Justia Federal District Court Opinions

Appellants Jerome Miller and the Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter referred to collectively as the DCFS) seek reversal of orders of the district court entered on July 27, 1976, and August 24, 1976, determining that related persons caring for children who have been declared wards of the state are eligible for AFDC-FC assistance under § 408 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 608.1 The essential and dispositive question concerns the meaning, for federal welfare purposes, of the term "foster family home."

The basic facts regarding the DCFS denial of foster care payments to the Youakims have been recounted in the three-judge district court opinion in Youakim v. Miller, 374 F.Supp. 1204 (N.D.Ill.1974), vacated, 425 U.S. 231, 96 S.Ct. 1399, 47 L.Ed.2d 701 (1976) (per curiam). Initially, the named plaintiffs filed a civil rights class action against the DCFS charging that the Illinois statutory foster care scheme denied them equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. After this claim was rejected by the three-judge court, see 374 F.Supp. at 1207-10, the plaintiffs pressed in argument before the Supreme Court the claim that the Illinois state law was in conflict with the Social Security Act. The Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate that the plaintiffs be permitted to press the issue of conflict between state and federal law in the district court, vacated the judgment, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. 425 U.S. at 236-37, 96 S.Ct. 1399.

On remand, the district court reviewed both the history of the case and the contentions of the parties. The opinion of the district court is, with certain exceptions,2 adopted as the opinion of this court and, the order not having been published, a copy thereof is attached to this opinion as an Appendix. Our independent comments are directed to arguments of the parties which are not set forth or analyzed in the court's memorandum opinion of July 27, 1976 or which arise by virtue of the formulation of the judgment order of August 24, 1976.

* The district court agreed, as do we, with the Youakims' argument that the plain meaning of the federal statute is that all state wards placed in approved foster homes are eligible for full AFDC-FC payments under 42 U.S.C. § 608. The district court further concluded the HEW's Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9, issued on October 25, 1974, was consistent with the plain words and meaning of Section 408 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 608. We agree. Finally, the district court concluded after study of the legislative history that Congress did not intend to exclude related foster homes from AFDC-FC benefits authorized in Section 408 of the Act but rather intended such benefits to be paid to eligible children in all approved foster homes. We agree that eligible children in approved foster homes are entitled to benefits, but we rest our conclusion on the meaning of the statute itself rather than upon a determination of an implied legislative intent.

The DCFS has consistently maintained that Congress did not intend to benefit children who are related to their caretakers as foster children living with foster parents under the AFDC foster care provisions contained in 42 U.S.C. § 608. The essential basis of the DCFS refusal to pay the foster care benefit rate to the Youakims has been its view, succinctly stated before this court, that "a foster family home has to mean a nonrelated home." One of the strongest arguments in support of the DCFS position is found in a dictionary definition of the adjective "foster." In Webster's Third New International Dictionary the general definition is "affording, receiving, or sharing nourishment, upbringing, or parental care though not related by blood or legal ties."3 The DCFS position is weakened, however, by the examples following the general definition:

a: rearing the child of another

b: brought up by someone other than one's natural parent

c: reared in the same family but not of the same parentage.

Clearly the plaintiffs here are rearing the child of another (a supra ) and the children involved are being brought up by someone other than their natural parents (b supra ). In any event, as the DCFS concedes "Congress did not mean to incorporate Webster by reference."

Although the DCFS steadfastly adheres to its contention that the term "related foster parent" is a misnomer for federal welfare purposes, it has admitted that the language of the Social Security Act does not itself exclude relatives from the status of foster parentage.⁴ The DCFS has constructed an elaborate, indeed ingenious argument, regarding an implied legislative intent to exclude relatives from the denotation of the word "foster." However, the DCFS has not directed equal attention to the possibility that our standard of judgment should be the meaning of the statute itself. See 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45.07, at 20 (1973 ed.)

Our judicial function is limited to applying statutes on the basis of what Congress has written, not what Congress might have written. See Territory of Guam v. Olsen, 431 U.S. 195, 205, 97 S.Ct. 1774, 52 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Examination of the various subsections of the Social Security Act discloses that Congress never really attempted to formulate comprehensive definitions of all the terms it employed in the statute. Thus, 42 U.S.C. § 606(b)(2)(D) refers to "aid in the form of foster home care" but does not itself explicate the meaning of the phrase. Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 608(b) refers to "foster care in behalf of a child" but again does not itself explicate the meaning of that phrase.

However, Congress did use the expression "foster family home of any individual," 42 U.S.C. § 608(b)(1). The Youakims read the last three words of the statutory expression as supporting their view, while the DCFS argues that the entire expression must be read in order to discern its real meaning. Forthrightly, the DCFS states that "(t)he question then becomes, what does it mean when Congress has said 'foster family home'?" We agree that this is the appropriate question, but we think that Congress has itself provided the answer by defining that term.

Although Congress has not defined "foster home care," see 42 U.S.C. § 606(b) (2)(D), or "foster care," see 42 U.S.C. § 608(b), it has in fact set forth a statutory definition of the expression "foster family home":

For purposes of this section, the term "foster family home" means 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 responsible for licensing homes of this type, as meeting the standards established for such licensing . . ..

The DCFS submits that this definition is "certainly circular." We need not determine whether or not this geometric criticism is valid, for the statutory phrasing does not appear to be framed with unremitting attention to the demands of lexical science. Our disposition of the appeal should not rest upon the lexicographical expertise of the draftsmen but upon the application of the statute to the facts of the case.

Thus, if the Youakims' home has been approved by the DCFS as meeting the standards established for the licensing of foster care homes, it falls within the statutory definition. The DCFS implicitly concedes that fact in its argument attacking the district court's supposedly erroneous findings.⁵ The DCFS argues that the Youakims' home obviously could not have been approved as a foster care home. The logic of this argument is difficult to discern in view of the formulation of the Relative Home Placement Agreement.

The first sentence of that agreement states that:

The Division of Child Welfare, Department of Children and Family Services, has approved the home of Mr. and Mrs. Marcel Youakim, address 1720 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, Ill. for the care of a foster child: Name Timothy Robertson Born 5/1/65.

The last sentence of the agreement states that:

This placement agreement, made in good faith and mutual confidence, is equally binding on the Department and the ABOVE NAMED RELATIVES.

The plain language of the agreement thus states that the Youakims' home has been approved for the care of a foster child. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because the placement agreement directly refers to the care of a foster child, we agree with the district court's determination that the Youakims' home has been approved as a foster care home. Whether it is a "foster family home" requires construction of the federal statute.

However, the DCFS argues that there is no showing anywhere in the record that the Youakims have actually met the standards required for the licensing of foster homes, so as to have incurred the identical obligations of all other foster parents in Illinois. In view of the DCFS assertion that this case should be decided on the basis of the clear and literal language which Congress used in enacting 42 U.S.C. §§ 606 and 608, we decline to find merit in the present argument.

We note that 42 U.S.C. § 608 does not require that an approved home actually meet the standards for licensed foster homes. Instead, the statutory language states that the home must be approved by the state agency as meeting the standards for licensing. The suggestion that the Youakims obviously could not be approved, see note 5 supra, is juxtaposed with the assertion that Illinois is a licensing state. However, the DCFS has already admitted in this case that the Youakims could not obtain a license.⁶ Moreover, the DCFS Family Services Family Placement Manual states not only that "related" persons are not subject to foster home licensing but also that a relative home must reasonably meet minimum standards if it is to be considered as a placement resource.

We do not understand the DCFS to be contending that its staff workers ignored the criteria established in the Placement Manual. That the home of the Youakims was not "officially designated as a foster care facility," see note 5 supra, stems entirely from the want of power under Illinois law to make such an official designation. The very statutory provision struck down in the lower court's judgment order defines a "foster family home" as a facility for child care in the residences of families who receive children unrelated to them. Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 23, § 2212.17. The DCFS can hardly rely upon a definition of "foster family home" which directly conflicts with the federal statutory definition as a way of upsetting the district court's determination of a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Nor can the DCFS procedure of striking out the word "foster" wherever it appears in a Foster Home Placement Agreement be determinative of the Youakims' right to foster care benefits.⁷

The DCFS argues that the formulation of § 608(f), see note 1 supra, makes no sense whatsoever if related persons like the Youakims are held to be eligible for foster care payments. The DCFS contends that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Congressional insistence that the state plan should be designed to make possible the placement of the child in the home of a relative specified in § 606(a) is that Congress could not have intended to extend foster care coverage to a group of persons (viz., relatives caring for needy children) who were already covered by § 606 or to needy dependent children who are living with relatives. The DCFS interprets § 608(f) as meaning that, rather than regarding the Youakim home as a permanent stable environment for the Youakims' related children, it would paradoxically be required under the subsection to strive to remove the children from such temporary foster care and place them elsewhere.

We think that the DCFS reading of 42 U.S.C. § 608(f) is incorrect. That particular provision appears in a long, convoluted passage which begins with subsection (c) and continues up to the defining passage. See note 1 supra. Only three readings of the subsection are plausible.

First, the passage may refer back to subsection (c). In that case, it sets forth a condition which must be met before individuals receiving foster care expenditures are to be counted under § 603(a)(1)(A).⁸ That referenced subsection specifies in part the amount which the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay in the case of a State by authorizing five-sixths of certain expenditures, not counting for purposes of that subsection a certain number of individuals. Second, the provision may refer back to subsection (d). In that case, the provision has significance for purposes of the reimbursement of administrative expenditures as provided in § 603(a)(3).⁹ Either reading of subsection (f) respects the syntactic construction of the statute and gives some meaning to the Congressional usage of punctuation.

Third, by attaching greater significance to legislative margination than to punctuation or syntax, § 608(f) may be read as qualifying the legislative determination to make foster care benefits available to needy dependent children. In that case, the provisions of the foster care program embodied in subsections (a) to (d) are effective only under certain conditions. The "but only" clause of the section which immediately precedes subsections (e) and (f) thus encompasses all of the preceding statutory material. Assuming but without deciding that such is the case, subsection (f) still cannot be tortured into meaning that a state is required to remove children from the care of approved related persons. The very terms of the subsection merely provide that the agency plan for children assure that services are provided which are designed to improve the conditions of the home from which they were removed or to otherwise make it possible to place them in the home of a specified relative. See note 1 supra. A plan for any child which promoted the former objective would suffice. Thus, as the DCFS has earlier conceded, there is nothing in the language of § 608(f) which prevents payment of foster care benefits to related foster parents.

Moreover, were this court to attach greater significance to margination than to punctuation, it would inexorably be drawn back again to the defining passage. That portion of the statutory section is marginated in such a fashion as to place it on an equal footing with the effectuating clause and the "but only" qualification. Because the defining passage controls the entire section, not merely discrete subsections thereof, its plain language must control.

We conclude that neither the DCFS reliance on the ordinary meaning of the word "foster" nor its interpretation of the planning requirements embodied in § 608(f) can justify deviation from the statutory definition of a "foster family home." Thus we rule that the district court's grant of summary judgment on July 27, 1976 in favor of the Youakims was legally correct.

II

The DCFS submits that this court should reverse the judgment order of August 24, 1976, even if it concludes that the summary judgment order was proper. The DCFS contends that the implementing order is overly broad, misleading, and contrary to the Social Security Act itself. In particular, the DCFS notes that the lower court ignored the § 608(a)(4) requirement that the foster child must either have been receiving AFDC or have been eligible to receive AFDC assistance had application been made within six months prior to the initiation of court action leading to a determination of wardship. See note 1 supra. The Youakims concede the possibility of ambiguity in the judgment order, but indicate that the foster children have no objection to an amendment to the order which would include reference to the 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(4) requirement of an AFDC eligible home.

We agree that the judgment order, if read in its entirety, correctly and properly indicates the required scope of relief. However, in order to remove any possible misinterpretation that the § 608(a)(4) requirement need not be met in order to qualify for AFDC-FC benefits, we modify Paragraph 2 of the August 24, 1976, order.¹⁰

The DCFS further argues that the portion of the judgment order requiring it to promulgate new rules and regulations consistent with the court's order is an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of the state and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

We are satisfied that the district court had equitable power to order the promulgation of new rules and regulations. Although this case differs somewhat from Mandley v. Trainor, 545 F.2d 1062 (7th Cir. 1976) (Mandley II ), cert. granted sub nom. Quern v. Mandley, 431 U.S. 953, 97 S.Ct. 2672, 53 L.Ed.2d 269 (1977), the dissimilarity is not sufficient to require modification of the district court's order.

In Mandley II, supra at 1072, we recognized that the Secretary of HEW had a mandatory duty under 42 U.S.C. § 1302 to promulgate regulations implementing the provisions of the Social Security Act. In that case, we did decline to "order HEW specifically to include any items in its new regulation." Id. at 1073. Nonetheless, we rejected the notion implicit in HEW's objection that ordering the promulgation of regulations was an untoward invasion of the province of the Secretary. Id. at 1072. Here also, the DCFS is mandated by state law to establish rules and regulations concerning its operations of programs for foster care. See Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 23, § 5005.¹¹ Moreover, the district court's order in this case, by its very terms, does not direct the DCFS to adopt any particular rule or regulation. Instead, Paragraph 7 of the order carefully uses such words as "policies and procedures." It requires modification of existing provisions only insofar as

existing policies and procedures presently exclude from eligibility or deny full AFDC-F(C) foster care payments and ancillary benefits to otherwise eligible foster children and foster parents related to them, because such foster children are living in foster homes maintained by such foster parents, and/or which are otherwise inconsistent with or frustrate the statutory policy of Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., favoring placement of such foster children in the homes of relatives.

Thus, there is no requirement that specific items be included in a promulgated regulation. The only proper reading of the judgment order is that it requires the DCFS to formulate its regulations consistent with the demands of federal statutory law. Acceptance of the DCFS argument would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction and power to enforce rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The DCFS reliance on Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976), is misplaced. Although the federal courts must be constantly mindful of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and state administration of its own law, they must, and do, retain power to enforce compliance with federal statutes.

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the orders appealed from are affirmed as modified.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX

No. 73 C 635

MARCEL YOUAKIM and LINDA YOUAKIM individually and as foster parents, TIMOTHY ROBERTSON, a minor, by his sister and next friend LINDA YOUAKIM, MARY LOU ROBERTSON, a minor, by her sister and next friend LINDA YOUAKIM, LARRY ROBERTSON, a minor, by his sister and next friend LINDA YOUAKIM, and SHERRY ROBERTSON, a minor, by her sister and next friend LINDA YOUAKIM, and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JEROME MILLER individually and as Director of the DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, and the DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES of the STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Defendants.