ARTIST M., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gordon JOHNSON and Gary T. Morgan, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 90-1742, 90-1764
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Argued June 20, 1990. Decided Oct. 29, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 20, 1990.
917 F.2d 980
III.
Lennick‘s Miranda rights were not violated because he was not “in custody” when he made the incriminating statement. In addition, his sentence was properly enhanced because his activity rose to more than perjury “in the simple form.” Lennick‘s conviction and sentence are therefore AFFIRMED.
Paula Giroux, Asst. Atty. Gen., Christina M. Tchen, Susan Getzendanner, Charles F. Smith, Kimberley K. Baer, Christina E. Wells, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.
Diane Redleaf, Laurene M. Heybach, Susan Wishnick, Joan Matlack, Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., for Joann Mitchell, Wanda Hilliard and Putative Class in Norman v. Johnson, 89 C 1624 (Northern District of Illinois), amici curiae.
Gregory L. Evans, Nat. Coalition for the Homeless, Washington, D.C., for Nat. Coalition for the Homeless, amicus curiae.
Michael L. Brody, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill., for Nat. Children‘s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union and Children‘s Defense Fund, amici curiae.
Before CUMMINGS and MANION, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.
CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs in this class action suit allege that the Department of Children and Family Services (the “DCFS“), an agency of the State of Illinois, fails to assign caseworkers to members of their class in a timely manner and that this violates the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (the “AAA“).1 Defendants Gordon Johnson and Gary Morgan are director and guardianship administrator, respectively, of the DCFS. They appeal from the entry of a preliminary injunction and enforcement order requiring them to adhere to the AAA‘s minimum requirements in several specific respects, and from the denial of their motion to dismiss the complaint.2 We affirm.
I. Procedural Background
The DCFS3 and the State‘s Attorney‘s Office screen reports of abused, neglected, or dependent children and, on the
Plaintiffs, wards of the Juvenile Court, filed this class action in December 1988 for alleged violations of the AAA by the DCFS. The class and a subclass were certified pursuant to
Plaintiffs allege that the DCFS violates the rights of class members by failing promptly to assign caseworkers to children under protective or supervisory court orders and also by failing promptly to reassign cases when a caseworker goes on leave, is terminated, or resigns. Artist M. v. Johnson, 726 F.Supp. 690, 692 (N.D.Ill. 1989). These alleged policies and practices of the DCFS purportedly violate
Plaintiffs sued the DCFS under
Thereafter the district court held a hearing with respect to the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. On March 2, 1990, the district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the DCFS from failing to assign a caseworker to plaintiffs within three working days of the time the case is first heard in Juvenile Court and from failing to reassign a caseworker within three working days after a previously assigned caseworker relinquishes any portion of the case. On April 3, 1990, the court amended the injunction by entering an order designed to monitor DCFS compliance with its terms.6 The DCFS filed timely notices of appeal seeking review of the injunctive orders dated March 2 and April 3, 1990,7 as well as the November 21, 1989, order disposing of the DCFS motion to dismiss.
After hearing oral argument, this Court entered an order on June 21, modified on June 27, partially remanding this cause to the district court. The district court was to make factual findings regarding the nature of delays in caseworker assignments and the progress of DCFS reforms as they existed at the time the district court issued its March 2, 1990, injunction order. In light of the fact that the DCFS had voluntarily instituted a Reorganization Plan that could have affected the concerns addressed by plaintiffs, the district court was requested to make findings with respect to the extent of delay in caseworker assignment and reassignment at the time the injunction order issued.
After receiving submissions on these questions from the parties, the district court issued its memorandum opinion and findings on July 25, 1990. It is evident that the findings reflect the status of relevant DCFS activities at the time the injunction order issued because by agreement of the parties, the February 1990 logs of the DCFS regarding caseworker assignment were made an exhibit to a stipulated submission to the district court and the January and February activities of the DCFS were closely scrutinized by the district court.
The findings strongly support the district court‘s decision to issue an injunction. We will not attempt here to summarize these detailed findings, which are heavily cited to specific sources in the record. The district court reached the following conclusions: (1) the DCFS failed to show that its Reorganization Plan, begun during the summer of 1988 and purportedly completed by July 16, 1989, moved the agency closer to the “reasonable efforts” required by the AAA8; (2) the DCFS demonstrated “a total lack of credibility” by pledging to make such changes and then failing to take effective steps to fulfill that pledge.9
In 1980 Congress enacted the AAA as an amendment to the Social Security Act.
The provisions of the AAA are codified in two separate parts of Title IV of the Social Security Act. Title IV-B provides funds to the states for the improvement of child welfare services.
Turning to Title IV-E,
III. The November 1989 Order
Although the November 21, 1989, order denying the bulk of the DCFS motion to dismiss is not immediately appealable by itself, this Court may review that order in connection with the injunction if the injunction turns on the validity of that order, Elliott v. Hinds, 786 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir.1986), or if the dismissal order is so entwined with the injunction order that judicial economy compels review. Asset Allocation & Mgt. Co. v. Western Employers Ins. Co., 892 F.2d 566, 568-569 (7th Cir. 1989); Parks v. Pavkovic, 753 F.2d 1397, 1402 (7th Cir.1985), certiorari denied, 473 U.S. 906, 105 S.Ct. 3529, 87 L.Ed.2d 653 (1985), 474 U.S. 918-919, 106 S.Ct. 246-247, 88 L.Ed.2d 255 (1985). Because evaluation of the likelihood of success turns as an initial matter on whether plaintiffs may maintain a cause of action against the DCFS under
A. Section 1983 Action
1. Existence of an Enforceable Right.
—A statute will not be found to have created an enforceable right unless the provision in question is intended to benefit the plaintiff, the provision imposes a binding obligation on the state, and the right is not so amorphous that courts are unable to adequately enforce it. Wilder, 110 S.Ct. at 2517. The majority held in Wilder that an amendment to the Medicaid Act providing for “reasonable and adequate” reimbursement rates for health care providers creates an enforceable right under
The DCFS asserts that the “reasonable efforts” clause of
In determining whether a federal enactment imposes a binding obligation on a state, courts look to “the context of the entire statute and its legislative history” for such congressional intent. Wilder, 110 S.Ct. at 2518; Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 13, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1537-1538, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). The provisions sought to be enforced here are located in the Section setting forth in mandatory language the features a state plan must possess before funding will be provided.
Finally, this Court must determine whether the asserted rights are sufficiently explicit that the pertinent clauses are judicially enforceable. Wilder, 110 S.Ct. at 2517. The district court rejected the DCFS challenge on this ground based on the fact that courts routinely enforce contractual clauses which mandate that the parties exert “best” or “reasonable” efforts in complying with the terms of the contract. Artist M., 726 F.Supp. at 695 n. 6. In Wilder, the Supreme Court stated that simply because a provision gives the state great latitude in promulgating a “reasonable and adequate” rate does not render the provision unenforceable for vagueness. Instead, once the state exercises its discretion to select a method of calculating rates a court is still capable of determining whether the rate itself is reasonable in light of the method chosen. Wilder, 110 S.Ct. at 2522-2523. This same reasoning is applicable here. The Act requires that the state implement a plan that provides for reasonable efforts directed at preventing the removal of a child from home or, if the child is removed, to return the child to his family.
Just as the Supreme Court in Wilder acknowledged that the State of Virginia had substantial discretion to choose the method it would use in calculating reimbursement to health care providers, so the DCFS has substantial discretion in choosing the method it will use to implement the requirements of the AAA. The judiciary is nevertheless capable of determining whether the state is exerting “reasonable efforts” to provide those services. The DCFS therefore cannot maintain that even if
The district court rejected a request from the plaintiffs for a more stringent remedy, which called for the mandatory assignment of a caseworker to each of the plaintiffs and their families within 24 hours after the Juvenile Court places them in the temporary custody of the DCFS or returns them home under the supervision of the DCFS. The district court has also not attempted to fashion a remedy that interferes with the daily operations of the DCFS. Compare L.J. ex rel. Darr v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118, 119-120 (4th Cir.1988) (affirming broad interim and permanent injunctive relief, including expansion of medical relief to children), certiorari denied, 488 U.S. 1018, 109 S.Ct. 816, 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989); see also B.H. v. Johnson, 715 F.Supp. 1387, 1402 (N.D.Ill. 1989) (plaintiffs requesting on the basis of AAA standards “sweeping duties” such as an adequate number of caseworkers, family reunification services, services to “troubled families,” or rights of meaningful visitation between siblings). It is important to note that the three-day requirement fits the estimate given by the DCFS itself of how quickly it would assign caseworkers under its promised reforms (Preliminary Inj. at 6). This makes it difficult for the DCFS to argue that a requirement of “reasonable efforts” is too ambiguous to be enforceable. The district court sought out and discovered a method of enforcing the “reasonable efforts” requirement that is tailored to DCFS practices. In this way, the district court has refrained from injecting itself into the operations of the DCFS any further than is required by the federal right that is enforceable under
As the Fourth Circuit held, after reviewing an action under
Taken together we think that these statutory provisions spell out a standard of conduct, and as a corollary[,] rights in plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have alleged have been denied. It is true that the statutes are largely statutes relating to appropriations, but defendants’ argument to the contrary notwithstanding, they are privately enforceable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 . L.J. ex rel. Darr, 838 F.2d at 123 (1988).
2. Congressional Intent to Foreclose § 1983 Remedy.
—In the absence of either a comprehensive remedial scheme for violations of a statute or an explicit, exclusive private cause of action found in the statute itself, Congress cannot be said to have intended to foreclose
The AAA provides that if any state plan fails to abide by the conditions set forth in
B. Implied Cause of Action Under the Act
The AAA does not expressly authorize a private right of action enabling those disadvantaged by its violation to enforce its terms. Nevertheless, even if the plaintiffs could not pursue their claims under
Four factors are to be used in attempting to determine whether Congress intended to make a private remedy available: (1) whether the statute was enacted for the benefit of a special class of which the plaintiff is a member; (2) whether there is any indication of legislative intent to create a private remedy; (3) whether such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme; and (4) whether a federal remedy is inappropriate because the subject matter involves an area that is primarily of concern to the states. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1968, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). The Court determined in Cort that there was no private right of action for a derivative suit against corporate directors based upon alleged violation of federal criminal statutes prohibiting certain expenditures of corporate funds on behalf of political candidates largely because the criminal statutes were not enacted for benefit of shareholders. Cort, 422 U.S. at 81-82, 95 S.Ct. at 2089-2090. The majority of the Court in Cannon found a private right of action in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 on the basis of all four Cort factors in the case of a petitioner who alleged that her applications for admission to medical school were denied because of her sex. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the goal is to determine congressional intent, emphasizing the second and third of the four factors. See, e.g., Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15-16, 100 S.Ct. 242, 245, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979); Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U.S. 523, 536, 104 S.Ct. 831, 838, 78 L.Ed.2d 645 (1984). Although this inquiry closely resembles the analysis courts use to determine whether a
The DCFS again asserts that nothing in the AAA supports the existence of any enforceable rights under the Act. The right asserted by plaintiffs, namely the right to have the DCFS exert “reasonable efforts” to prevent removal of the child from home and “reasonable efforts” to return the child to her home once removed, is unenforceable according to the DCFS for the same reasons that the right is supposedly unenforceable under
The DCFS attempts to distinguish the right enunciated in
The district court‘s decisions in this case are not, as the DCFS argues, an invitation for these and future plaintiffs to use the AAA as a tool for federal court interference with all state decisionmaking with respect to its vast child welfare system. As the district court explains in its supplementary findings, under the current system as structured by the DCFS, the assignment of a caseworker is absolutely essential if the DCFS is to make even the first efforts, much less reasonable ones, to maintain the child‘s family ties, to work towards reunification of the family if appropriate, and to ensure the child‘s well-being. The district court‘s injunctive relief does not dictate a method of assigning caseworkers or interfere with the ability of caseworkers to exercise their own professional judgment on the job.11 The court is not creating federally enforceable rights to beds, monetary assistance, or housing. The injunction merely fulfills the minimal requirement of the AAA that reasonable efforts are made toward the goals of reducing unnecessary foster care placement and family disruption, and it does so through a method designed to maximize DCFS decisionmaking.
The First Circuit made an analogous holding in Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504, 514 (1983). A class action suit filed on behalf of all children within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts foster care system alleged in part that the requirements of
The Sixth Circuit cited Lynch favorably when presented with the suit of a mother seeking, through a
IV. Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs’ complaint states a cause of action. That requires us to consider the grant of the preliminary injunction. The Court reviews the district court‘s factual determinations for clear error,
The district court correctly evaluated the request for injunctive relief in accordance with Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser, Industries, 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984). After hearing or reviewing extensive testimony, exhibits, and other submissions, the experienced and capable district judge found that plaintiffs introduced ample evidence to support their allegation that they were being deprived of the services to which they were entitled under
The district court further found that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction did not issue. The facts established below indicated that the irreparable harm borne by plaintiffs as a result of the delay in assignment included an increased likelihood that families would be broken up or remain apart, that plaintiffs would be deprived of protective services, and that, in the absence of timely case plans and case reviews, children would be left in “unnecessarily restrictive or dangerous placements, denied * * * essential visits with their parents and place[d] * * * at risk of further injury” (App. at 5). Against these harms the court weighed the harms alleged by the DCFS. Those included adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to the already overburdened agency and diverting resources from other agency services in order to accommodate an increased number of caseworkers. The balance of harms clearly weighed, in the district court‘s analysis, in favor of a preliminary injunction.
A review of the findings indicates that the district court‘s determination that the balance of harms weighs heavily in plaintiffs’ favor is not an abuse of discretion, especially in light of this Circuit‘s rule that monetary loss, here to the DCFS, does not constitute an irreparable injury. Classic Components Supply, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 841 F.2d 163, 164-165 (7th Cir.1988).
V. Conclusion
In light of Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass‘n, 110 S.Ct. 2510, plaintiffs may maintain a cause of action under
The district court‘s orders denying the DCFS motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction pending trial are affirmed. The affirmance includes the April 3, 1990, amendment to the preliminary injunction.13
MANION, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (the DCFS) may have one of the most difficult assignments in the state. The horror stories recited by the district court produce an almost irresistible desire for judicial intervention. Although the majority presents a compassionate argument supporting such intervention, I must respectfully dissent. Contrary to the court‘s holding, I believe that the “reasonable efforts” clause of
The district court and now this court have found that the AAA creates an individually enforceable right to “reasonable efforts” which, at this point, under the injunction invoked by the district court, means that a caseworker must be assigned to each child within three days after that child comes into the custody or under the protection of the DCFS. The majority cites the recent Supreme Court decision of Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990), as authority for establishing a child‘s right to “reasonable efforts” under the AAA. I respectfully disagree. Wilder‘s holding relates to a statutory provision and facts discernably different from that of the present situation. We should instead observe the more applicable legal standards and reasoning of Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981), which generally discusses the circumstances in which enforceable rights are derived from a statute‘s language.
At the outset, I should add that I am not questioning whether an individual child injured by DCFS operations ever has a right of action under
I.
The Court in Wilder permitted the health care providers’ suit based largely on its findings that (a) the Boren Amendment imposed a binding obligation on the states participating in the Medicaid program to adopt reasonable and adequate rates for the benefit of health-care providers, and (b) the obligation of the state to adopt rates that are reasonable and adequate was not too vague and amorphous to be judicially enforceable. The Court thus affirmed the principle that a State‘s denial of its own clearly annunciated obligations provides grounds under
In Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority, supra, which the Wilder Court explicitly followed, tenants in low-income housing claimed they were overbilled for utilities in violation of rent ceilings imposed by the Brooke Amendment to the Housing Act of 1937,1 and its regulations. The Court concluded the statute and regulations did create rights as derived from identifiable obligations of the states which were enforceable under
In both Wilder and Wright, the Court gave substance to a statutorily designated standard of “reasonableness” in
Both the Wilder and Wright Courts construed the reasonableness of specific governmental requirements. The disputed “reasonable efforts” clause of the AAA allows no such precision. The “reasonable efforts” clause creates no specific mandate to the DCFS. Therefore there is nothing for the court to determine as being reasonable or unreasonable. Rather than concentrating on the “reasonableness” of a particular governmental activity,
Additionally, this court insists that Wilder categorically rejects the argument that “reasonable” and “adequate” are vague and unenforceable and concludes the courts are capable of determining whether a state is exerting “reasonable efforts.” (Ante, pp. 986-987, and 989) What Wilder actually says, however, is that a standard like reasonableness is not vague or unenforceable when judged “against an objective benchmark of an ‘efficiently and economically operated facility‘...” 110 S.Ct. at 2523. Similarly in Wright, the Court felt competent to enforce the “reasonable” allowance standard only with reference to the objective benchmark of “the individual family and its income.” Both “benchmarks” provide a basis for a relatively simple judicial calculation. But in the present case, the AAA provides no such objective benchmark. Rather, the Act gives a general directive that is much too broad to give a federal judge a proper gauge from which to measure reasonable efforts.
In Pennhurst, the Court explored the problem of using ambiguous statutory language to establish state obligations and beneficiary rights. The Supreme Court held in Pennhurst that
The Court also specified under what conditions statutory language would create substantive rights and obligations. “Congress must express clearly its intent to impose conditions on the grant of federal funds so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Id. at 24, 101 S.Ct. at 1543. The Court analogized: “Legislation enacted pursuant to the spending power,” such as the AAA, “is much in the nature of a contract ... in return for federal funds,
The crucial inquiry, therefore, is “not whether a State would knowingly undertake that obligation, but whether Congress spoke so clearly that we can fairly say that the State could make an informed choice.” Id. at 25, 101 S.Ct. at 1544. The Court found that the statutory language in Pennhurst fell well short of providing clear notice to the State that they, by accepting the funds under the Act, would be obligated to provide “adequate treatment” as imagined by the plaintiffs. “[It] strains credulity to argue that participating States should have known of their ‘obligations’ under” the “adequate treatment” provision. Id.
As with the language in Pennhurst, the phrase “reasonable efforts” does not communicate or prescribe any specific set of practices which unambiguously notify Illinois of the conditions it must meet in order to receive federal help. “Reasonable efforts” is an indeterminate statement, to say the least. Rather than being a specific mandate with explicitly detailed directives,
II.
I conclude where this argument began—with the plaintiffs’ complaint that the DCFS does not assign caseworkers quickly enough to meet the standards of the AAA once a child becomes a ward of the juvenile court under the supervision of the DCFS. I agree with this court that the AAA was designed to provide “incentives to encourage a more active and systematic monitoring of children in the foster care system.” (Ante, p. 985 citing State of Vermont Dept. of Social & Rehab. Srvs. v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Srvs., 798 F.2d 57, 59 (2d Cir.1986). Incentives in this case do not create rights and binding obligations. A State‘s failure to perform under a Plan is remedied by Congress’ foreclosing federal funding. That may be the only practical alternative under the AAA. Federal courts cannot properly supervise every aspect of the DCFS operation, something they now may be expected to do given this opinion.
The magnitude of the court‘s assumed obligation is apparent under the terms of the district court‘s injunction. The district court enjoined defendant from:
(a) Failing to assign a caseworker capable of providing child welfare services to each of the plaintiffs and their families within three working days of the time that plaintiffs’ cases are first heard in juvenile court; and
(b) Failing to assign a caseworker capable of delivering child welfare services within three working days of the time that a previously assigned caseworker
(Emphasis added.)
The injunction refers to a caseworker “capable” of providing child welfare services. So, in addition to constructing “reasonable efforts” the court must construct the meaning of “capable” under the injunction. The injunction is not clear whether a caseworker “capable” of providing services is one who has the specialized training and ability, or who simply has the time to perform the services. One would hope both, but given the constraints on the system, that may be too much to hope for. The district court has already frowned upon en masse assignment of many cases to one caseworker, presumably even if done in three days.2 The only solution may be very expensive (i.e., hiring and training many more caseworkers).
The right that we have created in this opinion will allow every child, by his next friend, to challenge the reasonable efforts of the caseworker. If the DCFS, through the recommendation and services of the caseworker, determines that the child should be placed in a foster home, the child‘s advocate could disagree and challenge the decision in federal court because, in his opinion, the “reasonable efforts” were unreasonable. The same goes for a child who is not put in a foster home, or for the child who is put in a foster home that for some reason (obviously other than his continued exposure to abuse, neglect, or exposure to physical or emotional trauma) is not to his liking.
We are confronted with a tragic class of people—children of alcohol and drug addicts, children victimized by severe domestic violence, children who are abused in unimaginable ways, children who are malnourished, sick and neglected. The district court‘s order requires that a caseworker be assigned in three days. But if the caseworker, even though assigned, is not meeting someone‘s definition of reasonable efforts, the district judge will again be petitioned to intervene. With this court‘s approval of the district court‘s finding that each of these children have an individual enforceable right to challenge the reasonable efforts of the DCFS, we can anticipate an avalanche of lawsuits seeking to obtain specific social services and mandatory injunctions governing every imaginable detail over the operation of the DCFS. Clearly this is far beyond the intent of Congress.
This opinion moves the court from its proper role as impartial arbiter of cases and controversies under the law to that of a crisis administrator of child welfare. Ironically, this decision, while attempting to advance the well-being of abused children, may instead result in the delay or denial of benefits. Delay and denial will result because standing for injunctive and declaratory relief has now been extended to every plaintiff with a notion of “reasonable efforts” that conflicts with that of the DCFS. The DCFS will most likely experience considerable paralysis because any efforts deemed unreasonable by scrutinizing plaintiffs and courts could cease, resulting in no remedial efforts while litigation continues in situations where something must be done.
Until Congress specifies certain individual rights under the AAA, this court should confine
Notes
§ 671. State plan for foster care and adoption assistance
(a) Requisite features of State plan
In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which—
*
(9) provides that where any agency of the State has reason to believe that the home or institution in which a child resides whose care is being paid for in whole or in part with funds provided under this part or part B of this subchapter is unsuitable for the child because of the neglect, abuse, or exploitation of such child, it shall bring such condition to the attention of the appropriate court or law enforcement agency;
*
(15) effective October 1, 1983, provides that, in each case, reasonable efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (B) to make it possible for the child to return home;
(16) provides for the development of a case plan (as defined in section 675(1) of this title) for each child receiving foster care maintenance payments under the State plan and provides for a case review system which meet [sic] the requirements described in section 675(5)(B) of this title with respect to each such child;
* * *