A Madison non-profit organization that serves as a home for foster children is battling the state’s foster care system in a dispute that has landed in court.

The Alabama Department of Human Resources, which includes the state’s foster care system, suspended referrals of foster children to the Madison organization, Kids to Love, over what DHR says are “serious violations” of standards to be met by child placement agencies.

Related: Alabama couple gives $1M estate to Kids to Love children’s charity

Kids to Love says DHR has not been forthcoming about the violations and, after three months of attempting to address the issues with DHR, received a temporary restraining order to block the DHR placement suspension. DHR is asking the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals to strike down that restraining order.

In its filing, Kids to Love said it believed DHR would remove children from Kids to Love-affiliated facilities and foster parents. The temporary restraining order, in addition to lifting the placement ban, also prohibits DHR from removing children from their homes “without a show of safety risk or harm to the child.”

“With the Department’s intent of removing the children from Kids to Love’s facilities and foster families, multiple children will be disrupted, retraumatized, and removed from safe, stable, loving homes; and the Department will continue to use its authority and coercive power to attempt to force current and prospective foster families to be licensed through it,” Kids to Love argued in its request for the restraining order. “The Department’s removal of children will result in at least 36 safe and stable placements for children rendered useless.”

The legal case file that began with Kids to Love asking for the restraining order on Sept. 12 has now been sealed by Madison County Circuit Judge Donna Pate after DHR raised concerns about private information of children in the foster care system being made public through the court filings.

Kids to Love, founded in 2004 by former Huntsville television news anchor Lee Marshall, operates foster care facilities as well as a private child placement agency, according to its website. It also provides an array of other services for foster children, such as clothing and other items if needed and giving a Bible to every child. The organization in 2023 topped the $1 million mark over the last 19 years in awarded scholarships to foster children for certification training, trade schools and college.

“The Department of Human Resources, based on the information we’ve received, instructed the various counties to stop referring cases to Kids to Love,” said Patrick Hill, an attorney for Kids to Love. “So Kids to Love has facilities, such as the Davidson home, where foster children can go to. They have Kids to Love foster families, and the Kids to Love foster homes that the children can go to. But DHR, because of these differences they’ve had with kids to love, earlier this summer, have just stopped all referrals.”

DHR declined to comment, citing pending litigation, when contacted by AL.com.

In its response to the temporary restraining order, DHR said that Kids to Love’s licenses with the state “contain no guarantees for any referrals to or placements of DHR’s children.

In a redacted June 15 letter to Kids to Love entered in the court file, DHR outlined its concerns with Kids to Love “based upon actions taken in recent months”:

• Kids to Love’s involvement in a custody case of two siblings and its resistance to providing certain health records of one of the siblings as well as the posting of a photo of the siblings on social media by Kids to Love that violated confidentiality. Kids to Love also emailed the juvenile judge involved in the case with the siblings, “which was highly inappropriate.” Kids to Love also interfered with the “permanency plan of adoption” of the siblings.
• In another case, Kids to Love posted a photo of a child on Facebook that violated confidentiality standards. Kids to Love also made a “public misrepresentation” of a foster care case.
• A redacted county’s DHR objected to the posting of a photo of a foster child in the custody of that county’s DHR that raised concerns about confidentiality and safety.
• Other incidents in which DHR said Kids to Love has made public misrepresentations about its role in the foster care system and specified one case where Kids to Love included information about the IQ of a child that violated confidentiality.

“State DHR will monitor your compliance with the Minimum Standards and is hopeful that you will (be) willing to take the necessary steps to ameliorate these issues,” the letter said in conclusion.

In its request for the restraining order, Kids to Love said DHR sent a private memo June 15 – the same day as the letter from DHR to Kids to Love — to the DHR directors in Alabama’s 67 counties informing them of the placement suspension for Kids to Love.

In the court filing, Kids to Love said it sent a letter to DHR the next day asking for more information about its concerns and received no response. Kids to Love also argued in the filing that its 14th Amendment due process rights had been violated by DHR because no corrective plan was communicated by DHR.

Following the June 15 letter, Kids to Love said in its filing its first response from DHR came Sept. 8.

“In its response, the Department did not articulate deficiencies or safety concerns to children, any corrective action, or any administrative remedy for Kids to Love,” the Kids to Love filing said. “It merely responded that it questions Kids to Love’s involvement in a specific case and that case is on appeal, insinuating that no decision on the placement ban will take place before the decision on appeal is rendered.”

Kids to Love said it responded Sept. 10 that it is not involved in the issues of the case, the appeal or the outcome and asked again for DHR to “articulate the reasons for the continuing ban on placement of children in Kids to Love facilities and with Kids to Love licensed foster families.”

There was no immediate response from DHR and Kids to Love sought the temporary restraining order to block the referrals two days later.

Meanwhile, in a hearing last Friday, Judge Pate chastised DHR attorney Felicia Brooks after the state agency sent a notice to five county DHR officers suggesting the temporary restraining order issued by the judge affected the placement of children.

“We believe it was an intentional effort by DHR to mislead juvenile court judges,” Hill, the attorney for Kids to Love, said during the hearing.

Pate repeatedly questioned Brooks about the notice. She responded that it was DHR’s legal position that the temporary restraining order had such an impact. Pate eventually told Brooks she was “incorrect” in that interpretation. The judge also ended the hearing by saying she would be in contact with the juvenile court judges to inform them that the restraining order does not affect the placement of children.

“I’m very disturbed by this,” Pate said, adding that she does not have the jurisdiction to instruct another judge on a case.

Pate also ordered that DHR not send the notice to any other juvenile courts.