Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/104655/miller-vs-youakim
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 15:22:00
Document Index: 501720637

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 608', '§ 408', '§ 608', '§ 406', '§ 406', '§ 408', '§ 2212', '§ 1983', '§ 401', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 402', '§ 602', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 406', '§ 408', '§ 608', '§ 408', '§ 608', '§ 408', '§ 608', '§ 408', '§ 608', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 406', '§ 408', '§ 406', '§ 406', '§ 408', '§ 406', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 220', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 220', '§ 408', '§ 401', '§ 601', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 2212', '§ 705', '§ 5005', '§ 10', '§ 2213', '§ 5005', '§ 1343', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 205', '§ 403', '§ 603', '§ 402', '§ 602', '§ 408', '§ 408']

Miller Vs Youakim - Citation 104655 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Miller Vs. Youakim - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/104655CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnFeb-22-1979Case Number440 U.S. 125AppellantMillerRespondentYouakimExcerpt:
miller v. youakim - 440 u.s. 125 (1979)
in administering its aid to families with dependent children-foster care program (afdc-fc), illinois distinguishes between children who reside with relatives and those who do not. children placed in unrelated foster homes qualify for the afdc-fc program, which provides greater monthly payments than the basic afdc program. but children who are placed in relatives' homes may participate only in the basic afdc program, because the state defines the term..... Judgment:
The AFDC-FC program encompasses foster children who, pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect, have been placed in related homes that meet a State's licensing requirements for
unrelated foster homes. Accordingly, Illinois may not exclude from its AFDC-FC program children who reside with relatives. Pp.
440 U. S. 133
(a) Both the language and Legislative history of § 408 show that the AFDC-FC program was designed to meet the particular needs of all eligible neglected children, whether they are placed with related or unrelated foster parents. Distinguishing among equally neglected children based on their relationship to their foster parents would conflict with Congress' overriding goal of providing the best available care for all dependent children removed from their homes pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect. Pp.
440 U. S. 134
(b) Interpretations by HEW, the agency charged with administering the AFDC-FC program, are entitled to considerable deference. Pp.
440 U. S. 143
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program (AFDC-FC) authorizes federal financial subsidies
for the care and support of children removed from their homes and made wards of the State pursuant to a judicial determination that the children's homes were not conducive to their welfare. §§ 408(a)(1), (2) of the Social Security Act of 135 (Act), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 608(a)(1), (2). [
qualify for Foster Care assistance, these children must be placed in a "foster family home or child care institution." § 408(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(3). [
] The basic AFDC program, already in existence when the Foster Care program was enacted in 1961, provides aid to eligible children who live with a parent or with a relative specified in § 406(a) of the Act. [
] In administering these programs, Illinois distinguishes
between related and unrelated foster parents. Children placed in unrelated foster homes may participate in the AFDC-FC program. But those who are placed in the homes of relatives listed in § 406(a), and who are entitled to basic AFDC benefits, cannot receive AFDC-FC assistance because the State defines the term "foster family home" as a facility for children unrelated to the operator. [
] Foster children living with relatives may participate only in Illinois' basic AFDC program, which provides lower monthly payments than the Foster Care program. [
] The specific question presented here is whether Illinois has correctly interpreted the federal standards for AFDC-FC eligibility set forth in § 408(a) of the Act to exclude children who, because of placement with related, rather than unrelated, foster parents qualify for assistance under the basic AFDC program.
Appellees are four foster children, their older sister (Linda Youakim), and her husband (Marcel Youakim). In 1969, Illinois removed the children from their mother's home and made them wards of the State following a judicial determination
of neglect. The Department of Children and Family Services (Department), which became responsible for the children, [
] placed them in unrelated foster care facilities until 1972. During this period, they each received full AFDC-FC benefits of $105 a month. In 1972, the Department decided to place two of the children with the Youakims, who were under no legal obligation to accept or support them. [
] The Department investigated the Youakim home and approved it as meeting the licensing standards established for unrelated foster family homes, as required by state law. [
] Despite this approval, the State refused to make Foster Care payments on behalf of the children because they were related to Linda Youakim.
"a facility for child care in residences of families who receive no more than 8 children
unrelated to them
. . . for the purpose of providing family care and training for
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 2212.17 (Supp. 1978) (emphasis added). [
] Homes that do not meet the definition may not be licensed, [
] and, under state law, only licensed facilities are entitled to Foster Care payments. [
Although Illinois refused to make Foster Care payments, it did provide each child basic AFDC benefits of approximately $63 a month, substantially less than the applicable $105 AFDC-FC rate. [
] The Youakims, however, believed that these payments were insufficient to provide proper support, and declined to accept the other two children. These children remain in unrelated foster care facilities and continue to receive AFDC-FC benefits.
In 1973, the Youakims and the four foster children brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for themselves and persons similarly situated, challenging Illinois' distinction between related and unrelated foster parents as violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court certified the class, but granted
HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9 (Oct. 25, 1974). In light of this administrative interpretation, we vacated the judgment and directed the District Court to consider whether the Illinois foster care scheme is inconsistent with the Social Security Act, and therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause, U.S.Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.
Youakim v. Miller,
425 U. S. 231
On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment for appellees, holding that the State's denial of AFDC-FC benefits and services to otherwise eligible foster children who live with relatives conflicts with §§ 401 and 408 of the Social Security Act. 431 F.Supp. 40, 45 (ND Ill.1976). [
] It found that, under the "plain words" of § 408, dependent children adjudged to be wards of the State, removed from their homes, and placed in approved foster homes are entitled to AFDC-FC benefits, regardless of whether their foster parent is a relative. 431 F.Supp. at 44-45. In so ruling, the court relied on HEW's interpretive ruling and on the national policy embodied
The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 562 F.2d 483 (CA7 1977). [
] It held that the statutory definition of "foster family home" in the last sentence of § 408 does not exclude relatives' homes, and found no "implied legislative intent" to create such an exclusion. 562 F.2d at 487;
at 486, n. 4. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that any home approved as meeting the State's licensing standards is a "foster family home" within the meaning of § 408. 562 F.2d at 486, 490.
A participating State may not deny assistance to persons who meet eligibility standards defined in the Social Security Act unless Congress clearly has indicated that the standards
See, e.g., Burns v. Alcala,
420 U. S. 575
420 U. S. 580
406 U. S. 598
(1968). Congress has specified that programs, like AFDC-FC, which employ the term "dependent child" to define eligibility must be available for "all eligible individuals." § 402(a)(10), 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(10);
see Quern v. Mandley,
436 U. S. 725
436 U. S. 740
-743, and n. 18 (1978). Section 408(e) reinforces this general rule by requiring States to provide Foster Care benefits to "any" child who satisfies the federal eligibility criteria of § 408(a). Thus, if foster care in related homes is encompassed within § 408, Illinois may not deny AFDC-FC benefits when it places an eligible child in the care of a relative.
Section 408(a), in defining "dependent child," establishes four conditions of AFDC-FC eligibility. First, the child must have been removed from the home of a parent or other relative specified in § 406(a), the basic AFDC eligibility provision, "as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child." § 408(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(1). Second, the State must remain responsible for the placement and care of the child. § 408(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(2). Third, the
§ 408, 42 U.S.C. § 608 (last sentence). Congress manifestly did not limit the term to encompass only the homes of nonrelated caretakers. Rather, any home that a State approves as meeting its licensing standards falls within the ambit of this definitional provision. That Congress intended no distinction between related and unrelated foster homes is further demonstrated by the AFDC-FC definition of "aid to families with dependent children," which includes foster care for eligible children who live "in the foster family home
" § 408(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 608(b)(1) (emphasis added). Far from excluding related caretakers, the statute uses the broadest possible language when it refers to the homes of foster parents.
Appellants concede that these provisions do not explicitly bar from the Foster Care program children living with related foster parents. Juris.Statement 11; Brief for Appellants 22; Reply Brief for Appellants 5; 562 F.2d at 486, and n. 4. Nevertheless, they infer from two isolated passages of § 408 a congressional intent to except relatives' homes from the definition of "foster family home."
"(a) the term 'dependent child' shall, notwithstanding section [406(a) -- the basic AFDC eligibility provision],
include a child (1) who would meet the requirements of such section [406(a)] except for his removal . . . from the home of a relative (specified in such section [406(a)]) as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child . . . [and] (3) who has been placed in a foster family home."
(Emphasis added.) Appellants construe the "notwithstanding" language of § 408(a)(1) in conjunction with § 408(a)(3) as creating a class of AFDC-FC beneficiaries distinct from the dependent children covered under basic AFDC. In their view, "notwithstanding § 406(a)" means that the Foster Care definition of "dependent child" both suspends the basic AFDC requirement that the child reside with a parent or close relative, and precludes a foster child who meets that requirement from participating in the AFDC-FC program. Under appellants' construction, §§ 408(a)(1) and (3) would read: For the purpose of Foster Care aid, a "dependent child" shall
include a child who would meet the requirements of § 406(a) except that he has been both removed from the home of a parent or relative specified in § 406(a) and placed in a nonrelative's home.
The difficulty with this strained interpretation is that § 408(a)(1) does not use the word "only." It states that a dependent child shall "also" include a child removed from the home of a parent or relative. Thus, there is no basis for construing language that unquestionably expands the scope of the term "dependent child" as implicitly contracting the definition to exclude a child who meets the eligibility criteria of § 406(a). Because § 408(a)(1) does not have the preclusive meaning
"services are provided which are designed to improve the conditions in the home from which [the foster child] was removed
to otherwise make possible his being placed in the home of a relative specified in section [406(a)]."
Had Congress intended to exclude related foster parents from the definition of "foster family home," it presumably would have done so explicitly, just as it restricted the definition of "child-care institution." [
] Instead, the statute plainly
The legislative history and structure of the Act fortify our conclusion that the language of § 408 should be given its full scope. The Foster Care program was enacted in the aftermath of HEW's declaration that States could no longer discontinue basic AFDC assistance due to unsuitable home conditions "while the child continues to reside in the home." State Letter No. 452, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Jan. 17, 1961) (hereinafter Flemming Ruling). In directing States "either to improve the home conditions" or "make arrangements for the child elsewhere,"
the Ruling prompted Congress to encourage state protection of neglected children. [
] Accordingly, Congress designed a program carefully tailored to the needs of children whose "home environments . . . are clearly contrary to the[ir] best interests," [
] and it offered the States financial subsidies to implement the plan. Neither the legislative history nor the structure of the Act indicates that Congress intended to differentiate among neglected children based on their relationship to their
foster parents. Indeed, such a distinction would conflict in several respects with the overriding goal of providing the best available care for all dependent children removed from their homes because they were neglected.
S.Rep. No. 165, p. 6; 107 Cong.Rec. 6388 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Byrd).
Although a fundamental purpose of the Foster Care program was to facilitate removal of children from their homes, Congress also took steps to "safeguard" intact family units from unnecessary upheaval.
S.Rep. No. 165, p. 7; 107 Cong.Rec. 6388 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Byrd). [
] To ensure that children would be removed only from homes demonstrably inimical to their welfare, Congress required participating States to obtain "a judicial determination . . . that continuation in the home was contrary to the welfare of the child." S.Rep. No. 165, p. 7;
108 Cong.Rec. 12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene McCarthy); § 408(a)(1). Protecting the integrity of established family units by mandating judicial approval of a State's decision to remove a child obviously is a goal that embraces all neglected children, regardless of who the ultimate caretaker may be. Yet, under appellants' construction of § 408, the State would have no obligation to justify its removal of a dependent child if he were placed with relatives, since the child could not be eligible for Foster Care benefits. But the same child, placed in unrelated facilities, would be entitled under the Foster Care program to a judicial
Congress was also concerned with assuring that States place neglected children in substitute homes determined appropriate for foster care.
S.Rep. No. 165, pp. 6-7. To deter indiscriminate foster placements, Congress required that States establish licensing standards for every foster home, § 408 (definition of "foster family home"), and supervise the placement of foster children. § 408(a)(2);
45 CFR §§ 220.19(a), 233.110(a)(2)(i) (1977). The legislative materials at no point suggest that Congress intended to subject some foster homes, but not others, to minimum standards of quality, as could result if § 408 excluded relatives' homes from the definition of "foster family home." Indeed, in authorizing an approval procedure as an alternative to actual licensing of "foster family homes," [
] Congress evinced its understanding that children placed in related foster homes are entitled to Foster Care benefits. At the time the AFDC-FC program was enacted in 1961, many States exempted relatives' homes from the licensing requirements imposed on all other types of settings in which foster children could be placed. [
108 Cong.Rec. 12692-12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene McCarthy). Section 408 embodies Congress' recognition of the peculiar status of neglected children in requiring that States continually supervise the care of these children, § 408(a)(2), develop a plan tailored to the needs of each foster child "to assure that he receives proper care," § 408(f)(1), and periodically review both the necessity of retaining the child in foster care and the appropriateness of the care being provided.
45 CFR §§ 220.19(b), (c), 233.110(a)(2)(ii) (1977). Additionally, the States must work to improve the conditions in the foster child's original home or to transfer him to a relative when feasible, § 408(f)(1);
440 U. S. 137
. This procedure comports with Congress' preference for care of dependent children by relatives, a policy underlying the categorical assistance program since its inception in
S.Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 117 (1935); H.R.Rep. No 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10-12 (1935);
Burns v. Alcala,
420 U. S. 581
-582; § 401, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 601,
440 U. S. 132
-133. We do not believe that Congress, when it extended assistance to foster children, meant to depart from this fundamental principle. [
] Congress envisioned a remedial environment to correct the enduring effects of past neglect and abuse. There is nothing to indicate that it intended to discriminate between potential beneficiaries, equally in need of the program, on the basis of their relationship to their foster parents.
That Congress had no such intent is also evidenced by the 1967 amendments to the Act, which increased the federal matching
payments for AFDC-FC to exceed the federal share of basic AFDC payments. [
] The increase reflects Congress' recognition that state-supervised care and programs designed to meet the special needs of neglected children cost more than basic AFDC care. [
] The legislative history of the amendment reveals no basis for distinguishing between related and unrelated foster homes. [
] Rather, it discloses a generalized concern for the plight of all dependent children who should be sheltered from their current home environments but are forced to remain in such homes because of the States' inability to finance substitute care. S.Rep. No. 744, pp. 163-165; H.R.Rep. No. 544, pp. 100-101. Significantly, the Committee Reports suggest that increasing federal matching payments would encourage relatives "not legally responsible for support" to undertake the care of foster children "in order to obtain the best possible environment for the child." S.Rep. No. 744, p. 164; H.R.Rep. No. 544, p. 101. The amendments are therefore described, without qualification, as providing "more favorable Federal matching . . . for foster care for children removed from an unsuitable home by court order." S.Rep. No. 744, p. 4; H.R.Rep. No. 544, p. 4.
Our interpretation of the statute and its legislative history is buttressed by HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-79,
425 U. S. 235
-236, citing
413 U. S. 421
Investment Co. Institute v. Camp,
401 U. S. 626
-627 (1971). Administrative interpretations are especially persuasive where, as here, the agency participated in developing the provision.
Adams v. United States,
319 U. S. 312
319 U. S. 314
-315 (1943);
(1940). HEW's Program Instruction is fully supported by the statute, its legislative history, and the common sense observation that all dependent foster children are similarly in need of the protections and monetary benefits afforded by the AFDC-FC program. [
We think it clear that Congress designed the AFDC-FC program to include foster children placed with relatives. The overriding purpose of § 408 was to assure that the most appropriate substitute care be given to those dependent children so mistreated that a court has ordered them removed from their homes. The need for additional AFDC-FC resources -- both monetary and service related -- to provide a proper remedial environment for such foster children arises from the status of the child as a subject of prior neglect, not from the status of the foster parent. [
] Appellants attribute to Congress an intent to differentiate among children who are equally neglected and abused, based on a living arrangement bearing no relationship to the special needs that the AFDC-FC program was created to meet. Absent clear support in the statutory language or legislative history, we decline to make such an unreasonable attribution.
The eligibility requirements of the AFDC-FC program are contained in the statutory definition of "dependent child," § 408(a).
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 2212.17 (Supp. 1978).
440 U. S. 130
Illinois, like most other States, has consistently authorized substantially greater AFDC-FC payments than basic AFDC benefits.
25 Soc.Sec.Bull., No. 2, Tables 10, 14, pp. 28, 30 (Feb.1962); U.S. Dept. of HEW, Public Assistance Statistics: April 1977, Tables A, B, 4, 6, 7 (Sept.1977);
440 U. S. 131
Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 37, § 705-7(1)(f) (1975); Ill.Ann.Stat, ch. 23, § 5005 (Supp. 1978), as amended, Pub. Act 80-1124, 1977 Ill. Laws 3367; Pub. Act 80-1364, Ill.Legis.Serv. 713 (West 1978).
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 10-2 (Supp. 1978).
The Agency documented its approval in two "Relative Home Placement Agreements" which were identical, both in form and in obligations imposed, to those used for unrelated foster care placements, except that the term "foster" was sometimes crossed out, two references were made to the familial relationship among appellees, and the usual promise of AFDC-FC benefits was deleted.
431 F.Supp. 40, 43-44, and nn. 4, 5 (ND Ill.1976); App. 20-23.
"any person, group of persons, agency, association or organization, whether established for gain or otherwise, who or which receives or arranges for care or placement of one or more children,
unrelated to the operator of the facility.
§§ 2213-2215; DCFS Welfare Manual 2.8.2.
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 5005 (Supp. 1978).
As an exception to this benefit differential, the State has authorized special supplemental payments, upon an adequate showing of need by related foster parents, to bring basic AFDC related foster care assistance up to $105 per month. Brief for Appellants 5; 374 F.Supp. 1204, 1206 (ND Ill.1974). Since September 1, 1974, the Youakims have received these need-based payments for their foster children. This Court previously held that receipt of the supplemental benefits does not render the case moot.
425 U. S. 236
n. 2 (1976) (per curiam) .
The District Court had pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) to consider this statutory issue.
See Youakim v. Miller, supra,
It appears that every other court to consider the issue has also concluded that dependent children who have been removed from their homes by judicial order and placed by a State in relatives' homes are entitled to AFDC-FC benefits.
See Jones v. Davis,
Civ. No. 76-805 (Ore., Apr. 8, 1977),
CA9, No. 77-2254;
Alston v. Department of Health and Social Services,
[1974-1976 Transfer Binder] CCH Poverty L.Rep. Ĺš 22,336 (Wis.Cir.Ct., Jan. 21, 1976);
Thompson v. Department of Health and Social Services,
[1974-1976 Transfer Binder] CCH Poverty L.Rep. Ĺš 22,303 (Wis.Cir.Ct., Jan. 9, 1976);
Taylor v. Dumpson,
79 Misc.2d 379, 362 N.Y.S.2d 888 (Sup. Ct.1974),
37 N.Y.2d 765, 337 N.E.2d 600 (1975);
Clampett v. Madigan,
[1972-1974 Transfer Binder] CCH Poverty L.Rep. Ĺš 17,979 (SD, May 24, 1973);
Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Public Welfare,
Civ. No. C72-182 (ND Ohio, Apr. 17, 1972);
Sockwell v. Maloney,
431 F.Supp. 1006, 1008, and n. 3 (Conn.1976) (dicta),
554 F.2d 1236 (CA2 1977) (per curiam).
S.Rep. No. 165, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 6-7 (1961) (hereinafter S.Rep. No. 165); S.Rep. No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 12-13 (1962); Hearings on the Public Assistance Act of 1962 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 65 (1962) (memorandum from HEW Secretary Ribicoff to Sen. Byrd); Hearings on the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 294-297, 305-307 (1962).
This precaution reflected Congress' awareness of the events that had culminated in the Flemming Ruling. In the years preceding the Ruling, there was considerable concern that States were using suitability rules intrusively to impose various moral and social standards on parents of dependent children.
392 U. S. 321
-327 (1968). For example, by threatening to discontinue basic AFDC aid or to initiate neglect proceedings, States had coerced many welfare mothers into "voluntarily" placing their children with relatives, although a court might not have ordered removal had formal proceedings been initiated.
W. Bell, Aid to Dependent Children 124-136 (1965).
Despite the broad language of § 408 and the clear legislative goals behind the AFDC-FC program, appellants maintain that, as a policy matter, relatives' homes should not constitute "foster family homes." They contend that permitting AFDC-FC assistance for foster children who live with relatives would create a "financial incentive" for relatives to refrain from caring for needy children until the children are removed from their homes by court order. Brief for Appellants 26. Even if this were true, "issue[s] of legislative policy . . . [are] better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court."
Marquette Nat. Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp.,
439 U. S. 299
439 U. S. 319
(1978). Furthermore, we view the inclusion of related foster homes in § 408 as fully consistent with Congress' determination that homes of parents and relatives provide the most suitable environment for children. Congress evidently believed that encouraging relatives to care for these "most underprivileged children," 108 Cong.Rec. 12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene McCarthy), whatever the cost, was worth the price. Indeed, if the State's interpretation of the statute were correct, relatives would have an incentive to refuse to accept foster children altogether. Concerned relatives might subordinate their interests in supervising the wellbeing of youngsters they love to ensure that these children receive the greater cash benefits and services available only to foster children placed in unrelated homes. Similarly, the availability of significantly more financial assistance under AFDC-FC might motivate child placement authorities to refrain from placing foster children with relatives even when these homes are best suited to the needs of the child.
Social Security Amendments of 1967, Pub.L. 9248, § 205(b), 81 Stat. 892, § 403(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(1)(b);
S.Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 286 (1967) (hereinafter S.Rep. No. 744). These amendments also require all States that participate in the basic AFDC program to establish a Foster Care program. 81 Stat. 892, adding § 402(a)(20) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(20).
S.Rep. No. 744, pp. 163-164; H.R.Rep. No. 544, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 100-101 (1967) (hereinafter H.R.Rep. No. 544).
429 U. S. 142
-143 (1976), appellants maintain that the Program Instruction conflicts with an earlier HEW pronouncement, and therefore deserves little weight. They refer to an inconsistent interpretation of § 408 sent to Illinois authorities in 1971 by a regional HEW official, which stated that foster children placed in related homes are not eligible for Foster Care benefits under the federal program. However, this correspondence was not approved by HEW's General Counsel or by any departmental official in the national office.
letter from HEW's Assistant General Counsel to Illinois Special Assistant Attorney General Richard Ryan (Dec. 22, 1976), App. to Brief for United States as
1a. Since the letter did not reflect an official position, we take the Program Instruction to be the agency's first and only national interpretation concerning § 408's coverage of foster care by relatives. Appellants' reliance on
General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, supra,
is therefore misplaced, and we are bound by the "principle that the construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong."
(1969) (footnote omitted);
see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. First Lincolnwood Corp.,
439 U. S. 234
439 U. S. 251
381 U. S. 11
-12 (1965);
-18 (1965).
Illinois recognizes as much by providing special grants to some foster children placed with relatives which are not available to other basic AFDC recipients.