Land v. Anderson

• Citation: 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 717,55 Cal.App.4th 69
• Decision Date: 20 May 1997
• Docket Number: No. B094688,B094688
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3824, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6439 Capitola LAND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eloise ANDERSON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant. Jean McCRUMBY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eloise ANDERSON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant. Maria LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eloise ANDERSON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

Page 717

63 Cal.Rptr.2d 717

55 Cal.App.4th 69, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3824,

97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6439

Capitola LAND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eloise ANDERSON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

Jean McCRUMBY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eloise ANDERSON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

Maria LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eloise ANDERSON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B094688.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

May 20, 1997.

Review Denied July 30, 1997.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Charlton G. Holland, Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sanders, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Robin T. Gertler, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Appellant.

Barbara A. Jones, Marjorie Shelvy, and Kirk McInnis, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

BARON, Associate Justice.

This appeal raises the issue of whether indigent children who did not reside with their parent or other legal guardian for more than six months prior to the date that the Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") petitioned to officially remove them from custody of the parent or guardian can establish the "AFDC linkage" needed to qualify for federal foster care payments under former section 672 of title 42 of the United States Code. Each of the children involved here had been abandoned by his or her biological parents to the care of relatives more than six months prior to the date that DCFS filed a petition to remove from parental custody and place with a foster family. In each case, the petitions were granted and the children formally placed in the custody of the relatives who had been voluntarily assuming their care prior to the petition. Each of the children was receiving benefits under the federal Aid to Families With Dependent Children ("AFDC") program through payment to the relative with whom they were residing at the time the petition to remove from parental custody was filed. In addition, each of the children would have been eligible for AFDC benefits had they been residing with their parent. But, according to regulations issued by the State Department of Social Services ("the Department"), none were eligible for federal foster care payments because they were not linked to AFDC through living with the parent from whose custody they were "removed" during the six-month period prior to the date the petition was initiated.

Two trial courts in three separate decisions concluded that the Department violated the plain meaning of the governing statute, and granted the writ petitions of respondents Capitola Land, Maria Lopez, and Jean McCrumby, invalidating the regulations, and ordering the Department to reverse the denial of federal foster care payments. In addition, the Department was ordered to pay the attorney fees of respondents Land and Lopez. After careful review of the statutory provisions, the legislative history, the intent of Congress, and the purpose of the law, we concur with the trial courts, and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Land v. Anderson

On December 1, 1990, or a few months thereafter, respondent Capitola Land's Respondent Land petitioned for a writ of mandate, seeking an order reversing the denial of federal foster care benefits. The trial court granted the petition and ordered the Department to issue federal foster care payments to respondent on behalf of Sade retroactive to September 1992. Subsequently, the court instructed the Department to pay $14,995 in attorney's fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962.

granddaughter, Sade, was left at John Land's house by Sade's mother (respondent's daughter and Mr. Land's niece). Mr. Land applied for and received AFDC benefits for Sade. DCFS filed a petition to remove Sade from the care and custody of her mother on October 30, 1991. Mr. Land became seriously ill, and died in August 1992. Sade went to live with respondent in July 1992. In September of 1992, respondent's request for federal foster care benefits was denied by DCFS, acting on behalf of the Department. Respondent appealed, and the hearing officer reversed the denial because Sade had received AFDC benefits during the period from [55 Cal.App.4th 73] December 1, 1990, through August 21, 1992, while living with her great uncle. The Department's director did not adopt the hearing officer's determination, but upheld the decision to deny benefits because "the child, Sade L., did not live with her mother or her father during any of the six months prior to or during the month in which the October 30, 1991, petition was filed with the Juvenile Court, which led to the child's removal from her parents' custody and placement in foster care."

Lopez v. Anderson

Evelyn R. and Iliana R. lived in Puerto Rico with their mother. In October of 1990, Puerto Rico's Department of Social Services removed the children, along with another sibling, and placed them with a maternal aunt, Brunilda Gomez, in California. In June of 1991, Gomez wrote to DCFS stating that she was arranging with respondent Lopez to care for Evelyn and Iliana. The children began living with respondent on September 7, 1991. Respondent's receipt of AFDC benefits for Evelyn and Iliana was effective June of 1991. DCFS filed a petition to remove the girls from the mother's custody on August 12, 1993. At that same time, DCFS signed a relative caregiver agreement with respondent. The petition was granted on September 23, 1993, officially removing the girls from their mother and placing them with respondent.

Respondent's request for federal foster care payments was denied by DCFS on September 15, 1993, on the ground that Evelyn and Iliana did "not meet all eligibility requirements for federal participation in AFDC-FC [the federal foster care program]." Respondent requested a hearing. The hearing officer concluded that respondent was not entitled to federal foster care payments because, to meet the requirements, the child must either have been living in the home of the parent from whom removed during the month the petition was filed or within six months prior to the filing date.

Respondent Lopez filed a petition for writ to overturn the determination. The trial court granted the writ, ordering the Department to approve federal foster care benefits for respondent on behalf of Iliana and Evelyn effective September 1993. As in the Land matter, the court later ordered payment of attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962, this time in the amount of $26,186.

McCrumby v. Anderson

Respondent McCrumby's daughter has had nine children, all of whom have been removed from her custody, six of whom were placed with respondent. Deshone D. was informally placed with respondent at birth in May 1988. In August 1988, the mother abandoned Frederick B. and George R., and respondent picked them up and informed the DCFS case worker that the children were with her. Derrick J. was placed with respondent McCrumby by DCFS in December 1989, after being in foster care with a non-relative for two months. Penelope J. and Kenisha H. were also placed with respondent at birth in May of 1991 and April of 1992, respectively. DCFS filed a petition to officially remove Deshone, Frederick, George, and Derrick from their mother on October In June of 1993, respondent's request for federal foster care payments on behalf of all these children was denied by DCFS because there was insufficient information to determine the financial situation of the children's mother. At the subsequent administrative appeal, the hearing officer concluded: (1) that denial was proper as to George and Frederick because their removal from the mother's home was informal in that there was no court ordered placement; (2) that denial was proper as to Derrick, Penelope, and Kenisha, because DCFS was unable to establish their eligibility for AFDC through their mother; and (3) that denial was proper as to Deshone for both reasons.

26, 1989. The petition to remove Penelope was filed in May of 1991; the petition to remove Kenisha was filed in April of 1992.

Like respondents Land and Lopez, McCrumby petitioned the trial court for relief from the denial of her request for federal foster care payments. While the petition was pending, DCFS located the mother, and was able to establish AFDC linkage for Derrick, Penelope, and Kenisha. The trial court concluded that Deshone, Frederick, and George were eligible as of the date of the October 1989 petition to remove them from their mother.

The Department noticed timely appeals from the judgments entered in all three cases, and from the subsequent orders awarding attorney's fees in the Land and Lopez cases. All the appeals were consolidated.

DISCUSSION

I

Under the federal AFDC program applicable here, ¹ federal funds were made available to those states which 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 program was elective, once a state chose to join, its plan had to 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. (County of San Mateo v. Dell J. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1236, 1242, 252 Cal.Rptr. 478, 762 P.2d 1202; County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 738-739, 97 Cal.Rptr. 385, 488 P.2d 953.) One of the requirements for participation in the AFDC program was that the state have in effect a state plan for foster care. (County of San Mateo v. Dell J., supra, at p. 1243, 252 Cal.Rptr. 478, 762 P.2d 1202.)

Section 672(a) of title 42 United States Code defines those children for whom federal foster care payments must be made available by the states. During the period...