County of San Mateo v. Dell J.

• Citation: 762 P.2d 1202,46 Cal.3d 1236,252 Cal.Rptr. 478
• Decision Date: 31 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. S002243,S002243
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 762 P.2d 1202, 57 USLW 2297 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DELL J., SR., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 478

252 Cal.Rptr. 478

46 Cal.3d 1236, 762 P.2d 1202, 57 USLW 2297

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DELL J., SR., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. S002243.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Oct. 31, 1988.

[46 Cal.3d 1238] James J. Hartford, Redwood City, for defendants and appellants.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ann K. Jensen and Mary A. Roth, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.

EAGLESON, Justice.

Do principles of equal protection announced by this court in In re Jerald C. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 1, 201 Cal.Rptr. 342, 678 P.2d 917 prohibit a county from seeking reimbursement from the parents of a minor child of an Aid to Families With Dependent We hold that the county's statutory entitlement, under both state and federal law, to reimbursement from the family of such a minor for AFDC-FC funds expended for his support and maintenance in a foster care facility--exclusive of any costs attributable to confinement, rehabilitation, treatment or supervision--does not violate equal protection.

Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) grant [762 P.2d 1203] used to support the minor who, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, ¹ was declared a ward of the juvenile court and placed in a foster care group home?

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The minor, Dell J., Jr., who has a history of emotional disturbance, was initially referred to the juvenile court by the County of San Mateo (hereafter county or respondent) Child Protective Services because of an incident involving the sexual abuse of a sibling. He subsequently committed a violation of Vehicle Code section 10852 (vehicle tampering) which led to his being declared a ward of the court pursuant to section 602 on July 29, 1982. He was removed from the family home and placed in a nonsecure foster care group home facility. In August 1982, the probation department obtained an AFDC-FC grant from the county for support of the minor. The county then commenced this action against the minor's parents for child support and reimbursement, pursuant to section 11350, which section mandates compulsory reimbursement from the minor's family for AFDC-FC funds paid to a foster care facility on the minor's behalf. ²

The probation officer in charge of the minor's placement testified that his commitment "was related to the home situation," and that treatment was one of the primary purposes for his placement in the foster care group home. Although the protection of society is also an element of such a commitment, it was not the "primary reason" for the minor's removal and placement in this case.

The minor was first placed in the Children's Home of Stockton, a private foster care facility, from August 1982 through December 1983. Children are housed therein two to a room. Generally speaking they are not permitted to leave the grounds without permission, although the staff is not allowed to lock the children in. The facility has no fences, locked doors, or guards, and is not locked down at night. Therapists are available to treat the children, and there is an on-grounds school. Children may also be authorized to attend outside public schools.

In January 1984, the minor was transferred to the EE Foster Residential Group Home in San Jose. That facility consists of five private residential homes, each having beds for six children, each with one full-time and one part-time counselor. It accepts section 300 (dependent/neglected) children as well as section 602 wards; all are evaluated and treated identically with respect to supervision, treatment and rehabilitation. The children are allowed out into the community depending upon their individual privileges. Although the group home environment is more "structured" than the ordinary family home, "rehabilitation" may include counseling, entertainment, and field trips to sporting events or concerts. Like the Children's Home of Stockton, there are no guards and the facility is unlocked. While at the EE Foster Home the minor attended outside public school.

It was established that during the minor's placement at the Children's Home of Stockton, payment of AFDC-FC funds was made directly to the facility at the rate of $1,579 per month. During his stay at the EE Residential Group Home, payment was made to that facility at the rate of approximately $1,855 per month.

The executive director of the EE Residential Group Home testified that the aggregate monthly support and maintenance costs (food, clothing, shelter, transportation) per child ranged from $350 to $600, depending upon the age-group of the child. The average monthly component cost of food per child was $75. A "very conservative" estimate of the monthly cost of clothing for each child was $18. Similar expenses were incurred for these items at the Children's Home of Stockton facility. ³

Evidence was also taken regarding the parents' financial ability to reimburse the county. It was determined that during all relevant periods appellants were living together and capable of providing the minor with a home but for the involuntary placement. They have two other children who were living at home. Dell J., Sr., the minor's father, is a union machinist who earned an average gross monthly income of $2,055. Sara J., the minor's mother, was a graduate student and worked one day a week, grossing approximately $400 per month.

During the nonjury trial, the court requested submission of further written points and authorities on the controlling statutes and case law. Although the county's complaint prayed for, inter alia, reimbursement of the entire amount of the AFDC-FC grant, at the close of its case-in-chief, the county took the position that if the court were to find that Jerald C. proscribed reimbursement of that portion of the funds covering costs attributable to confinement, treatment or rehabilitation, then a support order of $225 per month would be "reasonable" in light of all the evidence theretofore presented. ⁴

On November 19, 1984, the superior court rendered its proposed decision awarding judgment to the county for $2,511 in arrearages (based upon a monthly reimbursement rate of $93--calculated to include only the average monthly cost of the minor's food ($75) and clothing ($18)), and $93 per month current support as long as the child continued in his current placement. The county's request for a wage assignment was denied without prejudice. Commencing November 1, 1984, appellants were ordered to pay the sum of $125 per month ($93 current support plus $32 toward arrearages). A settled statement of decision was filed on April 22, 1985; judgment was thereafter entered on June 5, 1985. This appeal followed.

In reversing, the Court of Appeal relied on our lead opinion in Jerald C. ⁵ to hold it a violation of equal protection to require reimbursement from the parents for AFDC-FC funds used to support their minor child who is declared a ward of the court pursuant to section 602 for commission of criminal acts and involuntarily removed from the family home. The court reasoned that among the obvious objectives served by such involuntary placement was the protection of society from possible future criminal acts by the minor, as well as protection of his family. Mistakenly relying on the lead opinion in Jerald C. for the proposition that it is the purpose and derivation of the commitment, not the source of funds used to pay for it, which is dispositive in an equal protection analysis, the Court of Appeal concluded that the cost of maintaining a section 602 ward outside the family home for the benefit of society could not arbitrarily be charged to one class of society, e.g., his parents.

I

In order to meaningfully address the equal protection issue presented here, it is necessary to first review in some detail the controlling federal and state laws and policies governing the AFDC benefit program under which the county was seeking reimbursement.

Federal Law

AFDC is an elective federal grant-in-aid program under title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) through which states with approved plans receive federal funds in order to provide aid and services to needy families with dependent children. (King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309, 325, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2137, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118; Garcia v. Swoap (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 903, 909-910, 134 Cal.Rptr. 137.) The program has been characterized as an exercise in " 'cooperative federalism....' " (Mitchell v. Swoap (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 879, 883, 113 Cal.Rptr. 75.)

Under the AFDC program "federal funds [are made] available to those states which have submitted and had approved by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare ... a plan for aid and services to needy families with children. Although the AFDC program is elective, once a state chooses to join, its plan must comply with the mandatory requirements established by the [Social Security] Act, as interpreted and implemented by regulations promulgated by [the Department of Health, Education and Welfare]. (See also King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. 309, 316-317 .)" (County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 738-739, 97 Cal.Rptr. 385, 488 P.2d 953.) The plan must be in effect statewide and must be administered by a single state agency. (42 U.S.C. § 602(a).) Reports must be submitted periodically to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for verification of compliance. (Ibid.)

One of the requirements for participation in the AFDC program is that the state have in effect a state plan for foster care assistance. (42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(20).) AFDC-FC payments can be made on behalf of a qualifying child placed outside of the family home, whether that placement be pursuant to voluntary agreement entered into by the child's parent(s), "or as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation [in the family home] would be contrary to the...