Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05086/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05086-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA STATE FOSTER PARENT

ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA STATE

CARE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION, and

LEGAL ADVOCATES FOR PERMANENT

PARENTING

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JOHN A. WAGNER, DIRECTOR OF THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL

SERVICES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;

MARY AULT, DEPUTY DIRECTORY OF

THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

DIVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IN

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05086 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

The issue is whether Section 1983 can be used to enforce a federal requirement imposed

on states qualifying to receive certain federal program funds. The specific federal program at

issue is the federal Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. To qualify for

federal assistance, a state must have a plan approved by the Secretary of the United States

Department of Health and Human Services that “provides for” twenty-four separate features,

one of which is “foster care maintenance payments.” 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(1). More to the point,

a provision entitled “Foster Care Maintenance Payments Program” states that “[e]ach State with

a plan approved under this part shall make foster care maintenance payments” with respect to

Case 3:07-cv-05086-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

particular foster children defined therein. 42 U.S.C. 672 (emphasis added). In turn, “foster care

maintenance payments” are “payments to cover the cost of (and the cost of providing) food,

clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child’s personal incidentals, liability

insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the child’s home for visitation.” 

42 U.S.C. 675(4)(A).

In this case, various foster parent associations are seeking injunctive and declaratory

relief against the California Department of Social Services to require it to update its payment

schedule so as to more realistically cover actual costs. Foster parents serve for free but wish to

recover more of their actual out-of-pocket expenditures — thus this suit.

The Act does not create a private right of action, either expressly or impliedly, so the

immediate issue (on motion to dismiss) is whether Section 1983 can be used to seek injunctive

and declaratory relief. The Supreme Court has addressed this “right-of-action” problem

multiple times and those authorities were examined at length by our circuit in an analogous

situation under a different federal funding program in Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105

(9th Cir. 2004). Although that decision declined to hold that individual rights were established

merely because they were presented as mandatory features of a “plan,” it did hold that a direct

statutory command that “[e]ach grantee shall provide for reasonable benefits . . .” created

individual entitlements. In our case, we have an analogous command in 42 U.S.C. 672. 

It insists that qualifying states “shall make foster care maintenance payments . . .with respect to

a child” defined in the following subprovisions. At least with respect to this provision,

Price seems to be closely analogous, i.e., the quoted provision in 42 U.S.C. 672 can be enforced

via Section 1983. Such was the exact holding in an almost identical case (involving, however,

foster care institutions as plaintiffs). That decision by Judge Patel of this bench is not binding

but, in light of Price, it is persuasive that at least 42 U.S.C. 672 may be enforced via Section

1983. See California Alliance of Child and Family Services v. Allen by, 459 F. Supp. 2d 919

(N.D. Cal. 2006).

Case 3:07-cv-05086-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Exactly what “payments to cover the cost” means will be decided later. For now, it is

enough to recognize that this action may not be summarily dismissed. The motion to dismiss is

therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05086-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 3