IV.       The Terms Of The Settlement, As Incorporated In The Stipulation

The settlement provides that DCFS will: maintain a "heightened credible evidence" standard for indicating child care employees, which requires consideration of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence before indicating any child care employee for child abuse or neglect; provide an Administrator’s Teleconference for child care workers upon a recommendation to indicate them for child abuse and/or neglect; provide the right to request an expedited appeal hearing for child care workers who have been indicated for child abuse and/or neglect; maintain certain notices sent to persons indicated, for child abuse and neglect and certain notices and forms used during child abuse and neglect investigations;   maintain the use of a redaction checklist for  investigative files sent to persons appealing indicated findings; and provide timely hearings and timely Final Administrative Decisions to child care workers. 

The settlement also provides that the court will appoint a compliance monitor ("Monitor") for a minimum two-year term, beginning on the date the court gives its final approval to the settlement, if it gives such approval. Effective on the same day, the DuPuy I claims and the DuPuy III notice claims of the unnamed members of the class will be dismissed without prejudice (meaning, in part, that the court will retain the continuing authority to enforce defendant’s agreements respecting those claims, if he does not abide by such agreements).  Also effective on the same date, the named representatives of the class will release (promise no longer to litigate against defendant) their DuPuy I claims and their DuPuy III notice claim) but also subject to the continuing authority of the court to enforce defendant’s agreements respecting such claims if he does not abide by such agreements.  (The claims so released by the named representatives are referred to herein as the “discharged claims”).^[2]

The monitor will file reports with the court at six-month intervals regarding whether the defendant is in substantial compliance with the terms of the stipulation. The Stipulation sets forth specific compliance standards on which DCFS's substantial compliance will be determined. The parties will each have the opportunity to file a pleading in response to the Monitor’s six-month reports. The court may conduct court proceedings or order corrective measures as it deems appropriate. The Monitor will file a final report at the conclusion of the two-year reporting period as to whether the Department has been in substantial compliance with the Stipulation.    

At the conclusion of the Monitor’s term, the court will review the Monitor's reports and any other comments or objections filed by the parties, determine if DCFS has been in substantial compliance with the Stipulation throughout the reporting period and whether it has such policies and practices in place as will ensure such compliance in the future.  If the court finds DCFS has been in substantial compliance with the Stipulation and has policies and practices in place to ensure substantial compliance in the future, the court will dismiss the plaintiff class members’ claims with prejudice (meaning, in part, that the unnamed class members cannot relitigate these claims against the Director or his successors).  If the court finds that DCFS has not been in substantial compliance with the Stipulation or does not have policies and practices in place to ensure substantial compliance the court may conduct court proceedings or order further relief as it deems reasonable and appropriate, including continuing the term of the Monitor.  However, when the court finds DCFS to have been in substantial compliance with the Stipulation, then the DuPuy I claims and the DuPuy III notice claim of the unnamed class members will be dismissed with prejudice, with one exception. The exception relates to claims that DCFS must maintain written Rules, Procedures, notices and policies that conform with the DuPuy I preliminary orders. These claims will remain dismissed without prejudice for two years or until the Court finds that such written directives or form conform to these orders, whichever period is longer, at which time those claims too will be dismissed with prejudice. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel will file a petition for their reasonable attorneys’ fees, reimbursable expenses, and costs incurred in the DuPuy I phase of the Lawsuit over the more than nine year period during which the litigation has been pending.  Plaintiffs’ counsel has waived their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the DuPuy III notice claim.  Defendant may object to plaintiffs’ counsel’s petition for reasonable attorneys fees, reimbursable costs and expenses and the court will conduct proceedings as it deems appropriate. No plaintiff class member will be required to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs.

V.        Why Plaintiffs' Attorneys Believe That The Stipulation Incorporates A Fair, Adequate, And Reasonable Settlement of Plaintiffs' DuPuy I Claims And DuPuy III Notice Claim, And That This Court Should Finally Approve The Settlement

Absent the proposed settlement, the likely prospect is that the DuPuy I and DuPuy III phases of the Lawsuit would go on for at least two or three more years and the continuation of the litigation would pose some risk to plaintiffs that the relief that was ordered in DuPuy I and the relief they were seeking in DuPuy III would ultimately be denied to them, in whole or in part.  Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that the settlement promises a substantial benefit to the plaintiff class that ultimately might be denied them, entirely or in part.

DCFS’s implementation of the requirements of the Stipulation will be through a comprehensive compliance monitoring system overseen by a court-appointed Monitor.  Even if plaintiffs prevailed at trial, there was no certainty that the court would have ordered such a comprehensive compliance monitoring system since the law does not mandate appointment of a compliance monitor in cases such as this one.

The proposed settlement provides DCFS a means of ultimately ending federal court oversight of the policies and practices plaintiffs at issue in DuPuy I and III.  For two reasons, however, plaintiffs’ counsel deem this aspect of the proposed settlement adequate to protect plaintiffs’ interests.  First, since 2003, when the preliminary injunction order was entered, DCFS has been filing reports with the court and already made progress toward compliance with the preliminary injunction orders, which mirror the principal provisions of the Stipulation.  Second and more importantly, the Stipulation provides that both the monitor and federal court oversight must  remain in place until the court finds not only that DCFS has been in substantial compliance with the Stipulation throughout the reporting period of the Monitor, but also that it has policies and practices in place that will ensure that, after direct federal court oversight ends, DCFS will keep in effect the policies and practices it has agreed to in the Stipulation.

VI.       This Notice And Its Publication

The court has ordered this notice to be published on the World Wide Web and the principal location at which the notice will appear is www.DuPuyclassnotice.com. (The notice will also appear on DCFS’s website.)  This notice is being published on the World Wide Web because the law requires that, before plaintiffs are permitted finally to settle, voluntarily dismiss, or compromise any claims they presented in this lawsuit, members of the class must be given: (a) "reasonable" notice of such settlement, dismissal or compromise; (b) an opportunity to object to such settlement, dismissal or compromise before and at a fairness hearing held to assist the Court in determining whether it should finally approve any proposed settlement, dismissal or compromise as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Additionally, the attorneys for the plaintiff class will maintain a dedicated phone line for class members or their attorneys to call at 312/651-1801 to request a copy of the Stipulation or ask questions about the case.  Each attorney for the plaintiff class identified in §III above will also maintain a reference to this notice and the dedicated phone line on their individual voice mails.

VII.     Objecting To The Stipulation As Incorporating A Fair, Adequate And Reasonable Settlement Of The DuPuy I Claims And The DuPuy III Notice Claim

            The Fairness Hearing. The court will hold a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement on February 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2119 of the Dirksen Building 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604.  At this hearing, the court will consider whether this settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and whether finally to approve it.  If there are any objections from class members to the settlement, the court will consider them.  Sometime after the fairness hearing, the court will issue as ruling as to whether the settlement should be approved or disapproved.

            How to Object to the Dismissal.  If you are a plaintiff class member, you can tell the court that you object to the proposed settlement and the reasons for your objections. To object, you or your lawyer must send a letter to any one of the class counsel listed above that includes the following: the name and number of the lawsuit (DuPuy v. Samuels, 97 C 4199 (N.D. Ill.); a statement of each objection you have and a summary of the basis for the objection; a description of any support for the objection(s) you wish to provide; a statement of whether or not you or your lawyer will appear at the fairness hearing to present your objections orally, and how long you believe you or your lawyer will need to do so; and copies of any documents you or your lawyer will present at the fairness hearing.

Class members' objection letters and any other materials must be mailed and postmarked not later than February 12, 2007, which is ten days before the fairness hearing.  Any timely objections that plaintiffs' counsel receive will, promptly after their receipt of them, be submitted to the court and to defendant's counsel.

3.         Do Class Members and Objectors Have to Come to the Fairness Hearing?

 No. Class counsel will answer any questions the court may have; those questions, if any, may be based on class members' objections, but may also be based on any factors the court deems relevant. However, whether or not you object, you may come to the hearing, but at your own expense. Only plaintiff class members, their lawyers, and defendant’s lawyers as well, will be permitted to speak at the hearing. Remember, however, that plaintiff class members and their lawyers will be permitted to speak at the fairness hearing only if they have filed a timely written objection and stated in that objection that they want to be heard orally at the fairness hearing, as described in §VII.2 above.

VIII.    Getting More Information

This notice summarizes the history of this litigation and plaintiffs' claims and an explanation of the proposed settlement. If any class member wishes to find out more about the history of the litigation, plaintiffs' claims, or the Stipulation, then (s)he or his or her lawyer is free to examine the publicly accessible court file in the case, which will be available at either the Clerk's Office for United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, or the Clerk’s Office for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The Clerk's Office for the Northern District is on the 20th Floor and the Clerk’s Office for the Court of Appeals is on the 27th Floor of the Dirksen Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. Moreover, if, after reviewing the notice and/or having accessed the dedicated phone line, class members or their attorneys still have questions, they may contact Diane L. Redleaf, one of plaintiffs' attorneys, at 312/356-3201.  Neither class members nor their lawyers should contact the court directly about the Lawsuit, the Stipulation or the fairness hearing.  Nor should such class members or their lawyers contact DCFS investigators or other DCFS employees, or employees doing work under contract for DCFS with questions about the lawsuit or the Stipulation, or expect DCFS or POS employees to offer information about these matters.

Notice Approved By:

Dated:

                   __________                   

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

United States District Judge

Exhibit A

The certified plaintiff class in this case is defined as follows. (Order, March 22, 1999, as amended April 19, 2004).

(a)      all persons (unless excluded as class members under the last paragraph of this definition) who have been, are being or will be named as perpetrators of child abuse or neglect in “indicated reports” (as defined in the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, 325 ILCS 5/3) placed in the Illinois “State Central Register” (the “SCR,” referenced in 325 ILCS 5/7.7) on or after June 17, 1995;

(b)       all persons (unless excluded as class members under the last paragraph of this definition) who were named as perpetrators of child abuse or neglect in “indicated reports” (as defined in the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, 325 ILCS 5/3) placed in the Illinois “State Central Register” (the “SCR,” referenced in 325 ILCS 5/7.7) prior to June 17, 1995 if, on or after that date, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) discloses or will disclose such reports (or any information in such reports) to persons outside the SCR (including persons employed by DCFS or its assigns) other than the perpetrator, or such reports (or the information in such reports) are or will be accessed by such persons outside the SCR.

(c)     the custodial parent or guardian of a class member as defined in ¶(a) or (b) herein, if the class member is under 18 years of age.

                The persons referred to as being “excluded as class members” in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the class definition are persons named as perpetrators in indicated reports: whose reports have been removed from the SCR pursuant to 325 ILCS 5/7.14; or who have been parties to a criminal proceeding under the Illinois Criminal Code or a civil proceeding under the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, and in such a proceeding, a court, in a final non-appealable order, has determined that such acts or omissions upon which the indicated report is based constitute child abuse or neglect.

(d)     any person (except an “excluded alleged perpetrator” under the language following this paragraph) who, on or after June 17, 1995, has been named, in a report to the DCFS Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, as a possible perpetrator of child abuse or neglect or whom DCFS, in a child abuse or neglect investigation conducted (in whole or in part) on or after June 17, 1995, has investigated, is investigating or will investigate as a possible perpetrator of child abuse or neglect (any such “possible perpetrator” being referred to herein as an “alleged perpetrator”) who during the pendency of any DCFS investigation of child abuse or neglect, or thereafter, has been, is or will be required by DCFS, under threat of protective custody, to adhere to and/or carry out one or more of the following conditions, put forth in any DCFS protective plan, safety protection plan, safety plan or directive:

        (1) a condition prohibiting or restricting, physical and/or verbal contact between any such person and his or her biological or adopted child, or, if the alleged perpetrator is a child, a condition prohibiting contact between the alleged perpetrator and his or her parents or legal guardians or any other adult relatives who live with the alleged perpetrator; or

        (2) a condition prohibiting any such person’s spouse, child, parent or legal

 guardian from residing in the home with him or her,

        A person who is an “excluded alleged perpetrator” under ¶(d) of this class definition is any alleged perpetrator who is also a person who has been or is a party to a criminal proceeding under the Illinois Criminal Code or a civil proceeding under the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, or a civil proceeding under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, or any other civil proceeding adjudicating familial interests, and as the result of such a proceeding, there is in effect a court order that imposes on him or her conditions that are the same as the conditions in, or includes within it the conditions that are described in or referenced in ¶ (d)(1) or (d)(2).