Barlow-Johnson v. The Center for Youth and Family Solutions

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

KENDRA BARLOW-JOHNSON )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 22-cv-3214

)

THE CENTER FOR YOUTH AND )

FAMILY SOLUTIONS, HAYLEE )

MCAFEE in her individual and )

official capacity, ASHLYN FORE, )

in her individual and official )

capacity, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants The Center for

Youth & Family Solutions, Haylee McAfee, and Ashlyn Fore

(“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (d/e 11). For the foregoing

reasons, the Motion (d/e 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint

(d/e 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety for failure to

state a claim.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff Kendra Barlow-Johnson

(“Plaintiff”) filed a six-Count pro se Complaint against Defendants

The Center for Youth & Family Solutions, a not-for-profit child

welfare agency, and its two caseworker employees, Haylee McAfee,

and Ashlyn Fore (“Defendants”). Count I alleges violation of 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments. Count II alleges violation of Title III of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,

and Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Count III alleges violation of

the Family First Prevention Act (FFPSA), 42 CFR § 1356.21(d).

Count IV alleges violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§

3729–3733. Count V alleges violation of the Bill of Rights, 42

U.S.C. § 9501. Count VI alleges defamation in violation of 28

U.S.C. § 4101.

On December 12, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss all

Counts for lack of federal question subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), as well as for failure to plausibly state a

claim for relief upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (d/e 11). On

December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Response (d/e 14).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

under both Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,

and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotations and

citations omitted). “When a motion to dismiss is based on a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), as well as

other Rule 12(b)(6) defenses, the court should consider the Rule

12(b)(1) challenge first.” Rizzi v. Calumet City, 11 F. Supp. 2d 994,

995 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)).

If the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, the accompanying Rule 12(b)(6) defenses

become moot and need not be addressed. Id.

The standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss

depends on whether a factual or facial challenge has been raised.

Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir. 2015). A factual

challenge contends that “there is in fact no subject matter

jurisdiction," even if the pleadings are formally sufficient. Id. at 444

(emphasis in original). Id. (citing Apex Dig., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck

& Co., 572 F.3d 440, 443 (7th Cir. 2009)). If, as here, a defendant

raises a factual challenge, the court may “look beyond the pleadings

and view any evidence submitted to determine if subject matter

exists.” Id. Moreover, the “presumption of correctness” usually

attributed to a complaint’s allegations “falls away on the

jurisdictional issue once a defendant proffers evidence that calls the

court’s jurisdiction into question.” Saperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d

852, 856 (7th Cir. 1999). Ultimately, the plaintiff must establish

the existence of subject matter jurisdiction by competent proof. Id.

(citing Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading

Comm’n, 149 F.3d 679, 685 (7th Cir. 1998)).

On the other hand, a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint.

Christensen v. Cty. of Boone, 483 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). A

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing the pleader is entitled to relief” that puts the defendant on

notice of the allegations. Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th

Cir. 2002) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The court accepts all

well-pleaded facts alleged and draws all possible inferences in the

plaintiff’s favor. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th

Cir. 2008).

The complaint must put forth plausible grounds to

demonstrate a claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007). A plausible claim is one from which the court is

able to draw reasonable inferences that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663

(2009). Additionally, the complaint must raise a reasonable

expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of liability. Id. at

663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. A complaint merely reciting a

cause of action or conclusory legal statements without support is

insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663.

III. FACTS

The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff Kendra Barlow-

Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint and are accepted as true at the

motion to dismiss stage.

In October 2021, Plaintiff Kendra Barlow-Johnson gave birth

to C.D. at Springfield Memorial Hospital. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶¶ 2, 3. In

January 2021, the Illinois Department of Children and Family

Services (DCFS) had performed an investigation into Plaintiff and

had found a “significant risk for harm” due to DCFS’s concerns that

Plaintiff suffered from a mental health disorder. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 5.

While the Plaintiff does not elaborate on the January 2021 DCFS

investigation, the Court presumes that the investigation relates to

Plaintiff’s other children. On October 24, 2021, a phone call was

placed to the DCFS abuse hotline. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 4. The caller

stated that Plaintiff “needed mental help” and that “the courts and

the judge” instructed the caller and her husband to contact Joe

Dabrowski to report Plaintiff’s pregnancy and subsequent delivery.

Id. On October 24, 2021, DCFS launched an abuse and neglect

investigation at Springfield Memorial Hospital after Plaintiff gave

birth to C.D. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 6, 7. Plaintiff alleges that on the same

day, Springfield Memorial Hospital “seized” C.D. Id. On October

25, 2021, DCFS took protective custody of C.D. Id. On November

8, 2021, Defendant The Center For Youth and Family Solutions (the

“Center”) was assigned to manage Plaintiff’s case through a contract

agreement with DCFS. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants neglected to perform statutorily mandated duties. d/e

1, p. 6, ¶ 9. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hayley

McAfee and Ashlyn Fore, caseworkers at the Center, neglected to

make reasonable efforts to prevent C.D. from being placed outside

the home in foster care, despite Plaintiff agreeing to relocate to her

mother’s home, which has secured access, security surveillance,

and on-sight security personnel. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶¶ 10, 11.

Plaintiff also alleges that she was deprived of constitutional

rights and civil liberties due to the perception that she has a mental

illness. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that she has not been

diagnosed with a mental health disorder, does not have a medical

history of mental illness, and does not suffer from delusions. d/e 1,

p. 6, ¶¶ 12, 13. Plaintiff asserts that she is not a danger to anyone

and has always been capable of meeting the needs of her children.

d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that the Center’s

“unsubstantiated concerns for mental illness, based on speculation,

stereotypes, and generalizations about mental health disorders

rather than facts, resulted in Plaintiff’s family being unnecessarily

separated.” d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 15. Plaintiff also alleges that the Center’s

implemented barriers to family visitations based on its perception

that Plaintiff had a disability, which prevented visitations with C.D.

from taking place. d/e 1, p. 6, ¶ 16.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants failed to conduct the

“initial and ongoing assessments that are required of permanency

workers in case management,” and that the Center’s “permanency

worker copied and pasted the erroneous assessment” from the

January 2021 DCFS investigation. d/e 1, p. 7, ¶ 17.

Plaintiff alleges that she has completed five mental health

evaluations by three different facilities that found no mental health

issues and no medical need for services. d/e 1, p. 7, ¶ 18. Plaintiff

alleges that the Center’s worker presented, documented, and

communicated subjective opinions and false information about

Plaintiff’s mental health status, preventing family unification. d/e

1, p. 7, ¶ 19.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Center’s permanency worker

McAfee and supervisor Fore omitted relevant information by

neglecting to document significant events and exculpatory evidence

from the case record and presented false information to the Court.

d/e 1, p. 7, ¶ 20.

Plaintiff also alleges that the service plan created by the

Center’s permanency worker was not based on accurate information

and that Plaintiff was not involved in the development of the service

plan. d/e 1, p. 7, ¶¶ 21, 22. Plaintiff also asserts that she was not

permitted to choose her own service providers, she was not treated

with dignity and respect, she was not informed, she was not

provided appropriate services and not provided with information for

filing grievances, and that her requests for a change in case

managers or agencies were rejected by the Center. d/e 1, p. 7, ¶¶

23–27.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The Younger Abstention Doctrine Requires The Court to

Abstain From Interfering with Plaintiff’s Ongoing State

Court Proceedings.

Defendants argue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) that the

application of Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine is appropriate

here because all of Plaintiff’s allegations involve her parental rights

to her child, which is the subject of the juvenile proceedings

currently pending in Sangamon County in Illinois State Court. 401

U.S. 37 (19971); d/e 12, p. 6. The Court agrees.

Younger applies in only three limited categories of cases: (1)

criminal prosecutions; (2) civil enforcement proceedings; and (3)

civil proceedings that promote the state’s ability to perform its

judicial functions. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New

Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 368 (1989). If applicable, the Younger

abstention doctrine requires federal courts to abstain from

interfering with ongoing state proceedings that are (1) judicial in

nature, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) offer an

adequate opportunity for review of constitutional claims, (4) so long

as no extraordinary circumstances exist which would make

abstention inappropriate. Green v. Benden, 281 F.3d 661, 666 (7th

Cir. 2002).

In the instant case, abstention is appropriate. Plaintiff’s

ongoing juvenile court proceedings brought by the State of Illinois

implicate Illinois’ important interest in child custody and are still

pending in Sangamon County.1 Garner v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr.,

No. 16 C 10108, 2016 WL 11773850, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2016)

(citing Borum v. Bonk, No. 99 C 2069, 2000 WL 263958, at *1–2

(N.D. Ill. Feb. 29, 2000)) (“Child custody and placement proceedings

traditionally are considered as areas involving important state

interests, and therefore are the province of state courts.”); see

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the orders entered in the Circuit Court of

Sangamon County regarding Plaintiffs’ custody of child C.D. in case number 21

JA 129.

Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979) (holding that Younger

applies to the temporary removal of a child in a child-abuse

context). Additionally, because Plaintiff may raise constitutional

issues during custody proceedings and on subsequent judicial

review, she has a sufficient opportunity to address all such

constitutional claims. See Garner, No. 16 C 10108, 2016 WL

11773850, at *3.

Furthermore, no extraordinary circumstances exist that would

render abstention inappropriate. Plaintiff claims extraordinary

circumstances exist here, specifically, the “gravity of th[e] situation,

the federal question, the irreparable harm sustained by the

Plaintiff’s family, the bad faith intent of these proceedings, and the

history of proceedings.” d/e 14, p. 6. A district court should not

abstain under Younger in the limited circumstances where: “(1) the

state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted

in bad faith, (2) there is an extraordinarily pressing need for

immediate equitable relief, or (3) the challenged provision is

flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional

prohibitions[.]” Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Martinez, 505 F.3d 658, 664

(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Jacobson v. Village of Northbrook Mun.

Corp., 824 F.2d 567, 569–70 (7th Cir.1987)). The party claiming

extraordinary circumstances must demonstrate their existence.

Green, 281 F.3d at 667.

Plaintiff argues that bad faith exists in the state proceedings

for a litany of reasons, including that she was “coerced and

manipulated” into a voluntary safety plan; emergency orders were

granted pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, with “no

claim of abuse”; “custody [] and guardianship [were] decided out of

plenary proceedings”; she was not appointed counsel; “exculpatory

evidence was not allowed”; and “a record of proceedings [was] not

made available.” d/e 14, p. 10. However, the Court finds no

indication that the state juvenile proceedings were conducted in

bad faith. Plaintiff must demonstrate that state prosecution “was

brought in bad faith for the purposes of retaliating for or deterring

the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.” Collins v. Cty. of

Kendall, Ill., 807 F.2d 95, 98 (7th Cir. 1986) (internal citations

omitted). Mere allegations and conclusions of bad faith are

insufficient to warrant the bad faith exception. Crenshaw v.

Supreme Court of Ind., 170 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 1999). The

instances of alleged bad faith described by Plaintiff do not indicate

that Illinois initiated its juvenile proceeding with an intent to

retaliate or deter Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Plaintiff also alleges that her family will suffer irreparable

harm. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not, at least on its face,

request the direct entry of a child custody order. Instead, Plaintiff

seeks a judgment against Defendants whose actions allegedly paved

the way for the state court proceeding for compensatory and

punitive damages. See d/e 1, p. 4. Plaintiff also cites to the

detrimental effect that separation of mother and child has on the

familial unit. d/e 14, p. 9. Allegations of irreparable harm alone,

however, are insufficient to satisfy the “extraordinary

circumstances” exception in Younger. 401 U.S. at 46. In addition

to establishing both “great and immediate” harm, Plaintiff must also

show that the threat to her rights under federal law cannot be

adequately adjudicated in the state proceeding. Younger, 401 U.S.

at 46. Plaintiff has not shown that the state court cannot

adequately address her claims and has failed to show extraordinary

circumstances which would distinguish this case from other child

custody cases in which federal courts routinely apply. See Moore,

442 U.S. at 423.

Although Plaintiff does not directly seek the custody of her

child C.D. in the instant case, Younger is appropriate here because

the resolution of the claims for monetary damages requires the

Court to question the validity of the underlying state proceedings,

which constitute the substance of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court

should normally stay the instant case until the state proceeding is

resolved because Plaintiff cannot bring her damages claim in the

state juvenile proceeding. Green, 281 F.3d at 667; see Nicole K. by

next friend Linda R. v. Stigdon, 990 F.3d 534, 537 (7th Cir. 2021)

(when Younger applies, a federal court has discretion to put any

federal proceeding on hold while a state works its way through an

administrative process that was under way before the federal suit

began). However, the Court finds dismissal appropriate here

because Plaintiff’s Complaint also fails to state a claim.

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which

Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Each of Plaintiff’s claims in her Complaint fail to state a cause

of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The

Court addresses each Count below.

1. Count I is Dismissed Because Defendant the Center

is Not a State Actor.

Plaintiff brings Count I under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

deprivation of civil rights under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments. To establish a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff

must show that the defendant: (1) acted under the color of state law

and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected right.

Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action in Count I under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendants are not “actors under the color

of state law.” See Hallinan v. Fraternal Ord. of Police of Chi. Lodge

No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[The] Fourteenth

Amendment[ ] to the Constitution protect[s] citizens from conduct

by the government, but not from conduct by private actors, no

matter how egregious that conduct might be.”). Section 1983 may

be brought against government employees, and under certain

circumstances, non-government employees who are employed by a

private entity but provide services to the government. Rodriguez v.

Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 823–27 (7th Cir. 2009).

Defendant Center is a private, not-for-profit Illinois child

welfare agency that works for DCFS through a contractual

agreement. Plaintiff alleges that the Center is a state actor by

implying that the existence of a contractual agreement makesthe

Center into a state actor. d/e 14, p. 15. However, the receipt of

public funds alone is insufficient to transform otherwise private

actions into actions of the State. Doe By and Through G.S. v.

Johnson, No. 92 C 7661, 1993 WL 75125, at *4 (N.D. Ill. March 15,

1993) (citing Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011 (1982) and

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 840 (1982)). In Doe, the

Northern District of Illinois found that a private, not-for-profit social

service agency is not a state actor simply because the agency

assists DCFS in placing children into foster care and receives

funding from DCFS for it. Id. at *4. Plaintiff has failed to properly

allege that Defendant Center, and by extension, its employees, is a

state actor. As a result, the Court does not reach Defendant’s other

arguments.

Although the Court has the discretion to permit Plaintiff to file

an amended complaint, it is unnecessary when, as here, the Court

finds that any amendment to the claim raised in Plaintiff's pleading

would be futile. Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014,

1025 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d

801, 807 (7th Cir. 2015) (“District courts, nevertheless, ‘have broad

discretion to deny leave to amend where there is undue delay, bad

faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue

prejudice to the defendants, or where the amendment would be

futile.’ ”) (quoting Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir.

2008)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count I asserting

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fail to state a claim and are dismissed

with prejudice.

2. Count II is Dismissed Because Defendant Center is

Not a Public Entity.

Plaintiff brings Count II under Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. §

791, et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was deprived of

constitutional rights and civil liberties due to the “perceptions of a

mental illness,” which resulted in the separation of her and her

child C.D. d/e 1, p. 6.

The ADA “forbids discrimination against persons with

disabilities in three major areas of public life: employment, which is

covered by Title I of the statute; public services, programs, and

activities, which are the subject of Title II; and public

accommodations, which are covered by Title III.” Tennessee v.

Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 516–17 (2004). While the Plaintiff’s Complaint

identifies Title III of the ADA, d/e 1, p. 3, as Defendants correctly

argue, Title III only authorizes injunctive relief, which Plaintiff does

not seek. Scherr v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 703 F.3d 1069, 1075 (7th

Cir. 2013); d/e 1, p. 4 (seeking compensatory and punitive

damages). Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court

presumes that Plaintiff intended Count II to be brought pursuant to

Title II of the ADA.

In the Seventh Circuit, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act are

“functionally identical.” Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592

(7th Cir. 2015). To state a claim under the ADA and the

Rehabilitation Act, an individual must allege that (1) she is a

qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was denied the benefits

of the “services, programs or activities of a public entity”; (3) she

was denied those benefits or otherwise discriminated against on

account of her disability; and for the Rehabilitation Act claim, the

additional requirement that (4) the defendant is an entity which

receives federal funds. Carter v. City of Chicago, 520 F. Supp. 3d

1024, 1030 (N.D. Ill. 2021).

Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action in Count II under the

ADA or the Rehabilitation Act against Defendants because

Defendant Center is not a “public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131. For

purposes of the ADA, a “public entity” is a “department, agency,

special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or

States or local government.” Id. The Center is not a government

agency. Rather, the Center is a not-for-profit Illinois child welfare

agency that works for DCFS through a contract agreement to assist

DCFS in its statutory duty to administer child abuse prevention

and service programs for abused and neglected children and their

families in the State of Illinois. d/e 12, p. 3, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 1, 3. The

“public entity” definition does not include private organizations that

have business or contractual relationships with public entities, and

Plaintiff does not cite any authority for the proposition that a

private entity becomes an “instrumentality of [the] State” merely by

contracting with a public entity for the provision of some services.

42 U.S.C. § 12131. While the Seventh Circuit has yet to address

this issue, other courts have rejected this interpretation. See

Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307, 1308–10 (11th Cir. 2010) (“a

private corporation is not a public entity merely because it

contracts with a public entity to provide some service”); Maxwell v.

South Bend Work Release Ctr., 787 F.Supp.2d 819, 822 (N.D. Ind.

April 13, 2011) (citing cases). The Court agrees and finds that

although the Center is in a contractual relationship with DCFS to

further DCFS’ goals, the Center itself is not a public entity as

defined by the ADA.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not claimed that Defendant the Center

receives federal funding, which is a requisite to state a claim under

the Rehabilitation Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count

II asserting violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act fail to

state a claim and are dismissed with prejudice. See Luevano, 722

F.3d at 1025 (unnecessary to allow amended complaint when any

amendment to claim raised in Plaintiff’s pleading would be futile).

3. Because the Family First Prevention Services Act

(FFSA), 42 CFR § 1356.21(d), Does Not Create

Enforceable Federal Rights, Plaintiff Cannot State

a Cause of Action in Count III.

Plaintiff brings Count III under the Family First Prevention

Services Act (FFPSA), 42 CFR § 1356.21(d), which provides that

judicial determination regarding reasonable efforts to prevent

unnecessary removal of a child from the home be explicitly

documented for public agencies to receive Title IV-E funding.

Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants McAfee and Fore

violated the FFPSA by “neglect[ing] to make reasonable efforts” to

prevent infant C.D. from being placed outside of the home in foster

care despite alternatives provided by Plaintiff. d/e 1, p. 6. Plaintiff

also argues that 42 CFR § 1356.21(d) creates a substantive federal

right that may be enforced in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

d/e 14, p. 18.

The Court finds that the FFPSA does not contain either an

express or implied provision providing a private right of action.

Plaintiff does not cite to any provision of the FFPSA that provides

for a private right of action. The Supreme Court articulated a four-

factor test to determine whether an implied right of action exists in

a federal statute: (1) whether the plaintiff is among the class of

persons intended to benefit from the enactment of the statute; (2)

whether there is any evidence of legislative intent to provide or deny

a private remedy; (3) whether a private remedy is consistent with

the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) whether

the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law such

that it would be inappropriate to infer a federal remedy. Cort v.

Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975). However, the Court has since focused

its analysis on whether Congress intended to create a private cause

of action. Saltzman v. Farm Credit Servs. of Mid-America, ACA, 950

F.2d 466, 468 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing Thompson v. Thompson, 484

U.S. 174, 179 (internal citation omitted) (“The intent of Congress

remains the ultimate issue . . . and unless this congressional intent

can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory

structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for

implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.”).

The stated purpose of the FFPSA is

to enable States to use Federal funds available under parts

B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide

enhanced support to children and families and prevent

foster care placements through the provision of mental

health and substance abuse prevention and treatment

services, in-home parent skill-based programs, and

kinship navigator services.

Pub. L. No. 115-123, § 50702. As Defendants correctly suggest,

FFSA’s purpose is to govern funding for States to prevent the

placement of children into foster care, and to limit the use of group

home placements, not to provide civil remedies for the actions of

child welfare agencies. Despite Plaintiff’s arguments that Congress

has enacted “several laws in response to the harms caused by social

policy” and that the laws “are meant to direct those in authority

who are unable to direct themselves,” d/e 14, p. 19, Plaintiff fails to

point to any statutory language or legislative history that raises an

inference that Congress intended to create a private right of action

through the FFSA. The Court finds that the FFSA does not contain

an implied private cause of action. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532

U.S. 275, 286-87 (2001) (“courts may not create [a private remedy],

no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter”); Statland

v. Am. Airlines, 998 F.2d 539, 540 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[C]ourts seldom

imply a private right of action where none appears in the statute,

for a strong presumption exists against their creation.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count III asserting

violations of the FFPSA fail to state a claim and are dismissed with

prejudice. See Luevano, 722 F.3d at 1025 (unnecessary to allow

amended complaint when any amendment to claim raised in

Plaintiff’s pleading would be futile).

4. Count IV is Dismissed Because Plaintiff Fails to

Allege Fraud with Particularity, Does Not Bring a

Qui Tam Action, and Does Not Allege Defendants

Presented a False Claim to the Government for

Payment.

Plaintiff brings Count IV under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31

U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. The FCA “makes it unlawful knowingly (1) to

present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for

payment to the United States, (2) to make or use a false record or

statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or (3) to use a

false record or statement to conceal or decrease an obligation to pay

money to the United States.” United States v. Molina Healthcare of

Illinois, Inc., 17 F.4th 732, 739 (7th Cir. 2021). The FCA permits

private citizens, or “relators,” to file a civil action on behalf of the

government to recover monies that the government paid on account

of the false claims, referred to as qui tam actions. 31 U.S.C. §

3730(b)(1); United States ex rel. Yannacopoulos v. Gen. Dynamics,

652 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir. 2011).

Claims under the False Claims Act include four components:

“(1) falsity, (2) causation, (3) knowledge, and (4) materiality.”

Molina, 17 F.4th at 740. To survive a motion to dismiss, the

complaint must allege that (1) defendant made a false claim or

statement to receive money from the government, (2) the violation

proximately caused the alleged injury, (3) defendant knew that the

claim or statement was false, and (4) defendant’s misrepresentation

was material to the government's payment decision. Id. at 739–40.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s FCA claim for failure to state a

claim for several reasons. First, because a claim under the FCA

involved fraud, the complaint must overcome a heightened pleading

standard under Rule (b). To bring a claim under Section

3729(a)(1)(A) or Section 3729(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must allege

“specific facts demonstrating what occurred at the individualized

transactional level.” Lanahan v. Cty. of Cook, 41 F.4th 854, 861–62

(7th Cir. 2022). This includes “the identity of the person making

the misrepresentation, the time, place, and content of the

misrepresentation, and the method by which the misrepresentation

was communicated” to the government.” Id. (cleaned up). Plaintiff’s

complaint does not offer any details about the alleged fraud besides

a general assertion that Defendants “omitted relevant information

from the case record and presented false information to the court.”

d/e 1, p. 7. Such a conclusory assertion, without any supporting

details or information, fails to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Second, claims for violations of the FCA may only be brought

by private actors on behalf of the federal government in a qui tam

action. 31 U.S.C. § 3730. The federal government has no monetary

interest in Plaintiff’s dispute with the Center, and Plaintiff is not

seeking to bring this claim on behalf of the government; rather, she

appears to bring the claim because she disagrees with how

Defendants McAfee and Fore handled her child C.D.’s case.

Third, while Plaintiff alleges that Defendants McAfee and Fore

misrepresented information to the court, Plaintiff makes no

allegations that Defendants presented a false claim to the

government for payment. See Molina, 17 F.4th at 739.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count IV asserting violations of

the False Claims Act fail to state a claim and are dismissed with

prejudice. See Luevano, 722 F.3d at 1025 (unnecessary to allow

amended complaint when any amendment to claim raised in

Plaintiff’s pleading would be futile).

5. Because the Mental Health Bill of Rights, 42 U.S.C.

§ 9501, Does Not Create Enforceable Federal

Rights, Plaintiff Cannot State a Cause of Action in

Count V.

Plaintiff brings Count V under the Mental Health Bill of Rights,

42 U.S.C. § 9501, which provides:

It is the sense of the Congress that each State should

review and revise, if necessary, its laws to ensure that

mental health patients receive the protection and services

they require; and in making such review and revision

should take into account the recommendations of the

President's Commission on Mental Health and [certain

recommendations specified in the statute].

42 U.S.C. § 9501. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Center

permanency worker created a service plan based on inaccurate

information, that Plaintiff was not involved in the development of

the service plan, that Plaintiff was not permitted to choose her own

service providers, that Plaintiff was not informed, that Plaintiff was

not provided appropriate services, and that Plaintiff’s requests for a

change in case managers was rejected by the Center. d/e 1, ¶¶ 21–

27. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s claim, the Court presumes that

Plaintiff intended to argue that 42 U.S.C. § 9501 created a

substantive federal right that may be enforced in an action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

However, the Mental Health Bill of Rights does not create

enforceable federal rights or duties or a private right of action. See

Green v. Lichtstein, No. 00 C 0563, 2001 WL 78915, at *3 (N.D. Ill.

Jan. 26, 2001) (citing cases). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations in

Count V asserting violations of the Mental Health Bill of Rights fail

to state a claim and are dismissed with prejudice. See Luevano,

722 F.3d at 1025 (unnecessary to allow amended complaint when

any amendment to claim raised in Plaintiff’s pleading would be

futile).

6. Count VI Is Dismissed Because Defendants Have

Qualified Immunity and the Court Declines to

Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction.

Plaintiff brings Count VI for defamation in violation of 28

U.S.C. § 4101. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “copied

and pasted the erroneous assessment” from the previous DCFS

investigation and that Defendant “presented, documented, and

communicated subjective opinion[s] and false information about the

claimant[’]s mental health status, behavior, action, and

statement[s].” d/e 1, p. 7.

Section 4101 does not provide a cause of action for defamation

and pertains only to foreign defamation judgments. Section 4101

has no applicability to Plaintiff’s case as there is no allegation of a

foreign defamation judgment. However, liberally construing

Plaintiff’s claim, the Court presumes that Defendant intended to

bring an Illinois state law claim of defamation.

Under Illinois law, to state a claim for defamation, the plaintiff

must allege (1) that the defendant made a false statement

concerning her and (2) that the defendant caused an unprivileged

publication of that false statement to a third party, (3) which

damaged the plaintiff. Kransinski v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 530

N.E.2d 468, 471 (Ill. 1988). In Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff refers

to general defamatory remarks, but fails to specify what remarks

allegedly defamed her. The only allegedly defamatory remark

Plaintiff identifies is in her Response: “Justin was chasing Kendra

with a hammer.” d/e 14, p. 22. Plaintiff fails to allege that this was

an unprivileged publication to a third party.

Moreover, Defendants enjoy qualified immunity from civil suit.

Under Illinois’ Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (ANCRA),

as licensed case workers and a child welfare agency, Defendants are

in the class of persons required to report if they have “reasonable

cause to believe a child known to them in their professional or

official capacity may be an abused child or a neglected child.” 325

ILCS 5/4(a); see d/e 12, Ex. 1, ¶ 5 Under ANCRA, mandated

reporters “shall have immunity from any liability, civil, criminal or

that otherwise result” from reports made in “good faith.” 325 ILCS

5/9. As mandatory reporters, Defendants have a presumption

protecting them from Plaintiff’s state tort claims unless Plaintiff can

overcome it. See Sebesta v. Davis, 878 F.3d 226, 231 (7th Cir.

2017). Plaintiff makes no allegations of bad faith as to any allegedly

defamatory statement in her Complaint or her Response.

Furthermore, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims,

the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any

state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

allegations in Count VI asserting violations of defamation fail to

state a claim and are dismissed with prejudice.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

(d/e 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (d/e 1) is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety for failure to state a claim.

Because amendment would be futile, leave to file an amended

complaint is not granted. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case

and enter judgment. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

ENTERED: September 8, 2023.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Sue E. Myerscough

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE