A.F. v. Alameda County Social Services Agency
219 Cal. App. 4th 51
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- A.F. became a dependent of the juvenile court at birth and was placed with a nonrelative guardian under Welfare and Institutions Code §366.26; the dependency was dismissed but the guardianship remained under §366.4.
- A.F.’s guardian received AFDC-FC benefits on her behalf until A.F. turned 18 and then until the guardian died in May 2012.
- On A.F.’s 18th birthday (Dec 31, 2011), a Mutual Agreement for Extended Foster Care was executed, creating a plan for A.F. to complete education and vocational goals to maintain AFDC-FC eligibility under §11405(e).
- After the guardian’s death, the Alameda County Social Services Agency terminated AFDC-FC benefits, arguing no substitute payee could be designated and no guardian remained.
- A.F. sought continued benefits via a reentry petition (JV-466), and the trial court ruled A.F. remained eligible under §11405 and authorized designation of a substitute caregiver or self-payee, but the Agency appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s specific order and remanded to consider appointment of a successor guardian to facilitate continued payments under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to appoint a successor guardian after guardian’s death | A.F. should receive continued AFDC‑FC via successor guardian | No successor guardian authority once guardianship lapse occurred | Yes; court may appoint a successor guardian under §366.4 to enable payments |
| Whether nonminor former dependent status was still eligible for AFDC‑FC after guardian’s death | A.F. remained eligible under 11405(e) as a nonminor former dependent | Eligibility terminated with guardian’s death and lack of guardian payee | Eligible under §11405(e)(1) and §11403(b) as long as other criteria are met |
| Court’s authority to modify guardianship vs. determine eligibility for benefits | Court can modify guardianship to facilitate payments | Eligibility determinations are executive functions of the Agency | Court may modify guardianship to appoint a successor guardian, not adjudicate eligibility per se |
| Effect of §366.4(a) on continuation of jurisdiction and applicability of Probate Code | Probate-like guardianship processes not required; jurisdiction remains | §366.4(a) limits application of Probate Code for guardianship | Jurisdiction covers guardian-related orders, including successor guardian appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Darlene T., 163 Cal.App.4th 929 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (de novo review for purely legal issues; appellate standard discussed)
- In re R.C., 196 Cal.App.4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (statutory interpretation of extended AFDC-FC eligibility)
- In re Corrine W., 45 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2009) (analysis of AFDC-FC funding and federal/state framework)
- In re Joshua S., 41 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2007) (foster care eligibility distinctions for guardianship placements)
- In re R.N., 178 Cal.App.4th 557 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (guardianship termination and continuing court jurisdiction)
- K.L., 210 Cal.App.4th 632 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (nonminor eligibility under 11403; references to education/vocational requirements)