THE LAW: SECRT DEALS, POLITICAL FIXES, AND OTHER MISADVENTURES OF THE US DPARTMNT OF JUSTICE). He informed me that the Clearinghouse has an associated web page designed to provide the media and public more sophisticated critical information about government operations. Perhaps the two of you should compare data bases. I suspect what you have done may complement what they have done. The page address is HTTP://TRAC.SYR.EDU/TRACIRS/. Let me know what you think about the page. My attorney has filed a new motion to restore visitation with my daughter based the Court of Appeals ruling. The female judge who started this disaster is running unopposd for a seat on the Supreme Court. That may or may not be in my favor. If she denies the motion to restore visitation we will start the appeal process again. For a reasonable person, it would be an embarrassement to have this case come before a court they were setting on and have her peers see what she did. It is beginning to look like the White Water jury may come back with a guilty verdict. Have a good Labor Day. -Roger- --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: Conway PC Users Group BBS 501-329-7227 (1:399/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAB00000Date: 06/05/96 From: RICK THOMA Time: 02:46am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Wenatchee Update: 1 Associated Press AM-Child Sex Rings, 0698 Child Says She Was Pressured to Lie on Witness Stand By AVIVA L. BRANDT Associated Press Writer YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) A 13-year-old girl who testified at four trials that she had been sexually molested now says she lied about the alleged abuse, telling authorities what she thought they wanted to hear. Officials could not immediately say how significant the girl's change in story would be to the so-called Wenatchee sex-ring investigation. The girl, identified in court documents as M.E., ran away from her foster home Sunday night, and then called pastor Robert Roby Roberson, one of the people she testified against. A sheriff's deputy took her from her grandmother's home Tuesday, while the girl was speaking on the telephone to an Associated Press reporter. During the AP interview, the girl quickly said "No" in a strong voice when asked whether she had been molested by her parents or anyone else. But she spoke more haltingly when asked why she told authorities and testified in court that she had been sexually abused. I was, like, (long pause) I was pressured to, she said. When asked by whom, she quickly named Wenatchee police Detective Bob Perez, the lead investigator in the cases. When Bob first came to talk to me about my parents, I said it never happened. He said, "Melinda, I know you're lying,' she said. I don't like being called a liar. So, she said, she told Perez and other authorities what they wanted to hear. The girl made allegations against several of the 28 people who were charged with child rape and molestation, including the Robersons and three others convicted by juries: Linda Miller, Donna Hidalgo and her husband, Manuel Hidalgo Rodriguez. Fourteen people pleaded guilty, and five were convicted by juries. Charges were dismissed or greatly reduced against five others. Three, including Roberson and his wife, Connie, were acquitted, and one case is pending. Auburn attorney Robert Van Siclen, who represented the only three people acquitted of charges, said he believed the girl's reversal is evidence that could overturn some of the convictions and guilty pleas. He said he expects her reversal to be questioned by prosecutors. The first thing that entered my mind is, "She's never told the truth before, so how can we trust her now?' Van Siclen said. I asked her that directly yesterday. She responded, "All I can say is I'm telling the truth now.' And I believe her. Chelan County Deputy Prosecutor Doug Shae said he was aware of the development only because reporters had called seeking comment. If that's true, they will give that to the defense attorneys, who I assume will bring it into court, and then we'll sit down and decide what there is to the whole thing, Shae said. Perez's attorney, Pat McMahon, was out of his office Tuesday afternoon, but he denied the girl's claims to The Wenatchee World. None of it is true, but these allegations don't surprise me, said McMahon, who accused the defense attorneys of going for damage control. When the deputy arrived in the middle of the AP interview, a telephone left lying on a chair picked up the conversation. I want to stay with my grandma, the girl said, sobbing. Her grandmother, Ella Spoonemore of East Wenatchee, was overheard asking the deputy whether he had a warrant. The deputy replied, I'm not here to take her away now. I just want to talk to her. Moments later, though, the deputy said he was taking the child to the offices of Child Protective Services. Her grandmother was not allowed to accompany the girl. The girl's guardian, Neil Fuller, was in Douglas County Superior Court Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. He told The Wenatchee World that he warned her she was opening herself up to more scrutiny by changing her statements. I think this child is so confused about what the hell is going on in her life that she's not sure about anything, Fuller told The Wenatchee World. She's manipulating this system to the hilt. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Parens patriae Resource Center for Parents 540-896-4356 (1:2629/124) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAB00001Date: 06/05/96 From: RICK THOMA Time: 02:46am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Wenatchee Update: 2 The Wenatchee World 6-4-1996 Perez foster child recants abuse story. County official arranges interview at his home. By JEANETTE MARANTOS World staff writer WENATCHEE - One of the former foster daughters of Wenatchee Sex ring investigator Bob Perez has reportedly recanted her stories of abuse, claiming that Perez and at least two Child Protective Services caseworkers pressured her into lying. But an attorney acting as her guardian says the girl is confused and unsure about everything. Child Welfare Services removed the 13-year-old girl from Perez's home late in 1995, about six months after she went to live there, reportedly because she thought Perez and his wife, Luci, were too strict. The girl has been in other foster homes since then, and ran away from her foster home on Sunday to the home of a relative. From there, the girl reportedly called Roby Roberson, pastor of the Pentecostal Church of God House of Prayer, saying she wanted to clear her conscience and tell the truth, said Chelan County Commissioner Earl Marcellus, Roberson's friend and supporter. Everyone she testified against, she recanted her story, Marcellus said this morning. She just indicated that she had been pressured, told time and time again by Detective Perez that he knew she wasy lying about saying nothing had happened, because that was her original story, and that ultimately she just succumbed to the pressure. She also indicated that there were CPS workers who were very aware of her initioal position, that there was no sexual abuse. ... Marcellus said the girl made her statements at his home, in front of a television cameraman and a reporter from KREM-2 News in Spokane and Robert Van Siclen, Roberson s attorney. Van Siclen has filed claims against Perez, CPS workers and Douglas County, claiming they violated Roberson s civil rights. The television reporter, Tom Grant, aired a portion of the girl s statement on television Monday night. After the interview, Marcellus said Van Siclen called the girl's guardian ad litem, attorney Neil Fuller, and they all drove to Fuller s office to discuss what she had said. By recanting her statements, the girl opens up possibilities of appeal for the people convicted in the trials where she testified. Fuller said this morning that he warned the girl Tuesday evening that she was opening hersulf up to more scrutiny and trials by changing her statements. At the time, he said, he wasn't aware she had talked to a television reporter. He said most of the conversation was confidential, Byt you can quote me on this. I think this child is confused about what the hell is going on in her life and she s not sure about anything. She s manipulating this system to the hilt. When she s on the stand testifying about abuse, the defense attorneys say she s (lying), and when she turns around and says, I lied and Perez hurt me, she s the best thing since sliced bread. Think about what s happened to this kid. She s so ingrained in the system, she s learned how to manipulate. Perez s attorney, Pat McMahon, angrily denied the allegations this morning. He said several other children beyond Perez's foster daughters had testified against those accused in the case, and he accused Roberson and others of manipulating the girl for personal gain. None of it is true, but these allegations don t surprise me. Look at it. We have a bunch of civil lawyers who played criminal defenxe attorneys, and they did it for a big payday, and we ve had some successes against them and they're going to have to respond. They got their butts kicked, and now they're going for damage control, McMahon said. Roberson and his wife, Connie, were two of 28 people charged with child rape in the sex ring investigations. Of those 28, 14 people pleaded guilty and five were convicted by juries. Charges were dismissed or greatly reduced against five others. Three, including the Robersons, were acquitted, and one case is still pending. The girl came to live with Perex in June of 1995. He sister, who initiated many of the allegations in the investigation, started living with the Perezes in February of 1994. Both girls were removed from the Perez home late in 1995. The girl made allegations against several of the 28 who were charged, including the Robersons and three others who were convicted by juries, Linda Miller, Donna Hildalgo and her husband, Manuel Hildalgo Rodrequez. Roberson refused to be interview by the Wenatchee World this morning, unless he could dictate who would write the story. Marcellus said Roberson called him late Sunday night and asked him if the girl could stay at his home in Plain. Marcellus and his wife, Linda, agreed. When Roby first called me I was put in a very awkward position, one where I wanted to to say, Absolutely not, I don t want to be on the front page again. ... But it was obvious she was not comfortable going to any law enforcement people or CVPS, at least for the short term, and she waslooking for a secure home to at least spend the night. Marcellus said the girl s relative, who is elderly and ailing, called Roberson Sunday night and said the girl wanted to tell the truth. He said Roberson told him he talked to the girl for about an hour to an hour and half, recording her conversation, and then called his attorney, Robert Van Siclen, to ask what to do next. Really, at that point it was just a flurry of activity about what to do with her and where to put her for safekeeping to protect her, Marcellus said. --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Parens patriae Resource Center for Parents 540-896-4356 (1:2629/124) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAB00002Date: 06/06/96 From: ROGER BROWN Time: 10:58pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Criminal Investigation of Fraudulent The22:58:0006/06/96 Arkansas VOCAL has made substantial progress toward initiating criminal investigation of the psychologists and social workers profiting from false allegations of child abuse. Arkansas VOCAL produced a report documenting irregularities with cliams filed with the Crime Victims Reparations Board. The report and requests for criminal investigations were sent to the entire Arkansas Congressional Delegation, the Arkansas Attorney General and the Pulaski County Prosecutor. The following letters were recently received: STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL May 31, 1996 James Roger Brown (address) RE: MEDICAL FRAUD COMPLAINT Our office has received your complaint of Medicaid fraud concerning ************. Our office receives much of its information regarding health care problems from concerned citizens such as yourself. The Office of Attorney General is dedicated to protecting the integrity of the Arkansas Medicaid Program. If you have any questions or additional information concerning this complaint, please feel free to write or call this office at ***-****. Thank you for your concern and your assistance in the fight against Medicaid fraud. Sincerely, WINSTON BRYANT (signature) By: MICHELLE McELROY Senior Assistant Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Division *************************************************************************** U. S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Washington, D.C. 20530 May 21, 1996 The Honorable David Pryor United States Senator 3030 Federal Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Senator Pryor: This is in response to your recent inquiry regarding your constituent Mr. James Roger Brown, President of VOCAL, the Arkansas Family Advocates Organization, and his concern about therapy claims paid through Victims of Crime Act grants. Based on the information provided by Mr. Brown, we have referred his letter to the office on the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas for further investigation. Please do not hesitate to contact the Department if we can be of further assistance with regard to this or any other matter. Sincerely, (signature) Mary C. Spearing Chief, Fraud Section ************************************************************************* I will keep everyone posted as this develops. This has taken a great deal of hard work, but I sincerely believe this can be done in every state. --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: Conway PC Users Group BBS 501-329-7227 (1:399/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAG00000Date: 06/11/96 From: GERI MCALEXANDER Time: 07:36am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Local Case We have a situation in Florida where a woman has been incarcerated for 30 months without a trial. She spent a year in jail before this on false charges of sexual abuse of her oldest son. Just as she was to be released, she was charged with the same of her two youngest, also false charges. She's been through 6 public defenders now and all of them get themselves dismissed, or simply refuse to do anything, because they know they'll have to take on corruption in the State Attorney's office. Any ideas? She can't afford an attorney, and her rights have been stomped all over. --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: The Message Center, Jacksonville FL (904)221-2977 (1:112/115) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAH00000Date: 06/06/96 From: DONNA Time: 12:04pm \/To: RICK THOMA (Read 2 times) Subj: Wenatchee Update: 1 > alleged abuse, telling authorities what she thought > they wanted to > hear. > and then called pastor Robert Roby Roberson, First, this guy's parents were cuel for naming him that. (g) > Fourteen people pleaded guilty, and five were > convicted by juries. > Charges were dismissed or greatly reduced against five > others. Three, > including Roberson and his wife, Connie, were > acquitted, and one case > is pending. Second, why would all these people plead guilty if they hadn't done ything?? I know I'm ignoarnt to the law in the way in which they can falsely accuse someone, but I still don't understand why they pleaded as they did if they, in fact, weren't guilty?? Thank you for posting this. It's something I have a great interest in, even though I may ask some downright silly (to others anyway) questions. :) And please keep us up-to-date on the happenings and findings of this case. Since I'm in NY & I don't read newspapers, I'd appreciate to hear how this works out. ***DONNA** --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: Tasty Delites BBS (518)884-2649 (1:267/116) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAH00001Date: 06/06/96 From: DONNA Time: 12:08pm \/To: RICK THOMA (Read 2 times) Subj: Wenatchee Update: 2 > Child Welfare Services removed the 13-year-old > girl from Perez's > home late in 1995, about six months after she went to > live there, > reportedly because she thought Perez and his wife, > Luci, were too > strict. The girl has been in other foster homes since > then, and ran > away from her foster home on Sunday to the home of a > relative. This is the EXACT problems that face us parents!! If we try to make our children behave, they yell for the police. If we don't watch over them and make sure they listen to us, we're called "negligent"! Where's the line? Thankfully, our daughter's well mannered but she's still under 10. We pray she'll saty nice, out of trouble, etc so that none of this happens to us. But what does a parent have on their side? The child is the one who'd thought of. The minor's word against the parents' these days. If the kid doesn't like spinch for dinner and mom makes him eat it or got to bed without dinner, that's cause for the kid to be taken out of the home! Thanks for the info.. keep the updates coming please. ***DONNA*** --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: Tasty Delites BBS (518)884-2649 (1:267/116) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 210 VICTIMS/FALSEACC Ref: DAH00002Date: 06/12/96 From: RICK THOMA Time: 01:40am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: D.C. Class Action This opinion may be subject to revision before official publication United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 4, 1992 Decided April 16, 1993 No. 91-7159 LaShawn A., by her next friend, Evelyn Moore, et al., Appellees v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, et al., Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 89-1754 Beverly J. Burke, Deputy Corporation Counsel, for appellants. John Payton, Corporation Counsel, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Donna M. Murasky, Assistant Corporation Counsel, were on the brief for appellants. Marcia Robinson Lowry, with whom Christopher J. Dunn, Elizabeth Symonds, and Arthur B. Spitzer were on the brief, for appellees. Before Mikva, Chief Judge; Sentelle and Randolph, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Mikva. Mikva, Chief Judge: This is a review of a decision by the district court in favor of a group of unfortunate children who brought a class action suit for injunctive relief against various officials of the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of children who are in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services ("DHS"), as well as children who are reported to be abused or neglected but are not yet in the care of the DHS. The children attacked a child-welfare system which they alleged is characterized by ineptness and indifference, inordinate caseloads and insufficient funds. The district court found that, because of the appalling manner in which the system is managed, children remain subject to continuing abuse and neglect at the hands of heartless parents and guardians, even after the DHS has received reports of their predicaments. The court also found that youngsters who have been taken into the custody of the District's foster-care system languish in inappropriate placements, with scarce hope of returning to their families or being adopted. The court held that the District of Columbia's treatment of the children violated the Constitution and federal and local statutes. After trial, the parties negotiated a remedial order that seeks to ease the plight of children who depend on the DHS for protection and for the opportunity to live and grow in a stable and nurturing environment. In the remedial order, the District of Columbia expressly reserved the right to appeal the district court's judgment assessing liability against it. The District's appeal from this judgment raises some complex constitutional and federal statutory issues. Because District of Columbia law is an independent and sufficient basis to support the district court's decision, however, we need not reach these issues in order to uphold the district court's resolution of this case. I. BACKGROUND It is not necessary to recount at length the complex background of this case, nor to recapitulate the extensive list of allegations against the District officials that the district court found to be based in fact. For the details as to these matters, we refer to Judge Thomas F. Hogan's clear and comprehensive discussion in the opinion below. LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F. Supp. 959, 961-87 (D.D.C. 1991). Suffice it to say that the district court found that the District of Columbia Department of Human Services ("DHS"), the agency entrusted with the care of foster children and abused and neglected children, has consistently evaded numerous responsibilities placed on it by local and federal statutes. Among the agency's transgressions are: [T]he failure of the DHS to initiate timely investigations into reports of abuse or neglect, the failure to provide services to families to prevent the placement of children in foster care, the failure to place those who may not safely remain at home in appropriate foster homes and institutions, the failure to develop case plans for children in foster care, and the failure to move children into a situation of permanency, whether by returning them to their homes or freeing them for adoption. LaShawn A., 762 F. Supp. at 960. The district court held, as to the children already enmeshed in the foster-care system, that the practices of the DHS deprived them of their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court also found that the challenged actions and non-actions of the DHS violated two federal statutes: the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 620-627 and 670-79, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. 5101-5106. The court held the defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for both the constitutional and federal statutory violations. The children also raised pendent claims that the defendants had violated the District of Columbia's statutory and regulatory law, namely the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977, D.C. Code Ann. 2-1351 to -1357, 6-2101 to -2107, 6-2121 to -2127, and 16-2351 to -2365 ("Abuse and Neglect Act"); the Youth Residential Facilities Licensure Act of 1986, D.C. Code Ann. 3-801 to -808 ("Licensure Act"); and the Child and Family Services Division ("CFSD") Manual of Operations (September 1985). The district court found that the defendants had violated these acts and regulations, but it did not hold that the children possessed an explicit or implied private cause of action under District law to enforce these statutes. Instead, it held that the District's laws conferred constitutionally protected liberty and property interests on the children, the deprivation of which, without due process, was actionable under 1983. On appeal, the District officials assert that the district court erred in finding that the administration of the city's child-welfare and foster-care system violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. They further contend that Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992), which the Supreme Court decided after the district court decided the present case, forecloses any federal statutory cause of action. As we will explain, it is not necessary for us to confront these constitutional and federal statutory issues, for the district court judgment is completely supportable on the grounds of local law. II. ANALYSIS A. Abstention As an initial matter, we must address the District officials' contention that under principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the district court should have abstained from deciding a large portion of this case. Appellants assert that Younger applies as to children within the foster-care system because these children are parties to ongoing proceedings in the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia where their claims could have been resolved. (Appellees do not urge Younger abstention as to the claims of children who are reported to be abused or neglected but who are not yet in foster care, because these children are not yet parties to Family Division proceedings.) This Court has never decided whether the District of Columbia is a state for Younger abstention purposes. Instead, every time the question has arisen, we have assumed that the --- FMail/386 1.0g * Origin: Parens patriae Resource Center for Parents 540-896-4356 (1:2629/124)