Erie County CYS v. DHS
677 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 21, 2016Background
- K.S., born 2008, was removed from her mother and placed with maternal grandmother (Grandmother) in May 2011; Grandmother initially obtained temporary guardianship but relapsed and K.S. was removed to CYS custody.
- The trial court declared K.S. dependent in June 2011 after a Master found returning to Grandmother would be contrary to the child’s welfare and reasonable efforts had been made to prevent removal.
- K.S. remained in relative or foster care, and in December 2012 the trial court returned K.S. to Grandmother with a placement goal of adoption; biological parents voluntarily relinquished parental rights.
- Grandmother applied for adoption assistance in January 2013 asserting K.S. met eligibility criteria (including a genetic condition/risk) and that she could not adopt without subsidy.
- CYS executed a Subsidized Adoption Assistance Agreement limited to non‑recurring expenses and denied monthly subsidy because of the earlier judicial determination that continuation in Grandmother’s home had been contrary to the child’s welfare.
- BHA and the Department reversed CYS, finding K.S. met regulatory eligibility under 55 Pa. Code § 3140.202 (placement goal adoption, age, freed for adoption, custody, qualifying condition); Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Grandmother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior judicial determination that continuation in home was contrary to welfare bars adoption assistance | Prior judicial removal from Grandmother’s home makes child ineligible for adoption assistance | That prior determination was effectively superseded when court returned child to Grandmother with goal of adoption; eligibility governed by § 3140.202 | Court: Not barred — child meets § 3140.202 and is eligible for assistance |
| Whether federal provision cited by CYS (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2)(A)(ii)) applies to deny adoption assistance | Federal removal/foster care requirement prohibits subsidy where removal was judicially ordered | Federal provision governs foster care maintenance, not adoption assistance; state regulation controls eligibility | Court: § 672(a)(2)(A)(ii) not controlling for adoption assistance eligibility |
| Whether county must satisfy additional eligibility criteria in 55 Pa. Code § 3140.205 to grant adoption assistance | CYS: Gruzinski requires satisfaction of § 3140.205 factors (e.g., AFDC relatedness) | DHS/Grandmother: Ward and subsequent cases hold § 3140.202 alone governs entitlement; § 3140.205 affects federal reimbursement, not state entitlement | Court: Follows Ward/Allegheny — § 3140.202 governs entitlement; § 3140.205 not required |
| Standard of review: whether Department’s adjudication had substantial evidence and complied with law | CYS contends Department erred in upholding BHA | DHS: Decision supported by record and law; child met regulatory criteria | Court: Affirmed — Department’s order supported and in accordance with law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gruzinski v. Department of Public Welfare, 731 A.2d 246 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (discusses factors for adoption assistance eligibility under regulatory scheme)
- Allegheny County Office of Children v. Department of Public Welfare, 912 A.2d 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (holding § 3140.202 controls entitlement to state adoption assistance separate from § 3140.205 federal reimbursement rules)
- Ward v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 756 A.2d 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (explaining distinction between state eligibility (§ 3140.202) and federal reimbursement standards (§ 3140.205))
- Adoption ARC, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare, 727 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (articulating appellate review standard for department adjudications)