N.D. Cal. Holds 1983 Enforceable by Providers

The federal district court of the Northern District of California held that the provider reimbursement provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act are enforceable pursuant to § 1983.

The federal district court of the Northern District of California held that the provider reimbursement provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act  are enforceable pursuant to § 1983.  The plaintiff in the case is a non-profit organization representing group homes that care for foster children.  The plaintiff alleges that foster care maintenance payments in California are insufficient to cover costs, and as a result, several members have ceased operating or reduced their capacity.  California Alliance of Child and Family Services v. Allenby, 2006 WL 3068879 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2006). 

 

The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss which alleged that the plaintiff did not have a private right of action to enforce the law.  The court noted that the Child Welfare Act specified particular costs that were to be included in foster care maintenance payments, i.e. the cost of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, a child's personal incidentals, liability insurance with respect to a child, and reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation.  42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A).  The court found that this was distinguishable from the generalized requirement for “substantial compliance” in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997).

 

The court carefully analyzed Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).  Interestingly, the court rejected the dissent of Justice Stevens, which indicated that Gonzaga had overruled Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498 (1990) and Wright v. Roanoke Redev. And Housing Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987).  The court stated: “In his opinion for the majority, Justice Rehnquist made no intimations at overruling Wright or Wilder.”

 

The court distinguished Sanchez v. Johnson, 416 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2005), which held that the Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A), did not confer a private right of action under § 1983.  The court noted that the Medicaid provision requires states to establish methods and procedures for payment for services.  The court explained: “The list of costs outlined in [Child Welfare Act] goes beyond the requirement of methods and procedures for payments; it requires states to reimburse providers for specific, enumerated costs and is more akin to the spending provisions analyzed in Wilder and Wright.”

 

The state argued that any rights conferred by the law were aimed at the children and that the providers could not enforce rights belonging to the children.  The court disagreed.  The court likened the claim of the providers to that of adoptive parents who were found to have individual rights under the Child Welfare Act by the Ninth Circuit.  ASW v. Oregon, 424 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2005), cert.denied, 2006 WL 1167416 (2006).   The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the provision at issue was vague and amorphous, agreeing with another district court that the payment provision contained an explicit provision for determining payment to the providers.  Missouri Child Care Ass’n v. Martin, 241 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1041 (W.D.Mo. 2003).  The court also held that the language of the Child Welfare Act was mandatory not precatory.

 

The Judge in the case, Marilyn Hall Patel, was nominated by Jimmy Carter.