This case was settled in 2016 and the settlement included a promise by DCFS to craft a new mental health policy and procedure and to end the use of mental illness as a risk category during its safety assessment.86 Most notably, the settlement included a provision that DCFS would clarify and revise its standards for removing children from their home and implementing safety plans.87 By clarifying the safety plan protocol to investigators and case workers, DCFS began reorienting how safety plans were used to allow them to be beneficial to children instead of unjustly separate them from their parents.
84 Id.; Julie Q. v. Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 995 N.E.2d 977, 986 (Ill. 2013).
85 Complaint at 3, L. W. v. Simpson, Case N. 1:13-cv-8463, available at http://www.familydefensecenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/L. W.-v.-DCFS-Filed-Complaint-11-22-13.pdf.
86 Id.; Memorandum Opinion and Order, L.W. v. DCFS, N. 1:13-cv-8463, available at http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2013cv08463/290284/43/.
88 W.M. v. Giscombe, Civil Action No. 15-cv-305, available at http://www.familydefensecenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/Complaint-File-Stamped.pdf.
92 Rights and Responsibilities, supra note 81.
93 W.M. v. Giscombe, Civil Action No. 15-cv-305, available at http://www.familydefensecenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/Complaint-File-Stamped.pdf.
95 2016 Settlements, supra note 80; Hernandez, 657 F.3d 463 (holding that either probable cause or exigent circumstances are constitutional requirements for removing a child).