Opinion ID: 3033868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Right to Individualized Payment

Text: Determinations Our initial inquiry is whether the text and structure of the Act contains the requisite “rights-creating” language that evinces a congressional intent to confer an entitlement to individualized payment determinations. Price, 390 F.3d at 1110. We conclude that it does. [6] Section 671 requires Oregon to have a plan that mandates that adoption assistance will be provided in accordance with § 673. Section 673(a)(3) requires that the amount of adoption assistance payments be determined “through agreement between the adoptive parents and the State . . . which . . . take[s] into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted.” Furthermore, the amount of the payment may only be readjusted “with the concurrence of the adopting parents, depending upon changes” in the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child.8 This language evinces a clear intent to create a federal right. See Price, 390 F.3d at 1111. The statutory text unambiguously requires the State to engage in an individualized process with each family that takes into account their unique requirements in determining the amount of their adoption assistance payments throughout the duration 8 This assumes that the parents continue to qualify to participate in the adoption assistance program. Additionally, Oregon is correct that the amount of the adoption assistance payment is limited under § 673(a)(3) in that it cannot “exceed the foster care maintenance payment which would have been paid during the period if the child with respect to whom the adoption assistance payment was made had been in a foster family home.” It is the methodology of calculating the payments, however, not the particular amount of the payment, that Plaintiffs challenge here. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend, and the State does not dispute, that at no time did their adoption assistance payments exceed the applicable foster care maintenance payments, even after the reduction in foster care payments made by the State in February 2003. Accordingly, the limiting language contained in § 673(a)(3) is not applicable. ASW v. STATE OF OREGON 13153 of their participation in the program.9 Just as “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 create individual rights because those statutes are phrased with an unmistakable focus on the benefitted class,” Gonzaga Univ., 536 U.S. at 284,10 these particular statutory provisions are unambiguously framed in terms of the specific individuals benefitted and contain explicit duty creating language. Thus, this case is analogous to Price v. City of Stockton, where, in concluding that 42 U.S.C. § 5304 created enforceable individual rights, we emphasized that the statutory text “require[d] that benefits be provided to particular persons . . . evinc[ing] a clear intent to create a federal right.” 390 F.3d at 1111. See also Rabin, 362 F.3d at 201 (the phrase “each family” suggests an individualized as opposed to an aggregate focus); Hood, 391 F.3d at 603 (a statute that provides medical assistance to all individuals who meet certain eligibility requirements “is precisely the sort of ‘rightscreating’ language identified in Gonzaga”). [7] The second and third prongs of the Blessing test are also satisfied. The right to individualized payment determinations that reflect the unique circumstances of the parents and the special needs of their adopted child is a concrete and objective 9 Oregon’s argument that it would be economically inefficient to engage in individualized determinations for recipients of adoption assistance payments whenever it lowered its foster care maintenance payments is irrelevant. Unlike foster care maintenance payments, codified in a standardized rate schedule, § 673(a)(3) explicitly creates a right to individualized payment determinations for adoption assistance payments. That right cannot be abrogated for the convenience of the State. 10 In Gonzaga University, the Court emphasized that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 did not speak in terms of the individual, but instead had an aggregate focus that was “not concerned with whether the needs of any particular person have been satisfied.” 536 U.S. at 288. Unlike the statute in Gonzaga University, which was “two steps removed from the interests of the individual student” who had his personal records disclosed, id. at 287, the focus of the particular statutory provisions at issue here is on the individual parents and their right to individualized payment determinations. 13154 ASW v. STATE OF OREGON right, the enforcement of which does not “strain judicial competence.” Blessing, 520 U.S. at 340-41. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity as to what Oregon was required to do under § 673(a)(3) as a condition of receiving federal funding under Title IV-E. Cf. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1981) (holding that the phrases “appropriate treatment” and “least restrictive” were too vague to be enforceable as the State did not agree to any specific terms and conditions as a prerequisite to receiving federal funding); Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 358, 363 (1992) (referencing Pennhurst, the Court explained that the phrase “reasonable efforts” standing alone does not provide specific information regarding “exactly what is required of States by the Act” and thus was not an enforceable individual right). We are not persuaded by the fact that in 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2003), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed a different provision of Title IV-E, namely § 671(a)(16), and concluded that it did not create the right the plaintiffs were seeking to enforce. We do not look at the Act in its entirety and determine at that level of generality whether it creates individual rights. See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 342-43.11 Instead, we review only the particular statutory provision at issue.12 11 In response to the Court’s broad reasoning in Suter, Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2, explicitly stating that simply because § 671(a)(15), the provision at issue in Suter, did not create an enforceable private right of action, does not mean that other provisions in Title IV-E did not create federal rights. Section 1320a-2 also overturned Suter to the extent the Court held that simply by virtue of being a plan requirement Congress foreclosed the possibility that the provision could create an individually enforceable federal right. See, e.g., Price, 390 F.3d at 1113 (holding that notwithstanding the fact that the provision at issue was a plan certification requirement, based on a review of the text and structure of the legislation, Congress also intended the provision to confer an enforceable entitlement to specific benefits). 12 The plaintiffs in 31 Foster Children brought suit under § 675 asserting they had a right to prompt placement with permanent families and to have ASW v. STATE OF OREGON 13155 Because Plaintiffs have asserted a federal right presumptively enforceable under § 1983, the burden falls on the State to rebut this presumption by showing that Congress has “specifically foreclosed a remedy under § 1983” either expressly “or impliedly, by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under § 1983.” Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341. Section 673(a) does not explicitly foreclose a § 1983 action, therefore, the State must demonstrate that Congress created a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under § 1983. See id. [8] We begin our analysis by recognizing that we do “not lightly conclude that Congress intended to preclude reliance on § 1983 as a remedy for the deprivation of a federally secured right.” Price, 390 F.3d at 1114 (quoting Wilder, 496 U.S. at 520). The Act provides that disputes over adoption assistance benefits may be heard before the State agency, but does not mention nor preclude federal review. 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(12). The mere availability of administrative review mechanisms to protect Plaintiffs’ interests cannot defeat their ability to invoke § 1983. See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 348; Mo. Child Care Ass’n v. Cross, 294 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2002) (concluding that the provisions for administrative review in the Act were “not sufficiently indicative of Congress’s true intent to limit the available remedies”). [9] Oregon cites a recent decision of the Supreme Court, City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 125 S. Ct. 1453 (2005), in which the Court held that the alternative judicial remedy Congress provided in the Telecommunications Act of their medical and educational backgrounds provided to their caregivers as part of the case review system. 329 F.3d at 1261. There is no mention in the statutory text, however, of a right to prompt placement or to have medical and education backgrounds provided to caregivers. By contrast, § 673(3) unambiguously creates a right to individualized payment determinations. Thus, the reasoning of 31 Foster Children is inapposite. 13156 ASW v. STATE OF OREGON 1996 (“TCA”) precluded the petitioner from sustaining a § 1983 cause of action. Oregon argues that because Congress provided for the enforcement of adoption assistance agreements under state law, §§ 671(a)(12) and 673(a)(3) do not create rights that are enforceable under § 1983. The Court, however, explicitly rejected the proposition that the availability of a private judicial remedy conclusively establishes a congressional intent to preclude a § 1983 cause of action. 125 S. Ct. at 1459. Instead, the Court explained that the dispositive issue is whether the private remedy provided by statute is more restrictive than those available through a § 1983 action, such that the § 1983 action would function as an end run around the enforcement mechanism Congress provided. Id. at 1458, 1460. Observing that the enforcement mechanism provided by the TCA limited relief in ways that § 1983 did not,13 the Court concluded that “[e]nforcement of § 332(c)(7) through § 1983 would distort the scheme of expedited judicial review and limited remedies created by [the TCA].” Id. at 1462. [10] By contrast, the Act does not include a comprehensive enforcement mechanism incompatible with a § 1983 action. It simply provides the beneficiary with an “opportunity for a fair hearing before the State agency” to contest individual benefit claims under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(12). Notably, Congress did not place any temporal or remedial limitations such as those the Court considered dispositive in concluding that Congress intended the statutory enforcement mechanism in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) to be exclusive. Furthermore, Oregon’s argument that § 673(a)(1), which requires the State to enter into binding agreements with adoptive parents, creates a comprehensive enforcement scheme incompatible with § 1983 13 The enforcement mechanism available under the TCA (1) mandated that judicial review be sought within 30 days and the final action heard and decided on an expedited basis; (2) likely excluded compensatory damages; and (3) did not provide for attorneys’ fees and costs. Rancho Palos Verdes, 125 S. Ct. at 1459-60. ASW v. STATE OF OREGON 13157 mischaracterizes the right Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce here. Regardless of whether their contracts have been breached, Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce their right under § 673(a)(3) to individualized payment determinations, which is a federal statutory right that is not dependent on the terms of their individual contracts. And, even if Plaintiffs were able to sue on their contracts to enforce their right to individualized payment determinations, “the state-court remedy is hardly a reason to bar an action under § 1983, which was adopted to provide a federal remedy for the enforcement of federal rights.” See Wright, 479 U.S. at 429. [11] We conclude therefore that Plaintiffs may proceed with an action under § 1983 on their claim that they were entitled to individualized payment determinations. We do not comment on the merits; we merely hold that Plaintiffs’ claim is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.