State of California Department of Social Services v. Thompson
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
321 F.3d 835 (2003)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Enedina Rosales’s (plaintiff) grandson, Anthony, was informally placed in Rosales’s care after suffering abuse in his mother’s home. Thereafter, a petition was filed to legally remove Anthony from his mother’s custody, and Rosales was officially appointed Anthony’s foster parent. Anthony was not eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits while living with his mother but was eligible for AFDC while living with Rosales. Rosales applied for AFDC foster-care payments (AFDC-FC) on Anthony’s behalf. The US Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (the secretary) (defendant) rejected the application on the basis that Anthony was not eligible for AFDC-FC because Anthony had not been eligible for AFDC while living in his mother’s home. The California Court of Appeal concluded that AFDC-FC eligibility could be based on the child’s eligibility either in the home of removal or the home of the relative informally fostering the child at the time the removal petition was initiated. The State of California Department of Social Services (DSS) (plaintiff) submitted a state-plan amendment to the HHS secretary memorializing the court of appeal’s holding. However, the secretary rejected the amendment on the basis that the amendment violated federal statute and HHS policy. DSS filed a petition for review. The district court agreed with the secretary’s interpretation. Rosales appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Berzon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.