431 F.Supp. 40 (N.D.Ill. 1976), 73 C 635, Youakim v. Miller
|Docket Nº:||73 C 635.|
|Citation:||431 F.Supp. 40|
|Party Name:||Marcel YOUAKIM et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jerome MILLER, Individually and as Director of the Department of Children and Family Services and the Department of Children and Family Services, of the State of Illinois, Defendants.|
|Case Date:||July 27, 1976|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 7th Circuit, Northern District of Illinois|
Patrick A. Keenan, Detroit, Mich., Kenneth Kandaras, Robert E. Lehrer and James D. Weill, Legal Assistance Foundation, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Wm. J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KIRKLAND, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court for consideration of plaintiffs' claim that the statutory scheme of the Illinois foster care program, specifically Illinois Revised Statutes ch. 23 ss 2212.05, 2212.17, and 5005, is in conflict with Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. ss 601 et seq.
This suit was commenced as a class action to enjoin the operation of the Illinois foster care payment scheme. Because the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the operation of a scheme established by state statute, a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ss 2281, 2284. Under the Illinois scheme foster parents who provide homes for unrelated children receive monthly foster care payments (AFDC-FC) of $105.00 per child from the Department of Children and Family Services, while foster parents who provide homes for related children do not receive such payments. Related foster parents, instead, are eligible for smaller AFDC payments from the Illinois Department of Public Aid.
The three-judge court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Illinois scheme "does not deny plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws." 374 F.Supp. 1204, 1210 (N.D.Ill.1974). The Supreme Court, in vacating the three-judge court judgment and remanding, noted that
"the circumstances justify . . . our dealing with the issue of conflict between state and federal statute at least to the extent of vacating the judgment below and remanding the case for consideration of the claim that the Illinois foster care program is in conflict with the Social Security Act." Youakim v. Miller, 425 U.S. 231, 234, 96 S.Ct. 1399, 1401, 47 L.Ed.2d 701 (1976).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are Marcel and Linda Youakim, husband and wife, and Linda's four minor brothers and sisters. All four minors were
adjudged wards of the State in 1969. Two of the children have been living with their related foster parents, the Youakims since 1972; the other two children have been living in two separate unrelated foster care facilities since 1969. Because plaintiff Linda Youakim is related to her two foster children, the Youakims are ineligible for foster care payments (AFDC-FC) under the Illinois Child Care Act. Illinois Revised Statutes ch. 23 s 2212.17. 1 The Youakims did apply for and are receiving the smaller AFDC payments for both children. Illinois Revised Statutes ch. 23 ss 4-1 et seq. 2
Plaintiffs allege injury resulting in the financial inability to provide adequate care for their foster children and to bring the remaining two children into their foster home. Plaintiffs argue that the Illinois scheme violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Youakims also contend that the Illinois scheme denies related foster families equal protection of the laws by discriminating against wards of the State and their relatives who are financially unable to provide foster homes for the wards without full foster care payments.
On remand from the Supreme Court, plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin enforcement of the State statutes involved pursuant to Rule 65(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, to grant summary judgment against defendants pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants ask that this Court deny plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and grant summary judgment in their favor.
THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs contend that Illinois attempts to add an...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP