Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

DCFS Director held in contempt for 12th time as DHS Director ordered to court on contempt charges

Posted in:

Illinois

Officials said the DCFS Director of Illinois Marc Smith was held in contempt of court for the 12th time Thursday for failing to place a child in direct violation of court orders.

Officials with the Office of the Cook County Public Guardian, said this is the 12th time the director has been held in contempt. This specific order involves a 15-year-old girl whom DCFS has kept locked up in a psychiatric hospital where she has been ready for discharge since January 14th, 2022.

Thursday, pursuant to a motion filed by Judge Patrick T. Murphy of Cook County Juvenile Court held Marc Smith in contempt of court and ordered fines of $1,000 per day. Fines for this order will begin July 28th.

In February the court ordered Smith to place the girl by 5pm on March 5th. He failed to comply.

On May 12th, DCFS stated to the court she would be by June 15th. Thursday, DCFS stated that the girl would be placed during the week of July 25th.

The girl has been in a psychiatric hospital for more than 170 days since she was able to be discharged. The court found the director in contempt of court.

* SJ-R…

The head of the Illinois Department of Human Services has been ordered to return to Sangamon County Circuit Court on charges of ignoring another court order to transport a county jail inmate into state custody.

The court ruled Friday that Grace Hou, secretary of IDHS, must appear in court July 15 to respond to charges of ignoring an order to place Christopher Hall, 38, of Beloit, Wisconsin, in the Andrew McFarland Mental Health Center for psychiatric treatment.

Hall, who had been charged last year on four counts of first-degree murder, aggravated discharge of a firearm, being an armed habitual offender and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon in the shooting death of Hason Willis, 43, of Springfield, was ruled unfit to stand trial in May and ordered to be placed at McFarland.

However, the order said that as of Friday, he had not been placed there, remaining in custody at the Sangamon County Jail.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 9:26 am

Comments

AGAIN???

HOW DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING?

Comment by DCFS Tracker Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 9:36 am
Well for one thing All Caps, it’s the same judge acting at the behest of the same county’s public guardian.

Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 9:45 am
With Bailey as the nominee, the political blowback of either replacing a resigning director of firing the director outright will be far less.

Tough to see any upside keeping the director, including got those who need services from DCFS

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 9:47 am
How it happens is simple. DCFS doesn’t operate its own placements. When it comes to placing kids with significant psychiatric or behavioral needs, DCFS cannot force a facility to take the kid. Facilities can look at the kid’s records and say “no, we don’t want to take in a kid with a history of [blank].”

Literally the only way to solve this long term in a sustainable manner is for the state to operate its own facilities for kids with the highest level of need. However that costs a lot of money and could take years to get up and running.

Social services in general, and specialized foster care / related services in particular, have been under funded for decades. If there is no money to operate the necessary facilities, then the facilities won’t exist.

Comment by Homebody Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 9:51 am
I’m guessing that an underlying issue for DCFS continues to be = too many caseloads, not enough case managers, investigators, clerks, support staff, admin. Like much of Illinois govt., DCFS has had to squeeze by with few resources, as our state’s decades-long austerity budgets take their toll. The media, outrages lawmakers and child advocates can continue to pass laws and thump tables - but without the resources to do the work, then next DCFS director, and the next, and the next will be in the hot seat.

Its broken and there’s no willingness to raise the revenue to fix it.

At least that’s my take on DCFS (and many other) state problems.

Comment by Ashland Adam Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:15 am
== How it happens is simple. DCFS doesn’t operate its own placements. When it comes to placing kids with significant psychiatric or behavioral needs, DCFS cannot force a facility to take the kid. Facilities can look at the kid’s records and say “no, we don’t want to take in a kid with a history of [blank].” ==

This is an incredibly helpful explainer, and it would be nice to see this being more widely covered. I have been scratching my head about how a DCFS director gets hit with contempt twelve times.

Comment by Leap Day William Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:29 am
“Tough to see any upside keeping the director”

The only thing is that a new director wouldn’t change anything immediately and finding someone who would take this job is going to get harder and harder with these contempt charges.

Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:37 am
Very tough for DCFS. Private providers are challenged to take difficult cases lest they put their own employees at physical risk.

Comment by Downstate Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:44 am
Also critics constantly complain about lack of continuity and how many directors there have been.

Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:46 am
“”DCFS doesn’t operate its own placements. When it comes to placing kids with significant psychiatric or behavioral needs, DCFS cannot force a facility to take the kid.”"
“”DCFS has had to squeeze by with few resources, as our state’s decades-long austerity budgets take their toll.”"

Both true. Hauling in the directors of agencies is a political move designed to put pressure on the administration and legislature, without offering or even implying any solutions.

The first problem requires redirection of significant capital and education investments, reuse of government-supported institutions, and restructure of the contractual relationships with service providers. Most of these requires years of effort.

The second problem relates to budget, operating processes, and recruitment and training — which at least are shorter term challenges.

Revolving directors is worthless, unless the commitment to intelligent strategic planning and funding is lacking.

Comment by walker Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:03 am
===Revolving directors is worthless===

It resets the contempt of court times…

How much can one person’s reputation take, even if it “isn’t his fault”?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:22 am
As others have said the issue is ‘where’. Where is the facility that will take, is capable of taking, and has opening for a kid. If someone is filing contempt charges, have they done any research to show that an appropriate location is available. Available means it exists, currently vacant, provider is certified as appropriate, and funding to cover all legit costs are covered. Just because a court says it must happen does not mean it can. I worked as a provider. If a person is too far beyond your capability for behavioral, medical, staffing, and facility ability you are just begging for serious problems. The state/GA needs to put together specialized programs for the very hard to place individuals. These programs are expensive. Sliding by cheap for very serious situations simply does not work.

Comment by zatoichi Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:35 am
==How it happens is simple. DCFS doesn’t operate its own placements. When it comes to placing kids with significant psychiatric or behavioral needs, DCFS cannot force a facility to take the kid. Facilities can look at the kid’s records and say “no, we don’t want to take in a kid with a history of [blank].”

Literally the only way to solve this long term in a sustainable manner is for the state to operate its own facilities for kids with the highest level of need. However that costs a lot of money and could take years to get up and running.==

This is exactly it. If there is a contempt charge, maybe that one particular kid gets prioritized for a bed in a facility instead of a different kid who might have gotten it. But there’s not enough beds to go around.

Many of the deeply troubled or severely mentally ill teenagers in DCFS (but I’m not sure how many percentagewise or whether these 12 are in this category) are in care through a “no fault dependency” case where their parents weren’t negligent–just couldn’t get access to the services their kids needed.

A revolving door of DCFS leadership doesn’t make this problem better.

Comment by Horseshoe voter Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:41 am
“Facilities can look at the kid’s records and say “no, we don’t want to take in a kid with a history of [blank].’”

And that [blank] can and does include mental illness or any contact with law enforcement.

Then what?

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:12 pm
I applaud the employees of DCfS and their director for doing a job no one else wants. This article has no useful information for analysis. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to DCFS until i get information showing that I should not. Everyone screams until someone is hurt, then they blame DCFS. Why doesn’t Cook County step in with a solution?

Comment by Merica Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:19 pm
That 12 contempt citations later this problem isn’t solved should be the last straw; the Court should appoint a monitor to oversee DCFS; the current Director can stay and make sure the monitor’s orders are followed as to any issue withing the scope of the monitor’s duties.

Comment by thisjustinagain Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 3:41 pm
==the Court should appoint a monitor to oversee DCFS==

I don’t think that’s going to solve the problem. A monitor can’t invent a placement facility or home out of thin air any better than the Director.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 4:23 pm
=== A monitor can’t invent a placement facility or home out of thin air===

Yep, and that’s why the court won’t do it.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 5:22 pm
It should be remembered that Rauner eliminated many beds with vague plans to replace them, plans he never accomplished before fleeing to Florida.

Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 5:38 pm
The Court can make sure DCFS actively hires staff, limits the hiring delays with the State’s way-too-long process, keep a real-time inventory of available beds, maintain pressure of DCFS to comply with the Court’s orders between hearings, etc. I did not say or imply the Court could conjure facilities or homes out of thin air.

Comment by thisjustinagain Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 5:42 pm
Have there been any consequences, other than bad press, for the Judge’s 12 contempt rulings?

If not, why not run the Agency with someone below the Director and let the Director’s main job be as a professional rule breaker?

Comment by Laura Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 7:21 am
I realize this is late to the game and won’t be seen by very many …

The root cause of a lot of this can be traced all the way back to the deinstitutionalization push of the 1980’s.

Both the left and the right, for different reasons, pushed it. The right for the budget cuts; the left on the theory that more of a home / family type setting was better treatment.

So, 50 years later, here we are. And neither side likes the results.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 8:35 am
===The Court can make sure DCFS actively hires staff, limits the hiring delays with the State’s way-too-long process, keep a real-time inventory of available beds, maintain pressure of DCFS to comply with the Court’s orders between hearings, etc. I did not say or imply the Court could conjure facilities or homes out of thin air.===

I”m pretty sure the court CANNOT make all that happen. There are laws re: hiring that must be followed. Forcing compliance means forcing DCFS to do soething, which as has been pointed out, is not always possible. THey can’t force a placement, for example. NOt sure why these contempt charges aren’t appealed. Is that even possible?? What a mess.

Comment by KeepItReal Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 2:35 pm