The Arkansas Supreme Court said Thursday that Juvenile Court Judge Earnest E. Brown Jr. did not overstep his authority when he ordered the Arkansas Department of Human Services to correct the problem of a caseworker who was handling too many cases.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court said Brown was not attempting to micromanage DHS, but rather telling them to fix problems that were preventing them from performing services to the public.
The ruling came after a dependence-neglect proceeding in Brown’s court. At a permanency-planning hearing July 13, 2011, Brown was told that DHS had failed to draft and put a case plan in place.
The caseworker told Brown that because of her workload, she had not had time to draft a case plan.
From the bench, Brown told DHS officials that the caseworker “does a good job. She’s handled some very difficult cases and I would like to see her remain employed there. I think she’s very experienced.”
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Brown said he had been told by DHS officials what the average case load is supposed to be for a worker in Pine Bluff.
“Forty-one cases, especially the type of cases she has is too many, and I want that rectified within five days of today’s court order,” Brown said. “She’s got too many cases, and I don’t want nobody else to get 41 either as a result of it, but there’s some deficiency in the system if that particular thing happens there.”
In the appeal, DHS claimed that Brown had exceeded his jurisdiction but a majority of the court disagreed with that argument.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Jim Hannah said the juvenile code was designed to assure that all juveniles who come into the court system receive the best care and guidance they can from the court.
“Further, the circuit court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of the proceedings and to safeguard the rights of the litigants before it,” the ruling said. “At issue is a failure of DHS to fulfill its obligations under the Juvenile Code.
“The circuit court acted well within its jurisdiction to protect minors and assure that the necessary services are being delivered,” Hanna said in the ruling. “Additionally, the circuit court was acting within its authority to control and protect the integrity of the proceedings and rights of the litigants.”
Hanna said DHS “focuses on whether the circuit court has invaded its province, when a simple reading of the discussion in court and the order indicates the circuit court is not interested in running DHS, rather it is interested only in getting from DHS what it is obligated to provide.”
Justice Paul Danielson in a dissenting opinion, said the court ruling “goes too far and allowing it to stand sets a horrible precedent.
“While it may seem like a minor issue given the facts of this case, and while the majority certainly presents it as such, upholding this order sets precedent for a circuit court to direct any state agency to comply with its desire for how it should operate,” Danielson wrote.
Danielson also said the majority was wrong when they determined that Brown was not trying to micromanage DHS.
“When Brown ordered DHS to correct the problem of a caseworker having too many cases, there is no other way to interpret that order but that DHS was being instructed to reassign some of that particular caseworker’s cases,” Danielson said. “That statement, to me, makes it more evident that the circuit court wrongly believed it had some sort of management authority. It did not.”
Justices Robert Brown and Donald Corbin joined Danielson in the dissent.