PROVIDENCE — In sharply worded legal briefs, opposing lawyers are arguing about whether a federal judge should dismiss a sweeping class-action lawsuit that alleges widespread abuse of children in state foster care.

Among other issues, lawyers from the attorney general’s office and the Department of Children, Youth & Families are challenging whether three adults should be allowed to pursue the lawsuit on behalf of seven foster children.

“It is clear from the testimony of the self-proclaimed ‘next friends’ that they have no personal knowledge regarding the named children’s current placement, treatment and services and, therefore, they cannot speak to whether or not their decision to involuntarily subject those children to the jurisdiction of this court is in the child’s best interest,” defense lawyers say in a memo of law filed Feb. 15 in U.S. District Court.

Child Advocate Jametta O. Alston filed the suit with backing from Children’s Rights, a nonprofit New York City organization with experience in child-welfare class actions, and they are seeking class-action status on behalf of the 3,000 children in state custody, aiming for an overhaul of Rhode Island’s child-welfare system.

“Although federal courts across the country have exercised their jurisdiction to hear similar claims brought by plaintiff children against their state custodians, defendants ask this court to take the extraordinary act of declining to exercise its jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ federal claims and dismiss this case on the basis of four legally and factually flawed arguments,” plaintiffs lawyers’ say in a memo of law filed Feb. 29.

The three adults meet the requirement that “next friends” be dedicated to the children’s best interests, the plaintiffs’ lawyers say, adding that the state has moved the children around, preventing them from forming meaningful relationships with other adults.

“To bar the named plaintiffs from vindicating their federal statutory and constitutional rights simply because they have not had the opportunity to develop close relationships with adults who can represent them in federal court would be to penalize them for being caught in a dysfunctional child welfare system that has harmed them,” plaintiffs’ lawyers say.

Defense lawyers zero in on the fact that Brown University sociology Prof. Gregory C. Elliott, who is representing five of the children, has never met the children and does not know their real names. (Pseudonyms are used in the lawsuit.)

During a Jan. 24 hearing, Elliott said that while the children might experience “some discomfort” while taking part in the litigation, “the amount of stress or discomfort that would be involved in their participation is so much less than the circumstances that they are under now, that I think it would be important for them to take part in this case.”

Defense lawyers say, “Professor Elliott’s willingness to submit five children ranging in age from 1½ years old to 12 years old to federal court proceedings and discovery is an extremely presumptuous statement when he has absolutely no knowledge regarding the children’s current placement or services, and the only documents he has reviewed are the untested allegations in the complaint. In fact, subjecting these children to this lawsuit could just as well have a detrimental effect on them and their current placements.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers say Elliott researches the causes and consequences of child maltreatment and he has demonstrated he is “truly dedicated to the best interests” of the children.

“While he does not yet know the five children he has agreed to stand up for, his professional expertise makes him particularly well-qualified to understand and have insight into their individual needs in this case,” they say.

Also, plaintiffs’ lawyers say, “Defendants’ speculations about some theoretical ‘detrimental effect’ on the named plaintiff children from being ‘subjected’ to federal litigation are at once presumptuous, disingenuous and irrelevant.”

There is no requirement that “next friends” review certain documents, let alone confidential documents, such as Family Court orders and medical records, nor is there a requirement that “next friends” have contact with the children before filing such a lawsuit, especially when DCYF controls access to the children in its custody, plaintiffs’ lawyers say.

Defense lawyers also are challenging Mary Melvin’s qualifications to represent one of the children in the litigation, saying Melvin was the boy’s foster parent 10 years ago.

And they are challenging Kathleen Collins’ qualifications to represent another boy, saying Collins is a Providence school psychologist who worked with the boy individually about a dozen times.

Federal courts have suggested a “next friend” must have some significant relationship with the person they’re representing, defense lawyers say.

And they say, “It is clear that these three individuals do not have a ‘significant relationship’ or, in fact, any current relationship with the children they seek to represent.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers say a significant relationship is not legally required and that, in any case, Melvin and Collins do have significant relationships with the children they are representing. Also, they say, “Foster children have appeared in federal court to vindicate their rights through similar next friends in a legion of cases.”

Defense lawyers also contend that the state child advocate lacks the authority to file or pursue the case in federal court, saying the legislature empowered Alston to advocate for children in state Family Court.

“As such, the child advocate’s pursuit of this federal lawsuit is an attempt to make an end run around the Family Court, thereby usurping the judicial branch’s authority,” defense lawyers say.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers disagree, saying, “It is clear that the legislature did not intend to bar the child advocate from bringing federal actions, and this court should decline defendants’ invitation to rewrite Rhode Island law to reach a contrary conclusion. Such a bar would run counter to not only the intent of the legislature, but also to the past two-and-a-half decades of judicial precedent in which the child advocate has successfully brought federal actions against state entities, including DCYF, on behalf of Rhode Island children in foster care.”

efitzpat@projo.com