California Department of Social Services - State Hearings
Division
Notes from the Training Bureau - September 18, 1997
| Item 97-09-01A Recent Court Cases |
Bass v. Anderson Peremptory Writ of Mandate 749590-8
On June 6, 1997, the Alameda County Superior Court held that there is neither state nor federal authority to recoup AFDC foster care overpayments. The court found that Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) §11004 does not provide statutory authority to recoup such funds. Effective immediately, judges should grant claims where the county is attempting to recoup a foster care overpayment.
Ortega v. Anderson
CDSS All-County Letter (ACL) 97-30 dated May 1, 1997, advised that an Alameda County Superior Court had ordered CDSS to allow for the needs of an undocumented alien spouse living with an AFDC AU. CDSS ACL 97-37 rescinded ACL 97-30 and states that implementation of new regulations to allow for the needs of an undocumented alien spouse is delayed until about December 1, 1997.
Pereira-Goodman v. Anderson (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 864, 63 Cal. Rptr. 197
On April 29, 1997, the California Court of appeal, First Appellate District held that a former welfare recipient who is not currently receiving public assistance, is not entitled to an administrative "fair hearing" under the provisions of W&IC §10950, in order to contest the calculations of a county’s district attorney, acting as the administrator of the Child Support Enforcement Services (CSES) program, concerning the amounts payable to appellant [Pereira-Goodman] on her claim for enforcement of prior accruals of child support obligations under the provisions of Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act.
The decision held that the appellant was not an applicant nor recipient of public social services payments, and was not contesting a decision of the county welfare department.
On July 16, 1997, the California Supreme Court denied cert. on this case and declined to depublish this decision. This means that Pereira-Goodman is a final decision.
This decision raises two jurisdictional issues, standing (as to who can be a claimant) and subject matter jurisdiction (as to what issue(s) can be considered at a hearing).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
It is the position of the CDSS that pursuant to Pereira-Goodman, there is no subject matter jurisdiction to review ANY child support collection or distribution issue, regardless of whether the claimant is a current or former recipient. CDSS ACL 97-46 dated August 22, 1997, provides that effective August 22, 1997, under W&IC §10950 individuals requesting state hearings are not valid "claimants" regarding disputes about the receipt and distribution of child support payment issues.
ACL 94-69 which stated that there was jurisdiction to review "disregard", "excess", or "pass-on" payment issues is no longer applicable.
Judges may still need to review a "disregard" or child support payment issue to determine the correctness of an AFDC overpayment or grant computation. That is, if the county is alleging an overpayment in a month where the absent parent paid child support to the county, or is computing the correctness of the AFDC grant for a month, the judge must determine how much child support the absent parent paid to determine the correctness of the overpayment or grant amount.
Judges will also continue to have jurisdiction to hear D.A. cooperation cases in TANF. The D.A. cooperation regulations which formerly were located at MPP §§43-100 et seq. have been relocated to MPP §§82-500 et seq.
Standing
The Department has determined there will be no change in policy, in other areas, regarding the right of a former applicant or recipient to request a state hearing. A former recipient may request a state hearing to dispute an action or inaction of the county welfare department or CDHS while such person was an applicant for or recipient of aid.
Land v. Anderson (1997) 55 Cal. App. 69, 63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 717
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District upheld two trial courts in three separate decisions in invalidating MPP §§45-202.311 through .313. Those regulations state the following:
.31 The child shall have been linked to the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children—Family Group/Unemployed (AFDC-FG/U) Program during the month in which the petition was filed with the juvenile court, which led to the child’s placement into foster care pursuant to a detention or dispositional order. This linkage requirement is met if one of the following conditions exists during the month in which the petition was filed:
.311 The child was living in the home of the parent or relative from whom removed, was eligible for, and received federal AFDC-FG/U.
.312 The child was living in the home of the parent or relative from whom removed and would have been eligible for federal AFDC-FG/U had application been made.
.313 The child was no longer living in the home of the parent or relative from whom removed, but would have been eligible for federal AFDC-FG/U based on that parent’s or relative’s home had he/she been living there and had application been made.
The Court of Appeal held that 42 U.S.C. §672 did not require a child to be living with a parent or relative from whom removed in order to qualify for federal foster care benefits. The court stated "§672(a)(4)(A) and (a)(4)(B)(I) appear on their face to require only that the child be receiving or eligible to receive AFDC payments when the petition for removal was filed. As AFDC can be obtained through a relative other than the one from whom removal is sought, physical residence with the parent or guardian appears to be irrelevant".
The CDSS appealed the Land case to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court denied cert. on July 30, 1997. The CDSS is considering an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Hixenbaugh v. Anderson
CDSS ACL 97-44 dated August 13, 1997 states that pursuant to a California Superior Court Order in Hixenbaugh, CDSS is required to advise counties that child support payments collected by the county Family Support Division in a month when the food stamp (FS) household was not receiving FS benefits and subsequently paid to the household in a month the household did receive benefits are considered a resource and not income. The applicable regulation is MPP §63-502.2(j) which states that a nonrecurring lump sum is not to be treated as income.