FAMILIES THREATENED AND SEPARATED UNDER SAFETY PLANS: FIVE CASE EXAMPLES FROM THE LITIGATION

These are the stories of five Dupuy class members.

1. Bill M., the vice president of a technology company, and his wife Gail, a stay-at-home mom, have two daughters. The younger, age two, fell from the family's back porch while playing. When her pain did not abate, Gail took her to the emergency room, where doctors found an arm fracture. After they returned home, Gail received a call from her child's pediatrician requesting that she take her daughter back to the hospital. When she arrived, she discovered that the hospital suspected that her daughter had been abused because a second fracture reportedly had been seen on x-rays. DCFS promptly demanded that Bill, who was considered the likely abuser, leave the family home for 24 hours. He complied. DCFS failed to contact the family again for a week, waiting until the day before Thanksgiving, when the investigator demanded that both parents leave their home or have their children taken into foster care. Bill and Gail left, while grandparents stayed in the home. The entire extended family's Thanksgiving was ruined. On December 1, the parents were allowed back into their home, after another doctor read the x-rays again and discovered that the hospital's claim of a second fracture was a mistake.

2. E.D., age 16, had babysat two years earlier for a boy who was then four years old. The boy and his family moved away from E.D.'s neighborhood. Suddenly, two years after the last time he had seen the child, E.D. found himself the target of an accusation that he had sexually molested the boy. A DCFS investigator named Howell showed up at the D. family's home and demanded that E.D. leave immediately. If E.D. did not leave, Howell said, he would take E.D.'s younger siblings into foster care. E.D. complied, and after a month, Howell allowed E.D. to return home-as long as his mother agreed to "remain awake at night when the rest of the family is sleeping in order to supervise E.D. at night." (See 462 F. Supp. 2d at 881). During this period, Howell also instructed the family that E.D. was to have "no contact" with younger children. The safety plan in this case lasted 18 months. Ironically, DCFS lifted the safety plan restrictions when E.D.'s family agreed not to pursue their appeal of an "indicated" finding against E.D.

3. James, a science teacher, and Susan Redlin are the parents of a boy named Joey, age six, who has a mild form of autism. Susan is disabled and is confined to a wheelchair. James planned to teach Joey to ride his bike during the summer. One day in June, James and Joey went to the Field Museum to see dinosaurs. Following medical instructions to use a lot of physical contact with Joey because of his son's condition, James actively tickled him during their Metra train ride into Chicago. A passenger reported to Metra police that the touching was suspicious. The police called DCFS. The next day, DCFS Investigator Homa came to the Redlin home and began to demand a safety plan. James accused him of being rude and he left. Later the same day, Homa called Susan and demanded a safety plan that required her to provide 24-hour supervision of all contact between James and their son. Terribly shaken, Susan agreed. Because Susan could not go to the park with James and Joey, Joey never learned to ride his bike that summer. The safety plan lasted three months; it was lifted at the end of the summer when DCFS determined the allegations of "sexual abuse" of Joey were "unfounded" (meaning no credible evidence to support the allegations was uncovered during the investigation). In James's words, the safety plan made the family feel like "prisoners in their own home."

4. Patrick and Stacey D. were preschool teachers at the same school. On New Year's Day, a preschooler named Amelia, a three- or four-year-old in Patrick's class, woke in the middle of the night and told her mother that "Patrick plays with my booty at naptime." The next day, Amelia's mother notified the preschool director of this statement, and the director in turn called DCFS's Hotline. (Although the director did not believe Patrick had abused any child, she considered it her duty as a "mandated child abuse reporter" to make the call.) DCFS Investigator Jones immediately called the preschool director and demanded that the director send Patrick home from work. Investigator Jones next called Patrick's wife, Stacey, and demanded that she tell Patrick he had to leave their family home. If not, Jones said, their three children would be taken into foster care. Stacey came home and gave Patrick this horrible news. Shocked and with nowhere to go, Patrick left the home with little cash and few belongings. Homeless, he stayed in a hallway of an apartment building for several days while he tried to reach his sister.

Eventually, Patrick D. was able to stay at his sister's home, but limited funds for transportation made it difficult for him to visit his family. In his case, the safety plan directive lasted 11 months, during which he appealed an "indicated finding" against him for sexual molestation of Amelia. Patrick won his appeal, because the investigation never uncovered any corroborating evidence and was deemed by DCFS's own hearing officer to be "at a minimum sloppy and at worst the result of a pre-ordained conclusion." Patrick's co-teacher was never interviewed, no children confirmed Amelia's account, and Patrick's children said their father never touched them inappropriately. No criminal charges were ever brought against Patrick.

5. Christine and Jimmie Parikh were the parents of two grown children, the parents of a six-year-old, and guardians of a three-year-old, whom they had rescued from abandonment by his mother. Christine sometimes worked as a child care provider for children in her home and Jimmie managed a fast food franchise restaurant. One of the children for whom Christine provided child care was an emotionally disturbed 11-year-old girl. On July 12, the DCFS Hotline received a call accusing Jimmie of having kissed her while she was at the Parikh's home. There was no evidence of any inappropriate conduct by Jimmie and the girl's own mother called her daughter a "liar." DCFS Investigator Abernathy came to the Parikh home and demanded that Jimmie leave. She expressly stated that if he did not do so immediately, she would take their two minor children into DCFS custody. 462 F. Supp. 2d at 878. Jimmie complied. For several weeks, Christine and Jimmie could only see each other at a restaurant, where they would cry together. After July, Abernathy allowed Jimmie to return home, but only on the condition that Christine supervise all of his contact with their children. DCFS lifted the safety plan on September 26, deeming the allegation of "sexual molestation" it was investigating to be unfounded.

Even after the safety plan ended, Jimmie was unable to kiss his children without fear that another allegation might be made against him.