Opinion ID: 2599444
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Children Are Ineligible for AFDC-FC Payments

Text: As explained earlier, under California law, a child placed in the approved home of a relative is not eligible for AFDC-FC unless the child is otherwise eligible for federal financial participation in the AFDC-FC payment. (§ 11402, subd. (a).) The Department argues that were the juvenile court to change the boys' placement in Canada to foster care, they would not be eligible for federal financial participationand thus would be ineligible for AFDC-FCbecause they would fail to meet the federal requirement that they be placed in a foster family home. (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2)(C).) For reasons that follow, we agree. For purposes of this requirement, federal law defines a foster family home as a foster family home for children which is licensed by the State in which it is situated or has been approved, by the agency of such State having responsibility for licensing homes of this type, as meeting the standards established for such licensing. (42 U.S.C. § 672(c).) In context, the term such State refers to the State in which [the foster home] is situated, and the statute therefore requires that the foster home be either licensed by the State in which it is situated or approved by the agency of the state in which it is situated having responsibility for licensing foster homes. ( Ibid. ) Because Canada is not a State for purposes of this provision (see 42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)), Grandmother's home is not in a state, it cannot be licensed or approved by the state in which it is situated, and it cannot qualify as a foster family home for purposes of federal financial participation in AFDC-FC payments. (42 U.S.C. § 672(c).) For this reason, federal financial participation would be unavailable were the juvenile court to place the children in foster care with Grandmother in Canada. These conclusions are consistent with other provisions of federal law that indicate Congress's intent to extend eligibility for federal financial participation only to children placed in foster homes within the United States and its territories. To be federally approved, a state's plan must, among other things, provide[ ] for a case review system (42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16)), i.e., a procedure for assuring that each child has a case plan that meets certain basic requirements. (42 U.S.C. § 675(5).) Additional requirements apply if a child is placed in a State different from the State in which [his or her parents'] home is located. (42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(A)(i), italics added.) In this circumstance, the case plan must specify the reasons why the placement in a different State is in the child's best interests ( ibid. ) and must require that a caseworker from the State in which the parents live, the State in which the child has been placed, or a private agency under contract with either such State, visit such child in such home at least every six months. (42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(A)(ii), italics added; see also Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006, Pub.L. No. 109-239, § 6 (July 3, 2006) 120 Stat. 512.) For purposes of this provision, the term State includes certain United States territories, but it does not include either Canada or any other foreign country. (42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1).) The mostperhaps the onlyplausible reason for Congress's failure to provide that foreign placements are subject to the additional requirements applicable to interstate placements is its understanding that children placed in foster care in other countries are simply not eligible for federal financial participation. Thus, that Congress specifically addressed children placed in other states and United States territories, but made no mention of children placed in other countries, supports the conclusion that were the juvenile court to change the boys' placement in Canada to foster care, they would not be eligible for federal financial participation. Recent federal legislation reinforces this conclusion. In July 2006, the United States Congress passed the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006 (Pub.L. No. 109-239 (July 3, 2006) 120 Stat. 508) (Act). The Act declared that [f]ederal policy should encourage the safe and expedited placement of children into safe, permanent homes across State lines. (Id., § 2, italics added.) Among other things, the Act added several new requirements for federal financial participation in foster care payments: a state's plan must provide that the State shall have in effect procedures for the orderly and timely interstate placement of children; that the State shall, within 60 days of receiving from another State a request for a home study assessing the safety and suitability of placing a child in the home, conduct and complete the study; and that a State must treat any such report received from another State or an Indian tribe (or from a private agency under contract with another State) as meeting any requirements imposed by the State for the completion of a home study before placing a child in the home. ( Id., §§ 3 & 4, 120 Stat. 508-509, adding 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(25) & (26), italics added.) Neither Canada nor any other foreign country is a State within the meaning of these provisions (42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1)), and again, the most plausible reason for Congress's failure to provide that foreign placements are subject to the new requirements the Act imposed on interstate placements is its understanding that children placed in foster care in other countries are not eligible for federal financial participation. Indeed, our review of the congressional debates regarding the federal statutes discussed above reveals no hint that Congress has provided, or intended to provide, for federal financial participation in payments to children placed in foster care outside of the United States. Contrary to the assertion of amicus curiae The Alliance for Children's Rights, the decision in Youakim, supra, 440 U.S. 125, 99 S.Ct. 957, 59 L.Ed.2d 194, does not require a different conclusion. There, based in part on legislative history, the high court held that placement in the home of a relative does not render a child ineligible for the federal foster care benefit program. ( Id. at pp. 138-143, 146, 99 S.Ct. 957.) However, the court based its holding primarily on the sweeping language of the relevant statutes, which manifestly [does] not limit eligibility to children placed in the homes of nonrelated caretakers ( id. at p. 135, 99 S.Ct. 957) and plainly states that a foster family home is the [licensed or approved] home of any individual. ( Id. at pp. 137-138, 99 S.Ct. 957.) The court's discussion of the legislative history merely fortif[ied] its reading of the statutes' plain language. ( Id. at p. 138, 99 S.Ct. 957.) Here, by contrast, as demonstrated above, the plain language of the relevant statutes does not support the boys' interpretation, and in construing a statute, we look first to its language. ( People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 387, 19 P.3d 1129.) Moreover, the high court in Youakim relied on an administrative interpretation that expressly supported its conclusion. ( Youakim, supra, 440 U.S. at pp. 143-144, 99 S.Ct. 957.) We have found no administrative interpretation supporting the boys' position in this case. Finally, Youakim's discussion of the legislative history did not examine whether Congress intended to send federal funds out of the country, because the facts of that case did not implicate this question. For these reasons, Youakim is inapposite. Based on the above, we conclude that were the juvenile court to place the boys in foster care with Grandmother in Canada, they would not be eligible under federal law for federal financial participation in any AFDC-FC payment and, therefore, would not be eligible for AFDC-FC. [9]