Immigrant children forcibly drugged with 'powerful' psychotropics at Texas 'treatment center': lawsu

[scipan]

41. this is the article referenced, dated 2014.

Federal agency's shelter oversight raises questions
By Susan CarrollDecember 19, 2014 Updated: December 20, 2014 11:30pm

(snip)
For years, children in custody at Shiloh have complained of physical abuses and painful restraints, a review of state licensing reports shows. Nearly four years ago, the state shut down another treatment center founded by the same Texas businessman after the death of a foster child who'd been restrained in a closet. The Brazoria County district attorney wrote letters to ORR months later, urging the federal government to increase monitoring at Shiloh.

Despite the warning and complaints, ORR exempts treatment centers like Shiloh from its policy requiring shelters to notify it each time a child is restrained or injected with "emergency medicine" - potent psychotropic drugs. The agency has not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Houston Chronicle in January for monitoring reports and other communication with Shiloh.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Federal-agency-s-shelter-oversight-raises-5969617.php

I don't know how much is new here. Apparently Shiloh is a center for troublesome cases and has a history of physical and mental abuse, and injecting psychotropic drugs to minors without oversight. I don't know what its status is now.

Following links to the original Raw Story article led me to this case: Flores v Jefferson B Sessions et al.
There is an opinion (below, bold is mine) by an appellate court saying plaintiffs have a right to a court hearing.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1867061.html
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
JENNY LISETTE FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; THOMAS E. PRICE, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services; JOHN KELLY, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-55208
Decided: July 05, 2017
Before: Reinhardt, Tashima, and Berzon, Circuit Judges.
OPINION

In this case we apply the straightforward tools of statutory construction in order to determine what the statutes before us are designed to do and not do. In performing this task we, of course, start by examining the words of the statutes. We then look to the statutes' clear purpose and intent. Specifically, we ask whether, without even mentioning the subject, the statutes invalidate a key provision of a consent decree to which the government is bound. In the process, we encounter a bureaucratic maze of alphabet agencies and examine how they can work together to carry out their shared and overlapping statutory duties. In the end, however, we arrive at a simple answer to our question. If Congress had intended to terminate the settlement agreement in whole or in part, it would have said so.