D.O. v. Vickie Glisson, 847 F.3d 374

Background

Two young boys were removed from their mother and placed in foster care; their maternal aunt R.O. obtained custody and the family court closed the case in 2014 with the boys residing with R.O.
R.O. sought foster care maintenance payments from Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services; the family court declined to rule, stating permanency had been achieved.
R.O. sued in state court claiming the federal Child Welfare Act (Title IV‑E) requires maintenance payments; the Cabinet removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
The district court granted judgment for the Cabinet, holding (1) the Act creates no privately enforceable right, (2) the family lacked a property interest, and (3) Kentucky’s distinction between kinship and licensed foster care was rational.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the Act creates an individual right to foster care maintenance payments enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and remanded for factual determinations whether the children remained in the Cabinet’s custody and whether R.O. was an approved foster family home.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Child Welfare Act (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)) creates a private right to foster care maintenance payments	The Act mandates payments "on behalf of each child" and lists covered expenses, so it creates an individually enforceable monetary entitlement	§ 672(a) is a funding condition describing when states may obtain federal matching funds, not a rights‑creating provision	The Act confers an individually enforceable right to payments (§ 672(a) is rights‑creating and mandatory)
Whether that private right is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983	R.O. argued § 1983 is available because the Act provides no adequate federal mechanism for individual enforcement	Kentucky argued Congress intended enforcement via the Secretary’s plan review and administrative processes, not § 1983	§ 1983 is available; the Act’s federal enforcement mechanisms are programmatic and do not foreclose private § 1983 suits
Whether the children remained in state custody after the family court closed the case	R.O. argued the Cabinet retained custody absent an affirmative discharge by the state court	Cabinet argued the court’s closure and custody order placed children with R.O. and ended state responsibility	Remand for district court to determine under Kentucky law whether the family court affirmatively discharged the Cabinet; if not, payments are owed
Whether R.O. qualified as a "foster family home" under the Act	R.O. contended Cabinet conducted home evaluation and background check and thus approved her home as meeting licensing standards	Cabinet argued kinship care is distinct from licensed foster care and payments to kinship providers are discretionary under state law	The court held R.O. is an approved foster provider as federal law covers licensed or approved (including relative) homes; state kinship funding limits cannot negate federal entitlement

Key Cases Cited

Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (establishes § 1983 may enforce federal statutory rights)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (clarifies rights‑creating language required for § 1983 enforcement)
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (three‑factor test for when statutes create enforceable individual rights)
Harris v. Olszewski, 442 F.3d 456 (6th Cir.) (Medicaid provision created an individually enforceable right)
Barry v. Lyon, 834 F.3d 706 (6th Cir.) (SNAP statutory language created enforceable individual right)
Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498 (Medicaid private right recognized despite state rate‑setting discretion)
Miller v. Youakim, 440 U.S. 125 (Title IV‑E covers approved relative homes; states may not deny payments solely because caregiver is related)
Midwest Foster Care & Adoption Ass’n v. Kincade, 712 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir.) (construed § 672 as conditions for federal reimbursement)
Cal. State Foster Parent Ass’n v. Wagner, 624 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.) (deference to reasonable state rate‑setting methodology)