Leonard v. Wagner
| Decision Date | 08 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | A126135,No. 507449,507449 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JOSHUA LEONARD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN WAGNER, as Director, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The California Department of Social Services (the Department) administers the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, which provides financial assistance on behalf of needy children in foster care. Every eligible foster child may receive AFDC-FC benefits until age 18. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11401.1) However, an eligible foster child may continue to receive benefits for up to an additional year until the age of 19, if before the age of 18 the child is attending high school or the equivalent level of vocational or technical training on a full-time basis, or is in the process of pursuing a high school equivalency certificate, and the child may reasonably be expected to complete the educational or training program or to receive the high school equivalency certificate, before the age of 19. (§ 11403; hereinafter also referred to as the graduation by 19 requirement.)
Plaintiff Joshua Leonard, as a taxpayer, sought a writ of mandate, and declaratory and injunctive relief, on the ground the Department's enforcement of section 11403discriminated against certain 18-year-old foster children, who, by reason of their disabilities, cannot reasonably be expected to meet the graduation by 19 requirement. The trial court agreed, declaring that the graduation by 19 requirement "discriminates against youth with disabilities," in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and Government Code section 11135. We now reverse, and hold the federal and state anti-discrimination laws are not violated by the Department's enforcement of the graduation by 19 requirement in section 11403.
California provides financial assistance to foster care children and their foster care parents, pursuant to the AFDC-FC program. (Sections 11400 through 11469.1.) "California's program for foster care benefits is really two programs, one involving the use of federal funds, the other financed by the state alone." (King v. McMahon (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 648, 653 (King).)
"The first of the two foster care programs is the joint federal-state foster care program ('federal program'), partially funded by the federal government and administered by the state." (King, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 653, fn. omitted; see 42 U.S.C. §§ 672, 674, 675, subd. (4)(A).)2 As a participant in the federal foster careprogram, California has submitted a state plan and has enacted its own statutory scheme in Welfare and Institutions Code (§ 11400 et. seq.), designed to comply with federal requirements. (County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 739; California Welfare Rights Organization v. Carleson (1971) 4 Cal.3d 445, 453.) Once a state agrees to participate in the AFDC-FC program it must comply with federal requirements; otherwise the state is not entitled to receive matching federal funding. (42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(b); see Aughe v. Shalala (W.D. Wash. 1995) 885 F. Supp. 1428, 1430 (Aughe)) "For foster children who do not meet federal criteria, California has its own foster care program funded entirely by the state" (state program). (King, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 654, fn. omitted.) "State foster care eligibility provisions are much broader than those of the federal program" in that "many categories of recipients that would not be covered under any other AFDC program are covered under state AFDC-FC." (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
Section 11403 provides that a foster child is eligible to receive AFDC-FC benefits if either (a) he is "under the age of 18 years," (§ 11401), or (b) he is in foster care, receiving AFDC-FC aid, attending high school or the equivalent level of vocational or technical training on a full-time basis, or in the process of pursuing a high school equivalency certificate, before his 18th birthday, and "following his or her 18th birthday so long as the child continues to reside in foster care placement, remains otherwise eligible for AFDC-FC payments, and continues to attend high school or the equivalent level of vocational or technical training on a full-time basis, or continues to pursue a high school equivalency certificate, and the child may reasonably be expected to complete the educational or training program or to receive a high school equivalency certificate, before his or her 19th birthday...." (§ 11403.)
When section 11403 was amended in 1983, the state Legislature declared that benefits were to be provided "to the extent federal funds [were] available." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 63 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) 4 Stats. 1983, Summary Dig., p. 192.) From 1983 to 2005, the language in section 11403 mirrored the language used in the then applicable federal provision granting additional AFDC-FC benefits to foster children between the ages of 18 and 19. (Compare Stats. 1983, ch. 551, § 6, p. 2377 with former 42 U.S.C. § 606.) In 2005, the state Legislature amended section 11403 to provide that foster children may receive AFDC-FC funds beyond age 18 if they were also pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. (Stats. 2005, ch. 641, § 3.) The benefits paid to additional recipients added by the 2005 amendment are part of the state program only. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1633 (2005 Reg. Sess.).) The amendment 3
In 2007, plaintiff Joshua Leonard filed a joint petition for writ of mandate and verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (pleading) against defendants the Department and its director John Wagner (hereinafter also referred to collectively as the Department). The pleading alleged two causes of action: one pursuant to the ADA, which prohibits a public entity from discriminating against or denying benefits to a qualified individual with a disability by reason of such disability; and one pursuant to Government Code section 11135, which provides that programs or activities funded directly by the state or receiving any financial assistance from the state shall meet the protections and prohibitions contained in the ADA.
In support of both causes of action, plaintiff alleged, in relevant part, that the Department's enforcement of section 11403 was discriminatory because it denied AFCD-FC benefits, and failed to make reasonable modifications, for 18-year-old foster children who, due to their disabilities, could not meet the graduation by age 19 requirement. Plaintiff sought the following relief: (1) a declaration that the Department's terminationof AFDC-FC benefits pursuant to 11403, as applied to foster care children whose disability prevented them from complying with the graduation by age 19 requirement, violated the ADA and Government Code section 11135; (2) a permanent injunction (Code of Civ. Proc. § 526a4) prohibiting the Department from spending money to implement section 11403, (3) a writ of mandate (Code Civil Proc., § 1085 5) prohibiting the Department from terminating AFDC-FC benefits to 18-year-old foster children who could not meet the graduation by age 19 requirement due to a disability, and (4) an order awarding plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
After a hearing, the court granted judgment in favor of plaintiff. In its judgment filed on September 2, 2009, the court incorporated an order, dated and filed July 6, 2009, entitled "Order Granting Writ of Mandate," which set forth the court's findings. Specifically, the court declared the graduation by 19 requirement in section 11403 discriminated against disabled 18-year-old foster children in violation of the ADA and Government Code section 11135. The court also determined the Department had a "policy and practice" of terminating AFDC-FC benefits of disabled 18-year-old foster children who could not met the graduation by 19 requirement. Because the Department had not shown the State would be unduly burdened by making a reasonable accommodation in the AFDC-FC program for those 18-year-old disabled foster children, the court directed the Department: (1) "to comply with the [ADA]... and to develop a remedial plan to address and correct the discrimination currently in place in the AFDC-FC program..."; and (2) to "instruct counties to cease terminating AFDC-FC benefits to otherwise eligible [foster] children who reach 18 and [were] not reasonably expected to" meet the graduation by 19 requirement "due to disability." 6 Defendants timely appeal.7
The Department raises various challenges to the trial court's ruling granting plaintiff both declaratory and injunctive relief based on his claim that the graduation by 19 requirement in section 11403 discriminates against 18-year-old foster children, who, due to their disability, cannot meet the requirement. We recognize that the state Legislature has chosen to eliminate the graduation by 19 requirement as a condition of the receipt of section 11403 benefits for foster children between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial