Departmental Appeals Board DAB2253 Missouri Department of Social Services (06.15.2009).

8/7/2019 Departmental Appeals Board DAB2253 Missouri Department of Social Services (06.15.2009).

1/10

Department of Health and Human ServicesDEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

Appellate DivisionSUBJECT: Missouri Department o f DATE: June 15, 2009

Soc ia l Serv icesDocket No. A-09-52Decision No. 2253

DECISIONThe Missour i Department of Soc ia l Serv ices (Missouri) appealedth e December 22, 2008 dec is ion o f th e Administ ra t ion fo rChi ld ren and Famil ies (ACF). ACF disal lowed fede ra l funding fo rfos t e r care maintenance payments and assoc ia t ed admin is t r a t iveco s t s and found t h a t Missouri was not i n subs tan t i a l compliancewith th e f edera l prov i s ions governing th e e l i g i b i l i t y o fch i ld ren and prov ide rs fo r such payments . ACF's dec i s ion wasbased on an e l i g i b i l i t y review t h a t t e s t ed a sample o f paymentscla imed by Missouri during th e per iod October 1 , 2007 throughMarch 31, 2008. ACF determined t h a t f ive sample cases werei ne l i g i b l e fo r e i t h e r pa r t o r a l l o f th e review pe r iod , one morethan th e number o f i ne l i g ib l e cases a l lowed fo r a f inding o fsu b s t a n t i a l compliance.Missour i disputed the e l i g i b i l i t y review f indings fo r th r ee o fth e sample. cases . Missouri disputed ACF's f inding, . in samplecase #80, t h a t the re was a cour t order removing th e ch i ld fromhome t h a t d id not inc lude the r e qu i s i t e determina t ion t h a tremoval was con t ra ry to th e wel fare o f th e ch i ld . Missour i a l sodi spu ted ACF's f indings t ha t sample case #73 and oversample case#2 were i ne l i g i b l e because payments were made to a l i censed o rapproved fos t e r home fo r a f u l l month a l though th e ch i ld ,was inth e home fo r only pa r t of the month. Missouri argued t h a t th ech i ld ren were e l i g i b l e when the payments were made, so th epayments were n ot e l i g i b i l i t y e r ro r s , but merely overpayments.For th e reasons d i scussed below, we conclude t h a t Missouri wasin su b s t a n t i a l compliance with the requirements fo r th e fos t e r


2/10

2

ca re program. Missouri reasonably determined t h a t t he cour to rd e r on which ACF r e l i e d in sample #80 was not an orde rsanc t ion ing removal of the ch i ld from home and t ha t th e f i r s tremoval orde r d id conta in a cont ra ry to th e wel farede te rmina t ion . Also, we agree with Missouri t ha t ACF's ownpo l i cy t r e a t s a ch i ld on a t r i a l home v i s i t , l ike th e ch i ld insample case #73, as e l i g i b l e , so t ha t t h i s sample case was no ti ne l i g i b l e , even though the payment exceeded th e a l lowableamount. Since our f inding fo r e i t h e r of these cases meansMissour i had fewer than f ive i ne l i g ib l e cases in th e reviewpe r iod , we do not need to address whether oversample case #2involved an e l i g i b i l i t y e r r o r . lWith r espec t to th e disa l lowance , we reverse the $22,046.90 disa l lowance as soc ia ted with sample case #80, bu t uphold th eremaining disa l lowance . Missouri . concedes t ha t it i s requ i redto repay th e $5,812.80 disa l lowed fo r sample case #7 3 andoversample case #2. Moreover, Missouri does not d ispu te ACF'sf ind ings fo r two cases found i ne l i g ib l e during the review pe r iodo r ACF's f inding t ha t Missouri made i ne l i g ib l e payments fo rt h ree o th e r cases ou t s ide o f t he review pe r iod .Legal BackgroundT i t l e IV-E of the Soc ia l Secur i ty Act (Act) , as amended by th eAdoption and Safe Famil ies Act o f 1997 (ASFA), Publ ic Law No.,105-89, makes f edera l matching of s t a t e fos t e r care maintenancepayments ava i l ab le fo r a chi ld in fo s t e r care who would havebeen e l i g i b l e fo r Aid to Famil ies with Dependent Children undertitle IV-A of the Act as i n e f f e c t as of June I , 1995-

b u t fo r h is removal from th e home o f ar e l a t i ve . . . if(1) the removal from the home occur red pursuant to a

vo lun ta ry placement agreement ente red in to by th e

1 Missour i had chal lenged ACF's pos i t ion t ha t , while t h i sappea l was pending, Missouri was requi red to submit a programimprovement plan to remedy its noncompliance. MO Br. a t 4-6 .Missour i l a t e r s ta ted t h a t the Board need not address t h i s i s sueun le s s the p a r t i e s are unable to resolve it themselves and hasnot advi sed th e Board t ha t it remains unresolved. MO Reply Br.a t I , n .1 . In any event , our dec is ion renders t h i s i s sue moot.
http:///reader/full/22,046.90http:///reader/full/5,812.80http:///reader/full/22,046.90http:///reader/full/5,812.80


3/10

3

c h i l d ' s pa ren t o r l eg a l guardian, o r was th e r e s u l t ofa j u d i c i a l dete rmina t ion to th e e f f e c t tha tcon t inua t ion t he re in would be con t ra ry to the wel fa reo f such chi ld and ( e f fec t ive October 1, 1983) t h a treasonable e f f o r t s of th e type descr ibed in sec t ion471(a) (15) fo r a ch i ld have been made[ .]

Sec t ion 472(a) (2 ) of th e Act (42 U.S.C. 672(a)) .2Sec t ion 1356.21(c) of 45 C.F.R. provides :

Under sec t ion 472(a) (1) of the Act, a c h i l d ' s removal fromth e home must have been th e r e s u l t of a j ud i c i a lde te rmina t ion (unless th e ch i ld was removed pursuant to avo lun ta ry placement agreement) to th e e f f e c t t ha tcon t inua t ion of res idence in the home would be con t ra ry toth e wel fa re , o r t ha t placement would be in th e b es ti n t e r e s t , of th e ch i ld . The con t ra ry to th e wel farede te rmina t ion must be made in the f i r s t cour t ru l ing t h a tsanc t ions (even temporar i ly) th e removal of a ch i ld fromhome. I f th e dete rmina t ion regarding con t ra ry to th ewel fa re i s n ot made in the f i r s t cour t ru l ing per t a in ing toremoval from the home, th e ch i ld i s not e l i g i b l e fo r titleIV-E fos t e r care maintenance payments fo r th e durat ion o ft h a t s t ay in fo s t e r care .

Sec t ion 1356.21(k) prov i des :(1) For the purposes of meeting th e requirements of

s ec t i o n 472(a) (1) of the Act, a removal from th e home mustoccur pur suan t to :(i) A vo lun ta ry placement agreement en te red i n to by a

pa ren t o r guardian which l eads to a phys ica l o rcons t ruc t ive removal ( i . e . , a non-physica l o r paper removalof custody) of the chi ld from th e home; o r

( i i ) A j ud i c i a l order fo r a phys ica l or cons t ruc t iveremoval of the ch i ld from a pa ren t or spec i f i ed r e l a t i v e .* * * * *(3) A ch i ld i s considered cons t ruc t ive ly removed on

t he da t e o f the f i r s t j ud i c i a l order removing custody, even

2 Effec t ive October 1, 2005, sec t ion 472(a) (2) was amendedby th e D e f i c i t Reduct ion Act of 2005, Publ ic Law No. 109-171, 7404. We quote from the e a r l i e r ve rs ion , which was in e f f e c tdur ing t he pe r iod r e levan t here .


4/10

4

t emporar i ly , from the appropr ia te spec i f i ed r e l a t i ve o r th eda te t h a t the volunta ry placement agreement i s signed bya l l r e levan t par t i e s .

Pursuant to 45 C.F.R. 1356.71, ACF conducts p r imary reviews o fs t a t e compliance with title IV-E fo s t e r care e l i g i b i l i t yrequi rements every th ree years based on a randomly drawn sampleo f 80 cases . ACF reviews these sample cases to determinewhether title IV-E payments were made (1) on beha l f o f e l i g i b l ech i ld ren and (2 ) to e l i g i b l e fo s t e r family homes and ch i ld carei n s t i t u t i o n s . Sect ion 1356.71(d) (1) and (2) . The requirementss u b j ec t to review inc lude whether th e ch i ld i s placed in al i censed fos t e r family home o r ch i ld care i n s t i t u t i o n . Sect ion1356.71 (d) (1) ( iv) .I f a s t a t e ' s i ne l i g ib l e cases in th e sample ( e r ro r cases) do n otexceed e i g h t in th e " i n i t i a l primary review," o r four in a"subsequent pr imary review" ( the type of review conducted here) ,a s t a t e ' s program i s deemed in " s u b s t an t i a l compliance," and th es t a t e i s n ot sub jec t to ano ther primary review fo r th ree year s .However, a disal lowance i s assessed fo r payments andadmin is t r a t ive co s t s as soc ia ted with th e i nd iv idua l e r r o r casesin th e sample " f o r th e per iod o f t ime th e cases are i ne l i g i b l e . "Sect ion 1356.71(c) (4) . I f a s t a t e ' s program i s deemed not insu b s t a n t i a l compliance, a program improvement plan i s requ i red ,fo l lowed by a "secondary review" o f 150 randomly drawn cases ,which w i l l r e s u l t in a disa l lowance t ha t i s based on anex t rapo la t ion from th e sample to th e universe o f cla ims paid ifboth case and do l l a r e r ro r r a t e s i n th e secondary review exceed10 percen t . Sect ion 1356.71(c) (5) and (6) .AnalysisBelow, we f i r s t di scuss sample case #80 and ' then sample case#73.Sample Case #80The fo l lowing f a c t s appear from a t r a ns c r ip t o f a hear ing in th eC i rc u i t Court o f th e Ci ty o f S t . Louis , Missouri (Missour iExhib i t 1 ) . The c h i l d ' s mother, a Missouri r e s id en t who hadt rave led to Arkansas , of fe red he r twin daughters-one o f whom was


5/10

5

th e c h i l d in t h i s sample case - to a B r i t i s h couple fo r adopt ion . 3On December 8, 2000, she t r a ns f e r r e d custody of the ch i ld ren toth e B r i t i s h couple and signed a Consent to Adopt. MO Ex. I , a t21. The na tura l f a the r a lso signed a Consent to Adopt onDecember I I , 2000. Id . a t 13, 15-17. A cour t in Pulask iCounty, Arkansas i s sued a decree of adoption, bu t then voidedand s e t as ide th e adopt ion on March 6, 2001. Id . a t 4-5 , 11.While an appea l of th e void ing was pending, th e na t u ra l motherpe t i t i oned th e S t . Louis Circu i t Court to formally revoke herconsent to adopt ion on th e ground t ha t the B r i t i s h couple hadf a l s e ly r ep resen ted t h a t th e adoption would be an "openadopt ion" where th e na tura l paren t s would have r egu la r con tac twi th the ch i ld ren . Id . a t 8, 10-12 . At a March 27, 2001hear ing on t h i s mat ter , which was consol idated with the na t u ra lpa re n t s ' divorce ac t ion , th e S t . Louis Circu i t Court granted th emother ' s p e t i t i o n to revoke. Id . a t 8, 25-26. In th e sameproceeding , the Juven i l e Off ice r f i l ed a p e t i t i o n under Missour iRevised St a t u t e s (Mo. Rev. Sta t . ) 453.110. Id . a t 3 . Thatsec t ion r equ i r es cour t approval before a chi ld in the county i ssurrendered o r t r a ns f e r r e d fo r adoption and provides t h a t wherecus tody of a c h i l d i s sur rendered o r t r ans fe r red without suchapprova l , the cour t may, on p e t i t i o n of any publ ic of f i c i a l ,order an i nves t iga t ion and r epo r t by th e Divis ion of FamilyServ ices on th e s u i t a b i l i t y of th e chi ld and th e adopt iveparen t s . The cour t found t h a t th e na tura l paren t s d id no tfol low sec t ion 453.110 when they sur rendered custody of thech i ld t o th e B r i t i sh couple fo r purposes of adopt ion . Id . a t21. The cour t then i s sued the fol lowing order s : 1) t h a t"pro tec t ive ca re , custody and con t ro l of [ the chi ld] be andhereby i s granted to th e Missouri Div i s ion o f Family Servicesfor appropr ia te placement pending a re so lu t ion of th e mat t e rbefo re t h i s cour t , " 2) t h a t th e Divis ion of Family Services"submit a wri t t en r epo r t regard ing the circumstances of theplacement of the chi ld with [ the B r i t i s h couple] and regard ingth e f i tne s s of [ the na t u ra l parents ] fo r custody of the c h i l dand any o t h e r in format ion regard ing the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of th echi ld to t h i s cour t upon a r r i v a l of the chi ldren in S t . Louis nol a t e r than 60 days a f t e r phys i ca l custody of the ch i ld ren i splaced with th e Divis ion of Family Serv ices ," and 3) t h a t , upon

3 It appears t ha t th e mother prev ious ly of fe red thechi ld ren to a Cal i forn ia couple fo r adoption bu t t he re i s noi nd i c a t i on in th e record t ha t t ha t adoption was ever approved bya cour t . See MO B r. a t 6.


6/10

6

a r r i v a l o f the ch i ld ren in S t. Louis , the Juveni le O f f i ce r " f i l ea Pe t i t i on pursuan t to [Mo. Rev. Sta t . ] Sect ion 211.031." Id .a t 22-23. 4 Sect ion 211.031 gives th e family cour t j u r i s d i c t i o nto orde r a ch i ld in to th e custody of th e Divis ion o f FamilyServ ice s . The C i r cu i t Court nonethe less proh ib i ted th e Divis iono f Family Services "from plac ing the ch i ld in the ca re of [ then a t u ra l parents ] u n t i l fu r the r wri t t en orde r o f t h i s cour t . "Id . a t 23. The cour t a l so accepted a s t i pu l a t i on by th e p a r t i e swhich t he cour t descr ibed as fol lows:

[ T ] h ey a r e s t i pu l a t i ng t h a t t h i s Court does havej u r i s d i c t i o n and w i l l have j u r i s d i c t i on under [Mo. Rev.Sta t . ] 211.031 a t th e po in t in t ime t ha t t ha t Pe t i t i on i sf i l ed , when and if these twinp a re re turned to th e UnitedSt a t e s , and in pa r t i c u l a r to the Ci ty o f S t. Louis , ino rd e r to allow the Juveni le Off ice r to t ake cus tody o fthose ch i ld ren fo r p r o t ec t i v e custody pending fu r t h e rhear ings before t h i s cour t as to t h e i r u l t imate placement .

Id . a t 25.On Apr i l 23, 2001, th e S t . Louis C i r cu i t Court i s sued aPro tec t ive Custody Order which found in p a r t as fol lows:1) t h a t probable cause e x i s t s to be l i eve t h a t the ch i ld ren a rewi th in th e j u r i s d i c t i on of the Court pursuan t to sec t ion211.031, 2) t ha t th e c h i l d re n ' s "bes t i n t e re s t s r equ i re t h a tthey remain in pro tec t ive custody with th e Divis ion o f FamilyServ ices , " 3) t h a t reasonable e f f o r t s were not requi red o f th eDivis ion o f Family Serv ices to preven t removal o f th e ch i ld renfrom th e home fo r th e reasons s e t fo r th in th e p r i o r f inding o ft he cour t on March 27, 2001, and 4) cont inua t ion o f th e ch i ld renin th e home i s con t ra ry to th e wel fa re o f the ch i ld ren . MO Ex.3, a t 1-2 . Missouri a s s e r t s , and ACF does not d ispu te , t h a tt h i s orde r was i s sued as soon as th e ch i ld re turned to th eUni ted St a t e s and was within the c our t ' s j u r i s d i c t i on . MO Br.a t 7; MO Reply Br. a t 3.

4 The cour t i s sued t h i s orde r and t he o the r o rde rsdescr ibed below from th e bench as wel l as in a wri t t en orde ri s sued on th e same date as the cour t proceeding (a t Missour iExhib i t 2 ) . The w r i t t en orde r does not i n d i ca t e t h a t t he cour thad granted the n a tu r a l p a r en t s ' pe t i t i on to revoke t h e i rConsent to Adopt, however.


7/10

7

ACF found t h a t th e March 27, 2001 cour t o rde r was " the f i r s tcour t o r d e r t h a t removed (cons t ruct ive ly) the chi ld from theparents" and gave th e Divis ion of Family Services a u t ho r i t y top lace the chi ld , who was in Great Bri t a in a t th e t ime, i n f o s t e rcare upon h er re turn to th e Sta t e . MO Ex. 4, a t 6 (page 2 ofenc losu re to 12/22/08 ACF l e t t e r ) . ACF concluded t h a t t h i s casewas i n e l i g i b l e s ince ne i t he r the March 27, 2001 cour t o rde ri t s e l f o r th e t r ansc r ip t of t he cour t hear ing on the same dateconta ined a contrary to th e welfa re determinat ion . Missour imainta ins t ha t th e purpose of the March 27 cour t o rde r was " toa t t em pt to remedy th e v io l a t i on of Missour i ' s laws governingadopt ion" and t h a t t he cour t "concluded t h a t it could not make aremoval determinat ion u n t i l th e ch i ld ren a t i s sue were re turnedto th e Uni ted .S ta t e s [ . ] " MO Reply Br. a t 2. Thus, according toMissour i , th e Apr i l 23, 2001 cour t o rde r was the f i r s t cour to rde r removing th e chi ld from th e na tura l paren t s .We conclude t h a t under th e unique circumstances o f t h i s case ,Missour i reasonably viewed the March 27, 2001 cour t o rde r aspreceding the " f i r s t cour t o rder t h a t sanct ions (event emporar i ly)" the ch i ld ' s removal from home, with in th e meaningof sec t ion 1356.21(c ) . In the" March 27, 2001 proceeding, th ecour t accepted the pa r t i e s ' s t i pu l a t i on t ha t , i n the c o u r t ' swords, the cou r t "wi l l have j u r i s d i c t i on" under th e s t a t es t a tu t e au tho r iz ing a ch i ld ' s removal from home "when and i f "th e c h i l d was r e tu rned t o S t . Louis and a p e t i t i o n to remove thech i ld was f i l e d . Thus, t he cour t as wel l a s the p a r t i e sappeared to view th e cou r t ' s order g ran t ing custody and c o n t r o lof the c h i l d t o th e Divis ion of Family Services as condi t ionedon th e occurrence o f those events . In add i t ion , t he cour trepresented t h a t it was i s su ing t he o rder pursuant to th eJ ud i c i a l Off ice r ' s pe t i t i on under Mo. Rev. S t a t . 453.110, whichdoes no t author ize t he cour t to remove a chi ld to the cus tody ofth e Divis ion of Family Serv ices . Moreover, t h i s p e t i t i o n wasnot f i l ed in a f o s t e r care proceeding in which th e St a t e hadremoved o r sought to remove a chi ld from h i s /he r home. Rather ,th e proceeding was i n i t i a l l y convened by t he cour t to cons ide rth e na t u ra l pa r e n t s ' p e t i t i o n s to revoke t h e i r consent to theadopt ion and was consol idated with t h e i r divorce ac t ion . Thecour t , fa r from "sanc t ioning" th e removal of the chi ld from herhome with the mother, took s teps t o r e s t o r e pa ren ta l r i g h t s .Also, with the pa re n t s ' apparent agreement , the cour t delayed adec i s ion on whether t o re turn th e chi ld to her paren t s u n t i l shewas phys ica l ly presen t in th e United St a t e s . Thus, our hold ingt h a t th e March 27, 2001 order was no t a cour t o rde r"sanct ioning" removal i s cons i s t en t with th e purpose of th ej u d i c i a l determinat ion requirement . Congress, recogniz ing " the


8/10

8

s e ve r i t y of removing a ch i ld , even t emporar i ly , from home,"regarded t h a t requirement "as a safeguard aga ins t po te n t i a linappropr ia te agency ac t ion . " 65 Fed. Reg. 4020, 4055 (2000)(preamble t o f i na l ru le ) i see also ide a t 4056, quot ing S. Rep.

96 th No. 336, Cong. 2d Sess . 16 (1980) . Here, th e key i s suebe fore the cour t was not th e appropr ia teness of an agencyac t ion , but the va l i d i t y of the paren t s ' ac t ions .ACF argues t ha t the " [ i ] t i s not c lea r from th e t r ansc r i p t o fthe hear ing t h a t the Court unders tood i t s e l f to be withoutj u r i sd i c t i on over th e ch i ld ren ." ACF Br. a t 5-6 . ACF notest h a t the cour t s t a t e d t ha t " the par t i e s . . . a re s t i pu l a t i ngt h a t t h i s cour t does have j u r i s d i c t i on . '. . ." Id . a t 6. Thisquota t ion i s misleading , however. The cour t went on to descr ibethe s t i pu l a t i on as s t a t i ng tha t t he cour t "wi l l havej u r i sd i c t i on under 211.031" "a t the po in t in t ime tha t" ape t i t i on under t h a t sec t ion i s f i l ed "when and i f " th e ch i ld renre tu rn to S t . Louis . Thus, the c l e a r import of the c o u r t ' s f u l ldesc r ip t ion of th e s t i pu l a t i on , which the cour t accepted , i st h a t th e cour t had no j u r i s d i c t i on in th e presen t proceeding tomake a dete rmina t ion regarding th e chi ldren ' s s t a t u s .ACF a l so argues t ha t regardless of whether t he cour t understoodi t s e l f to be without j u r i s d i c t i on over th e ch i ld , t he cour t" e f f e c t ive ly asse r t ed j u r i s d i c t i on over th e [ch i ld ] , " bygran t ing cus tody of the ch i ld to the Divis ion of Family Servicesfo r appropr ia te placement and proh ib i t ing the Divis ion fromp lac ing the ch i ld in the ca re of the paren t s . ACF Br. a t 6. Wedo n ot agree t h a t t h i s i s the e f f e c t of the cour t ' s orde r ,however . As explained above, t he g ran t o f custody to theDivis ion appears to be condi t ioned on the c h i l d ' s re tu rn to S t.Louis and th e Div i s ion ' s f i l i ng a pe t i t i on fo r removal upon th ec h i l d ' s re tu rn . Similar ly , the proh ib i t ion on p lac ing th e ch i ldwith th e n a t u ra l paren t s appears to have been made ina n t i c ipa t ion of those events .ACF a l so argues t h a t , contrary to Missour i ' s pos i t ion , th e fac tt h a t th e cour t o rde r was i s sued pursuant to Mo. Rev. St a t . 453.110 does not show t ha t the proceeding involved anadopt ion, not fos t e r ca re . In pa r t i c u l a r , ACF s t a t e s t h a t"Chapter 453 of the Missouri s t a t u t e s i s s ty led 'Adoption andFos te r Care ' and the spec i f i c prov i s ion under which th e Courthear ing was held i s capt ioned ' Su r render o r t r a ns f e r o fcus tody . . . ' " ACF Br. a t 6. However, t he cour t express lys t a t e d t h a t the na tu ra l parents fa i led to follow sec t ion 453.110"by surrender ing custody of" th e ch i ld to th e Br i t i s h couple fo rpurposes o f adopt ion wi thout approva l . MO Ex. 1, a t 21. Thus,


9/10

9

it i s c l e a r t h a t t he cour t was applying sec t ion 453.110 in thecontext of a dete rmina t ion about th e va l i d i t y of the adopt ion ,no t in the con tex t of a determina t ion about a fos t e r carearrangement .Fina l ly , we r e j e c t any argument by ACF t ha t t he cour t shouldhave determined dur ing the March 27, 2001 proceeding whether itwas appropr ia te to remove the ch i ld from home. The Boardgenera l ly defe r s to a s t a t e ' s i n t e rp r e t a t i on of prov i s ions ofits own law. See, e . g . , West Virgin ia Dept. of Health and HumanServ ice s , DAB No. 1257, a t 13, n .9 . Thus, we agree withMissour i t h a t "ACF's second-guessing as to the proper procedureunder s t a t e law i s not en t i t l ed to deference ." MO Reply Br. a t2 .We t he re fo re conclude t ha t sample case #8 0 was not i ne l i g i b l e .Sample Case #73The fo l lowing fac t s are undisputed . In sample case #73,Missour i made payments to th e l i censed o r approved fos t e r homein which the ch i ld had res ided for pa r t of the month a f t e r th echi ld was placed on a t r i a l home v i s i t with the mother. See MOEx. 4, a t 6; MO B r. a t 11. ACF determined t h a t t h i s case wasi n e l i g i b l e . ACF a s s e r t s t ha t , a t th e t ime t h a t th e paymentswere made, one of the requirements fo r IV-E e l i g i b i l i t y was nolonger met, i.e., t ha t th e ch i ld was placed in a l i censed fos t e rfamily home o r ch i ld care i n s t i t u t ion (sample case #73). SeeACF Response B r. a t 7-8.Missour i t akes th e pos i t ion t ha t th e e r ro r i n t h i s case i smerely an overpayment e r r o r because " t h e Sta te pa id an e l i g i b l efos t e r care prov ide r a r a t e t ha t covered a pe r iod o f t ime a f t e ran e l i g i b l e ch i ld had l e f t fos t e r c a r e . " MOBr. a t 11.According to Missour i , no th ing in the ch i ld e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r iain sec t ion 472(a) (1)- (4) of the Act al lows ACF " to ass ign e r r o rduring an e l i g i b i l i t y review when a Sta te overpays an approvedprov ider on beha l f of an e l i g i b l e c h i l d . " Id . Missour i a l soargues t h a t ACF's pos i t ion t ha t t h i s sample case involves ane l i g i b i l i t y e r r o r i s i ncons i s t en t with r ecen t ACF guidancec l a r i f y ing t h a t a s t a t e may cla im IV-E funds fo r th e f u l lmonthly payment to a l icensed prov ide r if a ch i ld i s t emporar i lyabsent from fos t e r care l e s s than 14 days and must pro- ra te themonthly payment if th e absence i s longer than 14 days. Thus,Missour i mainta ins , the i s sue with r espec t to t h i s sample case"is n ot whether th e St a t e made an e r ro r i n determininge l i g i b i l i t y , but whether th e Sta te appropr ia te ly recoveredpayments fo r absences t ha t extended beyond 14 days . " MO Reply


10/10

10

Br. a t 5, ci t ing Child Welfare Policy Manual 8.3B, question 7(added April 28, 2009) (excerpt a t Missouri Exhibit 11).We agree with Missouri tha t ACF's treatment of sample case #73i s inconsistent with the policy in the Child Welfare PolicyManual. That policy indicates tha t the effec t of the ch i ld ' stemporary absence from the foster home fo r pa r t of a monthrequires, a t .most, tha t the s ta te ' s claim for the monthly IV-Epayment be pro-rated. Contrary to what ACF determined here,nothing in the policy indicates tha t a chi ld who i s temporari lyabsent i s not considered to be placed in a l icensed fos te rfamily home. Moreover, under the applicable regula t ions , thechild remained IV-E el ig ible despite the fac t tha t the chi ld wason a t r i a l home v i s i t for par t of the month. 45 C.F.R. 1356 .. 21 (e) (providing tha t a chi ld on a t r i a l home v i s i t doesnot lose t i t l e IV-E e l ig ib i l i ty unless the v i s i t extends beyonds ix months and has not been authorized by the court , or exceedsa longer t ime period the court has d e ~ m e d appropria te) . Wetherefore conclude that sample case #73 involved an overpaymentra ther than an e l ig ib i l i ty error .ConclusionFor the foregoing reasons, we reverse ACF's determination tha tMissouri was not in substantial compliance and reverse thedisallowance pertaining to sample case #80. We uphold thedisallowance pertaining to the other sample cases a t i ssue.

Leslie K. s u s s ~ n

lsiConstance B. Tobias i

lsi'Judith A. Ballardpresiding Board Member

Departmental Appeals Board DAB2253 Missouri Department of Social Services (06.15.2009).

Documents