Kathy-Jo GRUZINSKI, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Respondent.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Decided June 7, 1999.
731 A.2d 246
Submitted on Briefs May 6, 1998.
Also, federal law does not prohibit a state from rejecting a MA application if it suspects that available assets are being sheltered in contravention of the Medicaid law or its aims or purposes. In fact, it is the state‘s duty to perform this task.
As Ptashkin failed to carry her burden of proving her eligibility for MA by showing that the disputed funds were transferred for fair market value or exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for MA, DPW‘s final administrative order is affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 1999, the order of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
Amy J. Wilson, Pittsburgh, for respondent.
Robert J. Masters, Beaver Falls, for intervenor, Beaver County Children & Youth Services.
Before COLINS, President Judge, and DOYLE, J., SMITH, J., PELLEGRINI, J., FRIEDMAN, J., FLAHERTY, J. and LEADBETTER, J.
FLAHERTY, Judge.
Kathy-Jo Gruzinski (Gruzinski) petitions this court to review a final order of the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), denying her request for adoption assistance for her adopted minor daughter, Laura Lynn Morrison Gruzinski (Laura or child).1 We reverse.
Laura was born with a cleft palate, cleft jaw and a cleft lip2 to Suzanne Morrison (Birth Mother) in Beaver County, Pennsylvania on November 25, 1984.3 Three days later, on November 28, 1984, because Birth Mother was mentally disabled and unable to care for Laura, the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Juvenile Division, (trial court), placed Laura into temporary foster care with a member of the Board of Directors of the Beaver County Children and Youth Services (CYS).
On January 4, 1985, the trial court adjudicated Laura a dependent of the Commonwealth and remanded her to foster care.
In May of 1985, CYS informed Birth Mother that CYS would take necessary action to terminate her parental rights for the purpose of permanently placing Laura with the temporary foster parents. CYS then filed a petition with the trial court, recommending that Laura be permanently placed with her foster parents for purposes of adoption.
In response to this action by CYS, Birth Mother‘s brother, Scott Morrison, and his wife, Vanessa (the Morrisons), who resided in Connecticut, determined that they wanted to adopt their niece, Laura.
In May of 1985, the Morrisons filed with the trial court in Beaver County a Petition to Intervene and Change Custody Recommendation, requesting placement of Laura with them for foster care and subsequent adoption in the Connecticut courts.4 After the completion of a favorable home study evaluation of the Morrison‘s home (through the Interstate CYS system), the trial court, by order dated October 24, 1985, set aside the recommendation of CYS and placed Laura with the Morrisons in order for them to pursue adopting her in the state of Connecticut. This October 24, 1985 order did not specifically terminate the responsibilities of CYS, but further required that the child remain under the protective supervision of the Beaver County Juvenile Probation Department pending completion of adoption proceedings in Connecticut.5
During the pendency of the adoption proceedings in the trial court, the father‘s parental rights were terminated by a Decree dated September 5, 1987 and the Birth Mother‘s parental rights were terminated by a Decree dated November 9, 1989.6
Although CYS advised the Morrisons that Laura was a child with special needs, CYS did not advise the Morrisons of the potential availability of adoption assistance.7 The Morrisons pursued the adoption of Laura in Connecticut, but before the adoption could be finalized, the Morrisons separated and divorced. In order to keep Laura in the family, the Morrisons privately placed Laura with Scott Morrison‘s sister (Laura‘s aunt), and her husband, who resided in Ohio.
Shortly after Laura began residing with the Gruzinskis, Gruzinski applied for and
Laura was formally adopted by Gruzinski and her husband on December 6, 1989, by a final decree issued by Judge Reed of the Beaver County trial court.9
From the time that Laura was placed with the Morrisons in 1985, until Gruzinski contacted CYS for adoption assistance in May of 1995, CYS had no additional contact with Laura or any of the fostering or adoptive parents. However, there is no evidence that CYS was precluded from being involved. The evidence indicates that CYS chose not to continue to be involved in the processes, since their adoption recommendation was denied by the trial court.
After Gruzinski discovered from private sources that because of Laura‘s disability, Laura was eligible for further assistance in the form of adoption assistance, Gruzinski telephoned CYS and requested adoption assistance. After being verbally denied for the adoption assistance by CYS, Gruzinski formally requested the Adoption Assistance and an Administrative Fair Hearing (Fair Hearing) by a letter to DPW dated April 8, 1995, and by a follow-up letter to CYS dated May 8, 1995. CYS then formally denied the request by letter to Gruzinski dated May 11, 1995, and scheduled the Fair Hearing.
The Fair Hearing was held on September 27, 1995 at the Office of Hearings and Appeals in Pittsburgh by telephone. The Fair Hearing was conducted by Hearing Officer Ann Strong (Hearing Officer). At the Fair Hearing, CYS was represented by legal counsel and the Director of CYS appeared and testified on behalf of CYS in support of a denial of Adoption Assistance.
On behalf of Laura, Gruzinski appeared pro-se. Scott Morrison, and their expert on adoption assistance, Tim O‘Hanlon10 also appeared and testified. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Hearing Officer accepted further documentation from Gruzinski on October 3, 1995, and from Tim O‘Hanlon on October 10, 1995 and entered the documents into the record.
On July 15, 1996, Attorney Examiner Katrina Dunderdale of DPW assumed jurisdiction over the appeal and, after having reviewed the testimony and exhibits, prepared Findings of Facts and a Recommendation and Order for DPW (the Recommendation), recommending that DPW provide Adoption Assistance to Gruzinski on behalf of the child.
DPW adopted the Recommendation in its entirety and entered an order on September 25, 1996 to provide Adoption Assistance to Gruzinski. CYS filed a request for reconsideration with DPW (Request for Reversal) which was granted on October 4, 1996. Gruzinski then filed her response on October 18, 1996, in which Gruzinski outlined with great detail facts material to the outcome that CYS had represented as true, but were, in fact, very inaccurate.11
After presumably reviewing the entire record (as was indicated by their order granting reconsideration), DPW entered a Final Order on the Merits dated January
Appellate review of an administrative order is limited to determining whether a constitutional violation, an error of law or a violation of the administrative agency procedure has occurred and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Northampton Convalescent Center v. Department of Public Welfare, 550 Pa. 167, 703 A.2d 1034 (1997), interpreting
This Court has undertaken a full and complete review of the entire certified record.12 In doing so, it was noted that the Secretary of DPW, in making the Final Order, did not accompany the Final Order with a separate opinion.13 In some circumstances, such a situation would require a remand to the agency for more specific findings or reasonings in order to produce effective appellate review. However, in the instant matter, remand is not necessary.14 Although a more detailed opinion would have made appellate review in this instance more economical, the record before us is sufficient to permit effective appellate review.
While all sectors of the necessary findings and reasons are not conveniently contained in one document, DPW, as an agency, has entered into the record, in separate documents, its findings of facts and the basis upon which their Final Order was entered. The apparent absence of a logical chain of events from the facts to the conclusion is missing in the Final Order, thus rendering that Final Order illogical, contrary to law, contrary to the administrative regulations, and contrary to reason.15
I. Placement in an Appropriate Home
DPW asserts that adoption assistance must be denied where “an appropriate” adoptive home was available where adoption assistance payments would not be needed.
This is consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court‘s holding that a fact finder in an administrative proceeding is required to set forth his findings in an adjudication and that adjudication must include all findings necessary to resolve the issues raised by the evidence and which are relevant to a decision. Page‘s Department Store v. Velardi, 464 Pa. 276, 287, 346 A.2d 556, 561 (1975). In this instance, all such facts are contained in, and this Court has cited to, the Certified Record (C.R.).
DPW‘s Final Order was signed by the Secretary of DPW herself. While the Final Order does not on its face set forth the facts relied upon by the Secretary of DPW in making this decision, the 10/4/96 Order Granting Reconsideration to CYS, again signed by the Secretary of DPW, herself, states that, “After receipt of the response [of the adoptive Gruzinski], the record in this matter will be reviewed in its entirety, and a Final Order will be entered.” Therefore, the entire record as this Court has received it, was reviewed and serves as the basis for DPW‘s Final Order.
In some circumstances, it would be more appropriate to remand a case to the administrative agency for more specific determinations. However, in the instant case, the record is complete, including specific findings by DPW. The fact that within DPW the fact finding responsibility is delegated to a different individual than the final adjudicator is no different from reviewing the transcript of a trial where a jury deliberated the evidence and found the facts while a judge entered the final adjudication.
Findings of Fact and Recommendation by DPW in this instance, was published on the letterhead of DPW. In addition, the Adjudication indicates that the Attorney Examiner prepared not only the Recommendation, but the initial 9/25/96 Order of DPW, approving Adoption Assistance, which Order was signed by Edgar L. Yost, Official in charge, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals of DPW.
The 9/25/96 Order of DPW granting Adoption Assistance benefits (which was later reversed on reconsideration by the Secretary of the DPW) indicates that, “The Appellant is hereby advised that in the event it takes issue with this Adjudication, Recommendation and Order, an appeal may be taken therefrom to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania....”
We note that the 9/25/96 Order of DPW granting benefits (which was later reversed on reconsideration), is marked “Corrected Order,” yet DPW does not indicate either in the record or in its brief what was “corrected” in the order. We, therefore, accept the “Corrected Order” as it appears on the face of the document.
In DPW‘s Final Order on the Merits, DPW does not apparently revise, alter, add or delete any other facts from DPW‘s facts originally found by DPW‘s Attorney Examiner on 8/15/96 since DPW received no further evidence between the time of the 8/15/96 Adjudication and the Final Order.
Absent any language to the contrary in its Final Order, this Court accepts those facts found by DPW by its Attorney Examiner on 8/15/96 as the facts of record upon which its decision is based. In accordance with the direction of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, this Court, has, however, reviewed the entire certified record to meet the scope of review standard regarding substantial evidence.
DPW fails to recognize the entire purpose for the Adoption Assistance Program (Program).18 The Program was designed to promote the “best interests of the child” principle by first locating the most suitable family and then determining whether or not adoption assistance is appropriate. DHHS has determined therefore, for the administration of its own program through the States, that whether or not adoption assistance is required by a family is not a criteria for determining the most suitable family for placement.
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations at
II. Jurisdiction
Beaver County is the appropriate site for Gruzinski to apply for Adoption Assistance. During Laura‘s residence in Connecticut and Ohio, prior to the final decree of adoption, Laura was still under the jurisdiction of the Beaver County Court and Birth Mother‘s parental rights had not been terminated. When Birth Mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights, the termination agreement was reviewed by the court in Beaver County. The petition for adoption was also filed with the Beaver County Court, which subsequently entered the decree.
Further, in accordance with
Laura first became eligible for Adoption Assistance after Birth Mother‘s parental rights were terminated on November 9, 1989 since at that time, Laura continued to be under court supervision of the Beaver County Juvenile Probation Department. The Beaver County trial court adjudicated Laura a dependent child, kept her under court supervision with her placement with the Morrisons, never relinquished their court supervision of Laura while they reviewed the termination of parental rights and did not relinquish their supervision of this child until the trial court eventually issued the final adoption decree on December 6, 1989.
Based upon the testimony of the CYS representatives at the Fair Hearing, the CYS officials confused and conflated the agency‘s responsibility for children under its care with its responsibility for certifying a child‘s eligibility for Adoption Assistance under
III. CYS Wrongfully Denied Assistance Benefits by Requiring Only Children Actually placed by CYS Eligible for Adoption Assistance.
Where the definition of an “eligible child” in
Specifically, DHHS states in its Policy Interpretation Question PIQ 87-05 that,
Title IV-E does not require that States, in all cases, have responsibility for placement and care (or custody) of a child as a prerequisite to adoption assistance under the Federal program. Further, there are no title IV-E provisions which would allow States to attach eligibility requirements for adoption assistance under that title in addition to those cited in the Federal statute.
....
State statutes which limit access to the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program by the addition of eligibility requirements beyond those required under the Federal statute are not in conformance with title IV-E. The Act establishes the eligibility criteria in section 473(a)(2) as the sole criteria. It does not set forth the listed criteria as minimums or as examples of eligibility criteria.
The eligibility requirements for the Adoption Assistance Program are found
- At the time the adoption petition is filed, the child is eligible for AFDC while living with a specified relative (section 473(a)(2)(a)(I));
- The child meets the eligibility requirements for the SSI program prior to the finalization of the adoption (section 473(a)(2)(A)(ii));
- The AFDC-eligible child is placed in foster care through a voluntary placement agreement (or relinquishment) with a private, non-profit agency (no title IV-E payment is made) and a judicial determination is subsequently made (following an initiation of court proceedings within six months of removal of the child from the home of a relative) to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. This action would satisfy the requirements in section 473(a)(2)(A)(i) and 473(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) and the child would be considered judicially removed.
In any of the above circumstances, the adoption assistance agreement must be negotiated between the prospective adoptive parents and the State title IV-E agency, with the involvement of other relevant agencies, as appropriate (section 475(3)). (Emphasis added.)
Policy Interpretation Question, Log No. ACF-PIQ-87-05, U.S. Dep‘t Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Issued December 17, 1987 (PIQ 87-05).
Laura meets the requirements specified in PIQ 87-05. At the time the adoption petition was filed, Laura was eligible for AFDC while living with a specified relative, her aunt, the adoptive mother, Kathy Jo Gruzinski. Laura, in fact, received AFDC payments while living with the Gruzinskis prior to the adoption, even though actual payments are not necessary in order to meet the AFDC relatedness standard for Title IV-E adoption assistance.
The purpose of DHHS PIQ 87-05, like all federal Policy Interpretations, is to interpret existing federal law. The 1987 PIQ 87-05 was issued well in advance of Laura‘s finalized adoption in 1989. In this instance, both CYS and DPW seem reluctant to apply the federal law and official interpretations thereunder to a federally funded program. We find no basis in the law that they can make a decision that is contrary to the Federal Policy Interpretations while administering monies provided by the Federal government.
Adoption Assistance is usually granted at the time of the adoption. Here, Gruzinski did not apply for Adoption Assistance until 1995, six years after the adoption. DHHS PIQ 92-02 sets forth some grounds on which an adopted child‘s eligibility for adoption assistance should be reconsidered after the adoption has been finalized. One of these situations for reconsideration includes a “failure to advise adoptive parents of the availability of adoption assistance” as an “extenuating circumstance” that may entitle the child to a reconsideration of eligibility.
Laura and her adoptive family should not be penalized because the Gruzinskis never had a legitimate chance to apply for adoption assistance before finalization, especially since CYS had a duty to notify the original prospective adoptive parents, the Morrisons, of Laura‘s eligibility for adoption assistance and failed to do so.21
Federal rules, specifically
DHHS PIQ 92-02 was issued to allow children such as Laura an avenue of redress when the local agency fails in its obligation to promote the program.22 This is specifically addressed in PIQ-92-02 which sets forth that, “it is the responsibility of the fair hearing officer to determine whether extenuating circumstances exist and whether the applicant or recipient was wrongly denied eligibility.” (C.R. at C152.)
This case meets the federal criteria for extenuating circumstances cited in DHHS PIQ 92-02 and this Commonwealth and the local agency should be bound by the federal guidelines and should welcome the opportunity to provide this much needed and deserved entitlement. Most importantly, however, CYS and DPW are bound by the determination of the Fair Hearing officer, who found Laura eligible.
V. The Child Meets All of the Criteria for Adoption Assistance Under the Pennsylvania Regulations 24 and DPW‘s reversal of its Order Granting Benefits is Not Based on Substantial Evidence and Capriciously Disregards the Only Facts Found of Record
A child is eligible for Adoption Assistance in Pennsylvania 1) if the ultimate goal for that child is adoption25 and 2) if:
- The child is 17 years of age and younger;26
- The parental rights have been terminated under the Adoption Act of the Domestic Relations Code (Adoption Act);27
- The child is in the legal custody of the county agency or another agency approved by the Department;28
- The child has one of five special need characteristics, including a physical condition or handicap.29
Two additional factors must be present before a child is eligible for adoption assistance:
- The child‘s removal from the home is the result of a judicial determination that continuation in the home is contrary to the child‘s welfare, or there is a voluntary placement agreement;30 and
- At the time the petition which seeks removal from the home was filed, or the voluntary placement agreement was signed, the child met the Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) relatedness test.31
The Certified Record indicates that Laura meets all of the criteria for eligibility of adoption assistance, which is consistent with the determination of the Fair Hearing Officer, Attorney Examiner Katrina Dunderdale. (C.R. at C174-180.)
Therefore, we conclude that Laura is eligible for Title IV-E adoption assistance retroactive to the first instance where Laura was residing with the adoptive mother and the Birth Mother‘s parental rights were terminated, which date is December 10, 1989.32
In accordance with the attached order, we instruct the Department of Public Welfare and the Beaver County Children and Youth Services to provide Laura Gruzinski with all available adoption assistance for which she was and is eligible, retroactively back to December 10, 1989.
ORDER
NOW, June 7, 1999, the order of the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, dated January 7, 1997, No. 63-95-004, is reversed and the Department of Public Welfare is ordered to enforce the payment of all available adoption assistance benefits on behalf of Laura Lynn Gruzinski retroactive to December 10, 1989, in accordance with the opinion issued herein.
Judge LEADBETTER dissents.
Concurring opinion by Judge FRIEDMAN in which Judge PELLEGRINI joins.
FRIEDMAN, Judge, concurring.
I cannot join the opinion of the majority because I believe that the issues discussed in Parts II through IV have not been raised. However, based on Parts I and V of the majority opinion and this court‘s decision in Barczynski v. Department of Public Welfare, 727 A.2d 1222 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999), I concur in the result.
Judge PELLEGRINI joins in this concurring opinion.
Notes
The function of the [appellate] court is to assure that the agency has given reasoned consideration to all material facts and issues. This calls for insistence that the agency articulate with reasonable clarity its reasons for decision, and identify the significance of the crucial facts. The court must not be left to guess as to the agency‘s findings or reasons. Consequently, the Commission should draft its opinion so that the logical chain from the facts to the conclusions was complete. Bowman, at 549 Pa. at 73, 700 A.2d at 431, citing Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S.App. D.C. 383, 444 F.2d 841 (D.C.Cir.1970).