Opinion ID: 799337
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CAPTA: Guardian ad litem provisions (Count Nine)

Text: Count Nine of the complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of a class of foster children who have not been appointed guardians ad litem. It seeks to enforce the guardian ad litem provision of CAPTA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii), which provides that: A State plan ... shall contain a description of the activities that the State will carry out using amounts received under the grant ... including ... an assurance in the form of a certification by the Governor of the State that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a statewide program ... that includes provisions and procedures requiring that in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect which results in a judicial proceeding, a guardian ad litem ... shall be appointed to represent the child in such proceedings....[ [11] ] As the district court observed, Nevada does have a law directing state courts to appoint a guardian ad litem for every eligible child. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 432B.500(1) (After a petition is filed that a child is in need of protection ... the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.). But courts do not always order these appointments, because Clark County does not have enough guardian ad litem volunteers. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 432B.500(2) (No compensation may be allowed a person serving as a guardian ad litem pursuant to this section.). Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction compelling the State and County defendants to make it possible for state courts to appoint a guardian ad litem in every case. The district court held that the guardian ad litem provision of CAPTA was not privately enforceable and that, in the alternative, abstention was warranted under the doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). As best we can tell, no court has specifically addressed whether the guardian ad litem provision of CAPTA is enforceable through § 1983, and no federal appellate court has considered whether any provision of the current version of CAPTA is privately enforceable. As a matter of first impression, we conclude that the guardian ad litem provision does not create an individual right enforceable through § 1983. The Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have held that an earlier version of CAPTA is not privately enforceable. Doe v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861, 866-67 (D.C.Cir.1996); Tony L. v. Childers, 71 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (6th Cir.1995). That version required that in order to qualify for a grant, a State shall provide that upon receipt of a report of known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect, the State would initiate an investigation and take immediate steps to protect the abused or neglected child. 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2) (1988) (emphasis added). Despite this mandatory language, both circuits held that CAPTA was not privately enforceable because it did not mandate a particular means of investigation or state what type of actions must be taken to protect a child. Tony L., 71 F.3d at 1189; see also Doe, 93 F.3d at 867. The Sixth Circuit also observed that Congress wanted to leave states a certain amount of discretion in this area. Id. In 1996, the language of CAPTA was changed substantially. The current version requires each State receiving a grant to submit a plan that specifies the areas of the child protective services system that the State will address with its grant money. 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(1)(A). That plan must contain a description of the activities that the State will carry out, including, as detailed above, a certification that the State is enforcing a law or operating a program that includes provisions and procedures requiring the appointment of guardians ad litem. 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii). Every federal district court to consider the question has found that the more recent versions of CAPTA do not satisfy the Blessing test. [12] See, e.g., Charlie H., 83 F.Supp.2d at 496-97; A.S. v. Tellus, 22 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1224 (D.Kan.1998); Jeanine B., 967 F.Supp. at 1118. These courts have generally agreed that CAPTA's requirements have too broad a focus to create individual, enforceable rights. At least one district court has emphasized that the current version presents a weaker case for private enforcement than the prior version. Jeanine B., 967 F.Supp. at 1118. We agree with this reasoning and affirm the district court's decision below. Unlike the case plan and records provisions of the CWA, the guardian ad litem provision of CAPTA does not contain the unambiguous rights-creating language necessary to satisfy the first prong of the Blessing test. As discussed above, when Congress wrote the CWA, it incorporated detailed requirements for what a child's case plan or health and education record must include and how those records must be incorporated into a case review system. In contrast, CAPTA gives little specific guidance, requiring only that a State either enact a law or create a program that includes procedures designed to accomplish broad goals, such as representation for every child by a guardian ad litem. [13] This approach leads us to conclude that Congress intended to focus on the aggregate or systemwide policies and practices of a regulated entity[,] rather than individual rights to benefits. Watson, 436 F.3d at 1159 (citing Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 287-88, 122 S.Ct. 2268). Our conclusion is bolstered by CAPTA's legislative history, which explains that Congress intended to ensure that States are responsible for planning and implementing the essential elements of an effective and efficient child protective service system without placing undue administrative burdens on States. S.Rep. No. 104-117, at 13 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3490, 3503. We thus affirm the district court's dismissal of Count Nine on the basis that the guardian ad litem provision is not enforceable through § 1983. We need not consider the district court's alternative holding that Younger abstention was appropriate.