Mary B. v. Kovol, 786 F.Supp.3d 1161

Plaintiffs (children in Alaska's foster care, including subclasses for Alaska Native children, kinship placements, and children with disabilities) allege broad harm and federal rights violations in the state's foster care system.
The claims are brought as a putative class action against Alaska's Office of Children's Services (OCS), challenging compliance with various federal statutory and constitutional requirements.
Four claims remain after partial dismissal, including alleged violations of: (1) substantive due process, (2) parent-child association rights, (3) the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (CWA), and (4) the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
At issue here is summary judgment on Count Three: whether several CWA provisions create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants seek summary judgment, arguing the relevant CWA sections do not give rise to individual, enforceable rights; Plaintiffs argue the contrary, relying on prior Ninth Circuit authority.
The court considers federal jurisprudence (Gonzaga, Talevski, Willden) to evaluate whether the CWA provisions at issue are enforceable through § 1983.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CWA's case plan and case review system provisions (§§ 671(a)(16), 675(1), 675(5)(A)) create enforceable rights	These provisions create enforceable rights for each child, as recognized in Willden	Willden is not good law after Talevski; provisions focus on state plans, not individual rights	Provisions for case plans and review systems are enforceable rights under § 1983 (Willden remains controlling)
Whether the CWA creates a right to placement in the least restrictive and family-like setting	Provision requires actual placement rights for each child	Only requires a procedure to achieve such placements, not a right to the placement itself	No enforceable right to the placement itself; only to review procedures
Whether CWA § 675(5)(E) (petition to terminate parental rights after 15 of 22 months) creates an enforceable right	This creates a specific procedural right for eligible children	No individualized right; standard too vague and aggregate	There is a right to a case review system assuring petitions are filed, per § 675(5)(E)
Whether § 671(a)(22) (access to quality services) creates an enforceable right	Provision gives children a right to quality services protecting health and safety	Provision lacks individualized, rights-creating language	No enforceable right found—focuses on state standards, not individual entitlements

Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (clarified that only unambiguously conferred rights are enforceable under § 1983)
Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166 (2023) (laid out the requirement for rights-creating language and individual focus for § 1983 enforceability)
Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012) (held CWA case plan provisions are enforceable rights under § 1983)