Midwest Foster Care & Adoption Ass'n v. Kincade
712 F.3d 1190
8th Cir.2013Background
- Providers sued Missouri officials overseeing foster care, claiming CWA creates a privately enforceable federal right under §1983 to foster care payments covering enumerated costs.
- District court dismissed, holding the CWA provisions are not privately enforceable rights.
- The Missouri foster care program is funded via a federal-state matching scheme under the Spending Clause, with state plans approved by the Secretary and subject to substantial conformity and potential withholding of funds.
- CWA §672 sets eligibility for foster care payments and lists recipients; §675 defines foster care maintenance payments including enumerated expenses.
- The majority applies Blessing/Gonzaga factors to determine if the statutes create an individually enforceable right; finds the provisions focus on the state as regulated participant and impose a funding condition rather than an individual entitlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do §§672(a) and 675(4)(A) create privately enforceable rights? | Wagner argues these provisions create rights for foster parents to full enumerated costs. | Gruender argues the provisions are aggregate, not rights-creating, focusing on state plans and funding eligibility. | No privately enforceable right (affirming dismissal). |
| Do the Blessing factors show text creates a right here? | Wagner contends rights-creating language exists and is individualized. | Gruender finds lack of rights-creating language, aggregate focus, and no federal enforcement mechanism. | Not a rights-creating right under Blessing; no §1983 claim. |
| Is there an adequate federal enforcement mechanism for individual providers? | Wagner posits Wilder-style private rights via §1983; no explicit remedy foreclosed. | Gruender notes no direct federal review for individual claims and states oversee enforcement; extensive remedial scheme exists only at state level. | Lack of direct federal enforcement weighs against recognitions of private right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1997) (three-factor Blessing test for privately enforceable rights)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2002) (rights-creating language and individualized focus analysis)
- Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1990) (private right to reasonable and adequate Medicaid reimbursement rates)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1981) (spending power and enforcement schemes; limits on federal remedies)
- Wright v. City of Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1987) (mandatory vs. aspirational terms in rights analysis)
- Cal. State Foster Parent Ass’n v. Wagner, 624 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2010) (court recognizes privately enforceable rights under CWA §§672, 675)