A federal appeals court reversed millions in fines for the state’s embattled child-welfare system on Friday and removed the judge from the case — calling into question the future of a 13-year lawsuit on behalf of children in the permanent custody of the state.
The lawyer for the 9,000 children in the class-action lawsuit said Saturday he plans to appeal the ruling.
The three-member panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its late Friday ruling that U.S. District Judge Janis Jack, who has overseen the lawsuit for more than a decade, “must be removed” because of her “highly antagonistic demeanor” toward the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and Texas Health and Human Services, which oversee the state’s foster care system.
The lawsuit alleges that the state system is unconstitutional — an assertion that has been upheld several times in courts over the years — because children it is supposed to protect after removing them from their homes have been abused and damaged.
The state has been subjected to repeated orders by Jack to fix and change the system, some of which the judge has acknowledged they have done. She has also found them in contempt of her orders three times.
“Frankly, this is a sad day for Texas children,” said Paul Yetter, the children’s pro bono attorney. “For over a decade, Judge Jack pushed the state to fix its broken system. She deserves a medal for what she’s done. We will keep fighting to ensure these children are safe.”
In May, the 5th Circuit Court halted the third contempt order issued by Jack that fined Texas HHS Executive Commissioner Cecile Erwin Young $100,000 per day until her agency complied with orders to fix problems with investigating abuse of children in the state’s care.
Friday’s ruling permanently threw out the order and the fines as unconstitutional, saying Jack didn’t take into account the impact it would have on the agency.
Jack, the semi-retired judge who has become the state’s unofficial foster care czar through some 60 orders aimed at the system over the past decade, “has become too personally involved in the proceedings” to provide even the “appearance of justice” in the high-stakes case, the ruling said.
Her repeated pummeling of state lawyers in court had become a hallmark of her hearings. In one instance recounted in the Friday ruling, Jack expressed frustration that Young — two days out of surgery and still in recovery — couldn’t make the hearing and asked how she was doing.
When the witness said Young had not been heard from, the judge responded, “Nobody cares.”
“When a judge’s actions stand at odds with these basic notions [of fairness and impartiality],” the ruling said, “We must act or suffer the loss of public confidence in our judicial system.”