Opinion ID: 2760820
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Federal Statutory AACWA Claim

Text: Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide a substantial number of class members with full -33- individualized case plans, as required by the AACWA.16 The AACWA, part of the Social Security Act, is a grant of federal funding for expenses associated with operating a foster care system. Connor B., 771 F. Supp. 2d at 168. In order to obtain the funding, the state must submit a plan for the operation of its foster care system and receive approval from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 351 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2. One required component of such a plan is that states must develop a case plan for each child receiving foster care maintenance payments. Connor B., 985 F. Supp. 2d at 155 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16)) (internal quotation mark omitted). A case plan is a written document that must include the child's records and information about the plans for the child, such as the prospective placement, the services the child will receive, and the steps taken toward stability and eventual permanency. 42 U.S.C. § 675(1). The district court held, and the defendants do not contest here, that the AACWA creates a privately enforceable right. Connor B., 771 F. Supp. 2d at 168-172 (citing Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504, 510-11 (1st Cir. 1983)).17 16 The plaintiffs do not appeal the district court's denial of their claim that the defendants failed to make adequate foster care maintenance payments under the AACWA. See Connor B., 985 F. Supp. 2d at 165-66. 17 The parties dispute whether DCF must strictly comply with the AACWA, or merely substantially comply with it. -34- The AACWA is also enforced by the Secretary of HHS, who is empowered to withhold federal funding if the state fails to comply substantially with the statutory requirements and fails to implement a corrective plan. Sam M. ex rel. Elliott v. Chafee, 800 F. Supp. 2d 363, 388 (D.R.I. 2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2a). The Secretary has chosen not to take such action here. No one in this case wants the Secretary to cut off the roughly $60 million Massachusetts receives from HHS. See Administration for Children and Families, FY 2013 ACF Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committee at 337 (identifying Massachusetts's actual foster care funding from FY 2011 at slightly above $60 million). The district court denied the claim that the AACWA had been violated as to the class. That court cited evidence from the plaintiffs that the files for 14.6% of children sampled from a group entering foster care and 35.1% of children sampled from a group in foster care for two years or more lacked case plans. Connor B., 985 F. Supp. 2d at 155. Of those files that included case plans, many were incomplete. Id. at 155-56. From this evidence, the district court found that case plans are generally not well maintained and, in some cases, are entirely unavailable for review. Id. at 166. It then concluded that these failures constituted mere gaps in record keeping, not grave statutory error, particularly when viewed in the context of the financial and administrative hardships that have been discussed above. Id. -35- We understand the court to have drawn a distinction, in part, between whether services were adequately provided and whether the paperwork was done. We agree with the district court that this record does not show a class-wide failure to provide documentation in the form of individualized case plans. The district court found that between about 65% and 85% of children have individualized case plans. Id. That case plans are not well maintained and, in some cases, . . . entirely unavailable for review, id., is not enough to prove that DCF is out of compliance with the statute vis-à-vis the class.