Oregon spent upwards of $18 million to defend its struggling child welfare system. Now, the trial has been postponed

The State of Oregon and Advocacy Group Near Settlement Agreement in Foster Care Lawsuit

The trial between the state of Oregon and the advocacy group suing the state over its mistreatment of kids placed in foster care has been delayed as the two sides near a settlement agreement.

Settlement Talks Gain Traction

The trial, where the state was expected to defend its beleaguered child welfare system, was scheduled to start on Monday in Eugene. After about five years and spending upwards of $18 million of taxpayer money, it seems settlement talks have finally gained traction. The final settlement deal is due May 17.

Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals

Melissa Roy-Hart, a spokeswoman for Disability Rights Oregon, said in an interview earlier this week that the amount of money that has gone into fighting the case instead of changing policies inside the child-welfare system has been disheartening.

Background of the Lawsuit

In 2019, a national advocacy group filed a class-action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Human Services, alleging the state mistreats children in its foster care system and has failed to fix glaring problems. The nonprofit A Better Childhood filed the lawsuit along with Disability Rights Oregon and lawyers from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

Goal of the Lawsuit

The goal of Wyatt B v. Kotek, the case that was set to begin in federal court in Eugene on Monday, is to hold DHS accountable and transform the state’s child welfare system, according to Marcia Lowry, the executive director of A Better Childhood. Lowry has seen similar lawsuits in other states prompt large, systemic changes.

Allegations Against the State

The lawsuit claims the state continually places children in foster care in inappropriate homes and facilities, has shipped them out of state where they were placed in for-profit congregate care programs with a litany of problems or abandons them so they wind up homeless.

Challenges Faced by the State

In 2019, when Lowry first looked into Oregon’s child welfare system, she said at the time, she walked away with some clarity: There was no question the system was further harming already vulnerable and often traumatized children.

More recently, Lowry said Oregon’s current child welfare system does poorly when compared to federal standards, especially when it comes to how often children are moved from place to place and rates of abuse.

Recent Developments

It was disappointing, Lowry said previously, that the state and advocacy groups could not agree upon necessary improvements before taking the case to trial.

In the past couple of weeks leading up to the trial, the law firm has focused its attention on one legislator with a long track record of calling for change at the agency.

Subpoena Controversy

The law firm issued a wide-ranging subpoena asking for state Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin’s emails with journalists, lawyers, foster children and Paris Hilton for the past nine years. The subpoena targets the Democrat from Corvallis, who chairs the Senate Human Services Committee. Gelser Blouin was asked to be a witness in the case and is expected to testify. (The subpoena has specifically requested communication between the lawmaker and reporters at OPB and The Oregonian/OregonLive).

Roy-Hart, with Disability Rights Oregon, said the subpoena felt like retaliation.

Disqualification Attempt

With only a few days before the trial is scheduled to begin, the state of Oregon’s attorneys also tried to disqualify the judge from presiding over the case. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied the motion, finding no basis to recuse herself. The state argued unsuccessfully that Aiken has said the state’s child welfare system has many problems and should therefore recuse herself.

Importance of the Trial

It’s often difficult for the public to know what is happening in the state’s child welfare system, in part because child privacy laws were created to protect children. But in the past, the agency has used those same laws to delay sending public records requests in a timely fashion or deny information entirely.

This trial was expected to be the first opportunity where both state higher ups would be testifying in the same venue as children who spent decades in the system. Fairborz Paksheret, the head of the Department of Human Services, is expected to testify, as are numerous children.

Roy-Hart with Disability Rights Oregon said this trial would be the first time so many children would have a chance to voice their stories.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 4: Quality Education
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
• Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.
• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims, and the poor and vulnerable.
• Indicator 3.2.1: Under-five mortality rate.
• Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.
• Indicator 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual, or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age group.
• Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized mechanisms.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators