No one on the staff of Families as Allies is legally trained so we offer our impressions from the perspective of people who are very interested in the outcomes of the case but who do not have legal expertise.
There appeared to be two major takeaways from the conference. One, both sides—and Special Master Michael Hogan—reported that they have reached “substantial agreement” on the services that should be offered to address the problems identified in the lawsuit. Two, the two sides do not agree on how the changes the state mental health system will be required to make should be monitored.
Typically, an outside person is appointed to independently monitor the changes a state must make in these types of lawsuit remedies. The state’s attorneys seemed to object to this approach, but it was unclear if they believed the state should be allowed to monitor itself in implementing these changes or if they thought the Judge or the US Department of Justice would perform this monitoring role. It seemed more likely that they were proposing that the state be allowed to monitor itself.
We left messages for attorneys for both the United States and the State of Mississippi this morning to ask for clarification on what the state proposes and for examples of lawsuit remedies in which a state has monitored itself so that we could better understand that model if it is what is being proposed. The United States attorneys responded but were not able to provide clarification on what the state is requesting or give us examples of similar remedies that were self-monitored. We have not yet heard back from the State of Mississippi attorneys but will share that information if and when we receive it.
One understandable reason that the state might be hesitant to enter into a remedy with an outside monitor is because of the prolonged Olivia Y. lawsuit in the child welfare system and the difficulty the state has had in meeting its required terms. Again, Families as Allies has no legal expertise about either of these cases, but we have interacted with the attorneys who brought both lawsuits.
From that perspective, we have been impressed with the time and care the United States attorneys have taken in the mental health lawsuit. They’ve spent time in Mississippi for the past ten years and worked to find out how people receiving mental health services and their families actually experience the system. The specific issues they sued over seem relatively narrow in scope and focused on changes for the people with the most significant needs. It is also our understanding that the state, regardless of the terms of the remedy, would not pay attorney fees in the mental health lawsuit (but might pay for monitoring), but may be paying opposing attorney fees in the Olivia Y case because it was brought by a private non-profit.
Judge Reeves will now instruct both sides on the next steps, likely including the parties continuing to work toward resolution of their differences as well as the option for both sides to submit plans that the judge could then choose from. Once the judge makes a decision on the remedy, it is possible that either side could appeal.
If you have feedback or questions for either side in United States v. Mississippi, here is their contact information:
For the State of Mississippi:
Doug T. Miracle, Civil Litigation
Office of Attorney General Lynn Fitch
601.359.3680
doug.miracle@ago.ms.gov
For the United States:
Sarah L. Malks
Sarah.Malks@usdoj.gov
