Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Social and Health Services, No. 62879-3
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | GUY; SANDERS; DURHAM |
| Citation | 133 Wn.2d 894,949 P.2d 1291 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON STATE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; Anita Elliott and her minor child, Justin, through his guardian ad litem, Anita Elliott; Stanley and Marie Hill, and their minor children, Bayyinah, Aqila, Stanley, Tamika and Habibah, through their guardians ad litem, Stanley and Marie Hill; Kerry Coughlin and her minor children, J.C., J.V. and L.V., through their guardian ad litem, Bradford Kinsey; Elizabeth Sanders and her minor children, A.S., E.S. and S.S., through their guardian ad litem, Elizabeth Sanders; and other persons similarly situated; Respondents, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; and Richard Thompson, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services; and their successors, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 62879-3 |
Page 894
and her minor child, Justin, through his guardian ad litem,
Anita Elliott; Stanley and Marie Hill, and their minor
children, Bayyinah, Aqila, Stanley, Tamika and Habibah,
through their guardians ad litem, Stanley and Marie Hill;
Kerry Coughlin and her minor children, J.C., J.V. and L.V.,
through their guardian ad litem, Bradford Kinsey; Elizabeth
Sanders and her minor children, A.S., E.S. and S.S., through
their guardian ad litem, Elizabeth Sanders; and other
persons similarly situated; Respondents,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES; and Richard
Thompson, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Department of Social and Health
Services; and their
successors, Appellants.
Decided Dec. 24, 1997.
[949 P.2d 1295]
Page 899
Christine Gregoire, Atty. Gen., Michael Collins, Trisha McArdle, Asst. Attys. Gen., for Appellants.Page 900
Michael Mirra, Columbia Legal Services, Lori Salzarulo of Garvey, Schubert & Barer, Seattle; Carol Vaughn, Thompson & Howle, Seattle, Tacoma, for Respondents.
Anne D. Rees, Jill Reinmuth, Seattle, amicus curiae for Alliance for Children Youth, et al.
GUY, Justice.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Department of Social and Health Services has an enforceable duty, under RCW 74.13.031(1), to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated plan for providing services to this state's homeless children. This appeal also raises questions regarding the existence and scope of any statutory or constitutional duty the Department may have to provide housing assistance to homeless families whose children are placed in foster care primarily because of inadequate housing.
We hold that the duties set forth by the Legislature in RCW 74.13.031(1) are clear and are mandatory. The statute requires the Department to provide child welfare services and to "[d]evelop, administer, supervise, and monitor a coordinated and comprehensive plan that establishes, aids, and strengthens services for the protection and care of homeless, runaway, dependent, or neglected children."
Page 901
The Department has not complied with this statute insofar as homeless children are concerned. We also hold that implicit in the dependency statute, RCW 13.34, is a grant of authority to the trial court to order the Department to provide some form of housing assistance in any case in which homelessness is a primary factor in the decision to place or to keep a child in foster care. The form of assistance may vary, depending on the needs of the family, the resources of the Department, and the availability of public and private aid in the community. This assistance could take many forms. For example, it could include helping a family to find affordable housing by offering transportation, consultation, referrals or assistance in filling out forms; or waiving foster care payments in order to make housing funds available to the family; or providing those funds, when available through the Department; or obtaining housing or assistance from federal, state, local or private agencies. We reject the plaintiffs' arguments that federal statutes provide a private right of action against the State and, because we resolve the case on state statutory grounds, we decline to decide the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs.It is undisputed by the parties that homelessness is a serious, widespread problem in [949 P.2d 1296] our state and that it has a devastating effect on children.
The stipulated facts and the unchallenged findings of fact in this case show the following:
* The majority of Washington's homeless are families with small children.
* In fiscal year 1990, 171,000 homeless persons in Washington sought emergency shelter. Approximately 115,000, including an estimated 37,000 children, were turned away from shelter due to lack of space.
* In fiscal year 1991, of the people who were admitted to emergency shelters, approximately 7,900 were families
Page 902
with 17,200 minor children. Of those children, 75 percent (more than 12,000 children) were under the age of 11 years. During this same period of time approximately 23,500 families, with 49,800 children, were turned away from shelters because of lack of space.* These figures estimating the number of homeless persons in Washington are conservative.
* As low cost private housing has disappeared, the number of families who are homeless has increased. Homeless families with children are in every county of Washington State.
* Homelessness has significant adverse effects upon the growth and development of children.
This action was filed in 1991 against the Department of Social and Health Services and its Secretary (hereafter referred to collectively as DSHS or Department) on behalf of the class of children and their parents living in Washington who are homeless or who are threatened with becoming homeless.
The plaintiffs are the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless, an association of agencies and organizations which provide shelter and other services to homeless families with children and which advocate on behalf of the homeless, and certain named individual homeless children and their parents who represent the certified class. 1
In its complaint, the Homeless Coalition alleges that actions and failures to act on the part of DSHS toward homeless children and their families violate state and federal statutes and state and federal constitutional provisions. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages.
Both parties appeal from three separate orders entered
Page 903
by the trial court over a three-year period. DSHS appeals from an order declaring that the Department is mandated by RCW 74.13.031(1) to develop, administer, supervise, and monitor a coordinated and comprehensive plan that establishes, aids and strengthens services for homeless children. DSHS also appeals the trial court's determination that the Department failed to comply with RCW 74.13.031(1). Finally, DSHS appeals the trial court's ruling that a juvenile court hearing a dependency case may require DSHS to provide some form of housing assistance if homelessness is the primary reason for foster placement or the primary factor preventing reunification of the family.The Coalition cross-appeals from an order dismissing its claims for relief based on federal law and federal and state constitutional provisions, and appeals the order which limits the circumstances under which a dependency court may order DSHS to provide housing assistance.
An amicus curiae brief was filed in support of the Coalition's position by the Alliance for Children, Youth, and Families; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the Church Council of Greater Seattle; the Northwest Women's Law Center; the Washington Academy of Family Physicians; the Washington Association of Churches; the Washington State Psychological Association; and YouthCare.
We granted direct review and now affirm the trial court.
1. Does RCW 74.13.031(1) require the Department of Social and Health Services to [949 P.2d 1297] create and implement a coordinated and comprehensive plan for providing services to this state's homeless children?
2. If RCW 74.13.031(1) does create such a duty, has DSHS complied with the statutory mandate?
3. Do RCW 13.34 and RCW 74.13 authorize the judiciary to order DSHS to provide housing assistance in order to prevent or shorten foster care placements?
Page 904
4. Are the provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 enforceable in a private action?
5. Do homeless children who are threatened with foster care placement have a federal or state constitutional right to housing assistance as the least restrictive alternative to an out-of-home placement?
1. Interpretation of RCW 74.13.031(1)
RCW 74.13.031 provides:
The department [of Social and Health Services] shall have the duty to provide child welfare services as defined in RCW 74.13.020, and shall:
(1) Develop, administer, supervise, and monitor a coordinated and comprehensive plan that establishes, aids, and strengthens services for the protection and care of homeless, runaway, dependent, or neglected children.
The first issue is whether this statute requires DSHS to develop and implement a plan for providing services to homeless children. This issue is one of statutory interpretation and our review is de novo. See Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 128 Wash.2d 508, 514-15, 910 P.2d 462 (1996). The duty of the court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the Legislature, as expressed in the statute as a whole. See Tommy P. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 97 Wash.2d 385, 391, 645 P.2d 697 (1982). If a statute is unambiguous, its meaning is to be derived from the language of the statute alone. See Geschwind v. Flanagan, 121 Wash.2d 833, 841, 854 P.2d 1061 (1993); Cherry v. Municipality of Metro. Seattle, 116 Wash.2d 794, 799, 808 P.2d 746 (1991). An unambiguous statute is not subject to judicial construction, and we will not add language to a clear statute even if we believe the Legislature intended something else but failed to express it adequately. See Geschwind, 121 Wash.2d at 841, 854 P.2d 1061; Adams v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 38 Wash.App. 13, 16, 683 P.2d 1133 (1984).
Page 905
The Department argues that the statute is unclear, thus requiring this court's construction, in part because the word "homeless" is ambiguous. The Department's contention is that "homeless" children, as used in the statute, refers only to those children who have no family and no home and who, because of their status as orphans, would, therefore, fit within the definition of "dependent" children.
RCW 74.13 does not define "homeless" children....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braam v. State, No. 72598-5 (Wash. 12/18/2003), No. 72598-5
...to determine whether injunctive relief is available. See, e.g., Wash. State Coalition for the Homeless v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 912, 949 P.2d 1291 We find that all of these statutes are for the especial benefit of foster children. However, we find no evidence of legi......
-
Braam ex rel. Braam v. State, No. 72598-5.
...injunctive relief is available. See, e.g., Wash. State Coalition for the Homeless v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 912, 949 P.2d 1291 We find that all of these statutes are for the especial benefit of foster children. However, we find no evidence of legislative intent to c......
-
Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co., No. 65945-1
...188, 199, 949 P.2d 1366 (1998); Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 905, 949 P.2d 1291 (1997), and we do so in this case. The dictionary defines "artificial" as 1: contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes......
-
Washington State Republican Party v. STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE …, No. 67442-6.
...of major public importance. Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 917, 949 P.2d 1291 (1997). A justiciable controversy, for the purposes of issuing a declaratory judgment, "`(1) ... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the......
-
Braam v. State, No. 72598-5 (Wash. 12/18/2003), No. 72598-5
...to determine whether injunctive relief is available. See, e.g., Wash. State Coalition for the Homeless v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 912, 949 P.2d 1291 We find that all of these statutes are for the especial benefit of foster children. However, we find no evidence of legi......
-
Braam ex rel. Braam v. State, No. 72598-5.
...injunctive relief is available. See, e.g., Wash. State Coalition for the Homeless v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 912, 949 P.2d 1291 We find that all of these statutes are for the especial benefit of foster children. However, we find no evidence of legislative intent to c......
-
Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co., No. 65945-1
...188, 199, 949 P.2d 1366 (1998); Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 905, 949 P.2d 1291 (1997), and we do so in this case. The dictionary defines "artificial" as 1: contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes......
-
Washington State Republican Party v. STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE …, No. 67442-6.
...of major public importance. Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 917, 949 P.2d 1291 (1997). A justiciable controversy, for the purposes of issuing a declaratory judgment, "`(1) ... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the......
-
CONFRONTING INDETERMINACY AND BIAS IN CHILD PROTECTION LAW.
...a range of assistance that falls short of subsidizing housing. Wash. State Coal. for the Homeless v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 949 P.2d 1291, 1295 (Wash. 1997); see also In re Nicole G., 577 A.2d at 250 (describing "stopgap" assistance in the form of a security deposit and "first f......