Opinion ID: 150167
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Service Contract

Text: I.H. stakes much of his argument on a single passage from the Independent Contractor provision of the Service Contract. In relevant part, this provision states that the Home is deemed an Independent Contractor and shall not during the term of this contract assign, subcontract, transfer, or otherwise delegate all or part of its obligations or responsibilities without prior written approval of [Lehigh County]. From this, I.H. argues that the Home had a non-delegable duty to exercise all control necessary to ensure his safety. On this reading, the Home committed itself to providing more than initial placement and ongoing monitoring of established goals; it also must exercise additional control over the manner of its foster parents' care (on a daily basis, if necessary). According to I.H., it is thus no argument that the Home did not exercise this control, including when supervising I.H.'s care by the Nortons. The Home had the duty to exercise whatever level of control was necessary to keep I.H. safe. [9] Scattered provisions of the Service Contract strengthen this reading. For instance, the Purpose of [the] Contract between the Home and Lehigh County was defined (quite broadly) as Residential/Foster Care, while the Home elsewhere agreed to provide Foster Care ... Services. Furthermore, the Home promised to promote [each] child's growth and development by providing the physical care, nurturance[,] and opportunity [necessary] for individual, social, emotional[,] and intellectual development. Finally, the Home agreed to accomplish these goals by: 1) provid[ing] a temporary living environment in the form of foster family care; 2) retain[ing] responsibility of [I.H.'s] physical custody throughout his placement; and 3) actively participat[ing] in the delivery of [related foster care] services. Given these provisions, I.H. concludes that the Home was charged with running a foster care program, with non-delegable responsibilities that extended beyond mere placement and supervision to additional control over the manner in which the Nortons cared for I.H. on a daily basis. These textual arguments, simple and supportive, nonetheless fall short. First, I.H. reads too much into the Independent Contractor provision. Recourse to it merely begs the key question on appeal. It provides that the Home shall not ... delegate all or part of its obligations or responsibilities without prior written approval. This provision says little about what those obligations and responsibilities are. As the Illinois Supreme Court recently noted in a similar context, whatever duty there is to provide placement, to institute procedures, or even to exercise general authority over foster children[,] is not the same as a continuing, nondelegable duty to provide for the care of children placed in foster homes. Nichol v. Stass, 192 Ill.2d 233, 248 Ill.Dec. 931, 735 N.E.2d 582, 589 (2000). Furthermore, many of the provisions that I.H. cites apply equally to a Service Contract providing for foster care placement and ongoing monitoring rather than one including additional responsibilities for directing the manner of care the foster parents need to provide on a daily basis. For instance, the Home's purported duty to provide a temporary living environment in the form of foster family care can be met through placement services. The same is true of the Home's obligation to promote a child's growth and development by providing the physical care, nurturance[,] and opportunity [necessary] for individual, social, emotional, and intellectual development. And while the Home agreed to actively participate in the delivery of services, this need not extend to all (or even most) of the Nortons' day-to-day parenting decisions. Indeed, this passage itself is part of a larger paragraph on the role of caseworkers in monitor[ing] foster families. The Home's level of control is further clarified by the following passage, which was part of a program description incorporated into the Service Contract by the parties: The Lutheran Home strives to provide the most stable and caring environment for children. Proper recruitment and training of foster parents, careful matching of children and families, and viable accessible supports for foster parents and foster children are in place in order to avoid multiple placements. J.A. 517 (emphasis added). In this passage, the Home defined its key duties as foster family recruitment, foster child placement, and ongoing supervision. Other passages in the program description also aid this account of the Home's responsibilities. Among them, the Home pledged to provide supportive services to [its] foster families, which were intended to under-gird the foster parents' effectiveness in providing a stable, nurturing environment for the foster children in their care. In addition, the Home put in place a referral procedure for processing requests from Lehigh County: A referral for foster care placement can be made by the county by contacting the foster care supervisor. A verbal description of [a] child's [characteristics] ... [is] necessary in order to provide the most appropriate foster family setting. Importantly, [a]cceptance of the referral is contingent upon whether a suitable match can be made between the child and a foster family and the availability of an opening. Therefore, if a suitable match with a family were not made, the Home would not accept a referral from Lehigh County. [10] Moreover, within the Home's program approved foster families agree to provide room/board, basic physical care, health care, and supervision, as well as provide for the child's developmental needs. In this role, foster parents must participate in the development of the [child's] [i]ndividual [s]ervice [p]lan and facilitate many of the objectives outlined in the plan. Related regulations provide further support for this account. Pennsylvania law defines a foster family care agency as [a] public or private agency which recruits, approves, supervises[,] and places children with foster families. See 55 Pa. Code § 3700.4. In this capacity, it is a stand-in for the county, which would typically be responsible for these tasks. At the same time, a foster family is defined as [t]he living unit, including the foster family residence and foster parent, approved by a foster family care agency to provide foster family care to children. Id. Similarly, a foster parent is defined as [a]n individual responsible for providing foster family care to children placed by a[] [foster family care agency]. Id. Within this scheme, foster families are tasked with [p]rovid[ing] temporary, substitute care for each child in need. Id. at § 3130.5. In addition, the Service Contract itself suggests that it should be read in light of these regulatory goals, as the Contract's Interpretation provision provides that it is the intention of the [parties] that the public health, safety[,] and welfare be protected and furthered by the [C]ontract. Therefore, this [C]ontract is to be interpreted in such manner as to favor such public interest as opposed to any private interest. As the Home's counsel explained at oral argument, The [service] contracts are written in light of [related] code provisions. Oral Arg. Tr. 24. Analyzing the Service Contract in light of related regulations, the Home argues that its duty is to provide foster care indirectly through a foster family and assist the county in placing children in foster families. Id. at 25, 26. The Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators Association (PCYAA) similarly explained, Private foster care agencies cannot and do not supervise and control the day-to-day... care that a foster parent provides a foster child. Foster care agencies do not have the power or authority to exercise this type of control over foster parents. PCYAA's Br. 10-11. These accounts are consistent with the role of a foster family care agency as defined by Pennsylvania's regulatory scheme. Taken together, these passages suggest that the Home's duties extended only to initial placement and ongoing supervision of established goals, not to the manner in which the Nortons chose to achieve each of these goals. Therefore, the Service Contract, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a master-servant relationship. Yet this does not end the master-servant inquiry. It is still possible that the Home's related supervisory responsibilities give rise to a master-servant relationship. To that end, we turn to the Placement Agreement and accompanying Handbook.