ParaRegs-CalWORKs-Foster-Care
|
Code |
Effective |
ParaReg
Text |
|
|
Under
the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children,
Article 5(a), the sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child,
and shall continue to have financial responsibility for the support and
maintenance of the child during the period of the placement. (Family Code
§7901) |
|
|
180-2 |
|
Financial
responsibility for any child placed pursuant to the provisions of the
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of Article 5 thereof in the first instance.
However, in the event of partial or complete default of performance
thereunder, the provisions of other state laws also may be invoked. (Family
Code §7902) |
|
180-3 |
|
When a
child in FC reaches age 18, the child shall receive continued benefits until
age 19, provided all the following conditions are met. (a) The FC child was
attending high school or a vocational-technical training program on a
full-time basis prior to reaching age 18. (b) The child continues to meet FC
eligibility requirements of this section; reside in FC; and attend on a full-time
basis either a high school or if he/she has not completed high school, a
vocational technical training program which cannot result in a college degree
as specified in §42-101.2 provided he/she is reasonably expected to complete
either program before reaching age 19. (c) The child and the placement agency
have signed a mutual agreement which documents the continued need for FC
placement. (§45-201.111, revised effective November 26, 1997) Full-time
attendance must be defined and verified by the school. (§45-201.111(b)(3),
effective November 26, 1997) |
|
180-4 |
|
In
order to be eligible for AFDC-FC benefits, a child must meet the age
requirements of §42-100 et seq.; the property requirements in §42-200 et
seq.; the residence requirements in §42-400 et seq.; the citizenship and
alienage requirements in §42-430 et seq.; the social security enumeration
requirements in §40-105.2; the income requirements in §44-100 et seq.; the
child support requirements in §§43-200, 43-201.2, and 43-203; and the
application requirements in §40-100 et seq. (§§45-201.1-.5) |
|
180-4A |
|
Federal
law has provided, since December 14, 1999, that each child can have up to
$10,000 in property. While state regulations (§45-201.12) have not been
amended as of November 1, 2002, the CDSS has issued instructions to counties
as follows: "Accordingly, for State and federal AFDC-FC, any child may
now retain up to $10,000 in property. For purposes of determining whether the
child would have been eligible for AFDC in the petition month as required by
... §45-202.33, the family may also have up to $10,000 in property and still
qualify for AFDC. The $10,000 is in addition to the $1,500 vehicle limit.
This increased property limit is effective December 14, 1999."
(All-County Letter No. 02-45, June 25, 2002 implementing 42 United States
Code 672(a)) |
|
180-4B |
|
On
December 14, 1999, federal law, as contained in the United States Code (USC),
was amended as follows: "In determining whether a child would
have received aid under a State plan approved under section 602 of this title
(as in effect on July 16, 1996), a child whose resources (determined pursuant
to section 602(a)(7)(B) of this title, as so in effect) have a combined value
of not more than $10,000 shall be considered to be a child whose resources
have a combined value of not more than $1,000 (or such lower amount as the
State may determine for purposes of such section 602(a)(7)(B) of this
title)." (42 USC §672(a)) |
|
180-4C |
REVISED
5/05 |
State
law was amended effective January 1, 2002 to provide that in addition to the
personal property permitted by other provisions, an FC child may retain
resources with a combined value of not more than $10,000, consistent with 42
United States Codes §672(a). Up to $10,000 in cash savings is exempt for
purposes of determining eligibility and grant amount. (§45-201.12,) |
|
180-5 |
|
When a
caretaker relative receives AFDC-FC for the FC children, that relative may be
eligible to receive AFDC-FG for himself/herself. If that
caretaker relative chooses to receive AFDC-FG, and then loses AFDC-FG
eligibility, there is potential eligibility for Transitional Child Care and
Transitional Medical Care. (All-County Letter No. 94-91, October 31, 1994,
effective March 1, 1994) |
|
180-6 |
|
State
regulations in §82-506 provides as follows: “As a condition of eligibility for
assistance, each CalWORKs or foster care applicant/recipient shall assign to
the county all rights to child/spousal support for the applicant/recipient or
any other family member required to be in the AU under Section 82-820.3.” (§82-506.1, effective October 1, 1998) |
|
180-6A |
|
State
regulations in Handbook §12-410 provide: “As a condition of eligibility for and
under the CalWORKs or Foster Care aid programs, each applicant or recipient
shall assign to the district attorney any rights to support from any other
person the applicant or recipient may have on his or her own behalf or on
behalf of any other family member for whom the applicant or recipient is
applying for or receiving aid. Receipt
of aid automatically constitutes an assignment by operation of law.” (Handbook §12-410.1, effective October 1,
1998) Despite the
differences between §82-506.1 and Handbook §12-410.1, the Handbook refers to
§82-506 for assignment of support rights' requirements. (Handbook §12-410.11, effective October 1,
1998) |
|
180-7 |
ADDED
12/07 |
If the county
determines that the child is no longer eligible for CalWORKs because he/she
is living with a non-relative caretaker rather than a relative caretaker, the
county should inform the child’s non-relative caretaker that Aid to Family
with Dependent Children (AFDC)-Foster Care benefits may be available for the
child. In this instance, the county should also inform the non-relative
caretaker that the local legal aid office or county bar
association may be able to provide additional information and assistance in pursuing
such benefits. If the child and
non-relative caretaker wish to apply for Foster Care benefits at that time,
the CalWORKs worker should refer them to the county’s Foster Care office,
where a determination of Foster Care eligibility can be made. (All County Information Notice I-36-07,
June 27, 2007) |
|
180-8 |
ADDED
3/08 |
Federal Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B – TITLE IV-E,
Administrative Functions/Costs, Allowable Costs – Foster Care Maintenance Payments Program, Question 24 states: The State may
provide a full month's title IV-E foster care maintenance payment to the
licensed provider if the brief absence does not exceed 14 days and the child's
placement continues with the same provider. Otherwise, the State must prorate
its claims if the child is absent from the placement for more than a
reasonable brief period. (ACL 07-49,
December 19, 2007) |
|
|
In
order to qualify for the federal AFDC-FC Program, a special requirement is
that the child shall be removed from the home of a parent or relative as a
result of a court order. This regulation was modified effective January 1,
1993 to allow aid to children removed by voluntary placement in certain
situations. (§45-202.4) |
|
|
181-1A |
|
A child
is potentially eligible for federal AFDC-FC benefits when the child is
removed from the home of a parent or guardian as a result of a voluntary
placement agreement. Both of the following conditions must exist: (1) There
is a mutual decision between the child's parent or guardian and the placing
agency; and (2) There is a written binding agreement between the County
Welfare Department, a licensed adoption agency or CDSS acting as an adoption
agency, and the parent or guardian. (§45-202.412) A child
voluntarily placed shall be eligible for AFDC-FC payments for a period up to
180 days beginning with the date one of the above-mentioned agencies assumes
responsibility under a voluntary placement agreement, provided all other
eligibility requirements are met. (Subsection .412(c)) |
|
181-2A |
REVISED
5/05 |
For
federal AFDC-FC purposes, the child shall have been linked to the AFDC-FG/U
program during the month in which the petition was filed with the juvenile
court which led to the child's placement into FC pursuant to a detention or
disposition order, or the month in which the voluntary placement agreement
was signed. Linkage
is met if the child was living in the home of the parent or relative from
whom removed, and (1) was eligible for and received AFDC, or (2) would have
been eligible for AFDC if application had been made. Linkage is also met if
the child was no longer living in the home of the relative from whom removed,
but would have been eligible for AFDC based on that relative's home had the
child been living there and had application been made. To meet this
condition, the child shall have been living with the relative from whom
removed within any of the six months prior to the month in which the petition
was filed with the juvenile court which led to the child's FC placement
pursuant to a detention or disposition order. (§45-202.331) |
|
181-2B |
ADDED
3/08 |
Federal Child
Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.4, Title IV-E General Title IV-E
Requirements, AFDC-Eligibility, clarifies that the linkage determination
requirement set out in MPP §45-202.33 must be made using the circumstances of
the child in the home of removal PRIOR to the actual removal of the child. For example, the
parents may be living together at the time of removal, but one or both
parents may go to jail after the incident of abuse. The parental deprivation
which happened concurrent with or after the child’s removal cannot be used to
satisfy deprivation requirements. (ACL 07-49, December 19, 2007) |
|
181-3 |
|
In
order for a child to be eligible for federal AFDC-FC, the court order which
places the child shall result in the child's placement in foster care with a
nonrelative or with a different relative than the one from whose home he or
she was removed. This requirement shall be determined to be met if the child
was absent from the parent's or relative's home in the month the petition
which initiated the court action for removal was filed, provided the child
had resided with such parent or relative within any of the six months prior
to the month that the petition was filed. (§45-202.411(b)) |
|
181-3A |
|
Under
federal regulations in order to qualify for federal AFDC-FC, a child's
removal from the home, per Social Security Act §472(a)(1), "… must have
been the result of a judicial determination (unless the child was removed
pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement) to the effect that continuation
of residence in the home would be contrary to the welfare, or that placement
would be in the best interest, of the child.
The contrary to the welfare determination must be made in the first
court ruling that sanctions (even temporarily) the removal of a child from
home. If the determination regarding
contrary to the welfare is not made in the first court ruling pertaining to
removal from the home, the child is not eligible for title IV-E foster care
maintenance payments for the duration of that stay in foster care." (45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§1356.21(c)) In
certain situations, there are limitations to federal eligibility when a child
has been removed from the home of a specified relative: "(1) For the purposes of meeting the
requirements of section 472(a)(1) of the [Social Security] Act, a removal
from the home must occur pursuant to: "(i) A voluntary placement agreement
entered into by a parent or relative which leads to a physical or
constructive removal (i.e., a non-physical or paper removal of custody) of
the child from the home; or "(ii) A judicial order for a physical or
constructive removal of the child from a parent or specified relative. "(2) A removal has not occurred in situations
where legal custody is removed from the parent or relative and the child
remains with the same relative in that home under supervision by the State
agency. "(3) A child is considered constructively
removed on the date of the first judicial order removing custody, even
temporarily, from the appropriate specified relative or the date that the
voluntary placement agreement is signed by all relevant parties." (45 CFR
§1356.21(k)) |
|
181-3J |
ADDED
7/06 |
Changes
to the foster care program made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 alter foster
care eligibility criteria established under Rosales v. Thompson.
Effective immediately, counties must cease basing new eligibility
decisions for foster care upon MPP §45-202.332. Eligibility must be based on the home of
the parent from whom the child was removed, as set forth in MPP §45-202.331. Any cases previously determined eligible for foster
care using §45-202.332 on or after February 8, 2006 should be evaluated for
CalWORKs, KinGAP or other applicable programs. Counties must immediately track all Rosales
cases for which foster care benefits were paid starting October 1, 2005. (All County Information Notice I-19-06,
March 30, 2006) |
|
181-3K |
ADDED
9/06 |
The Deficit
Reduction Act (DRA) amends the federal Title IV-E statute to alter the foster
care eligibility criteria previously established in Rosales v. Thompson. The CDSS has now received the district
court’s order issued on June 16, 2006, and the federal instruction letter,
ACYF-CB-IM-06-2, issued on June 9, 2006, containing instructions related to
the impact of the federal DRA on Rosales cases. The federal
transmittal requires that counties must cease basing new eligibility
decisions for foster care upon Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP)
45-202.332 (the Rosales criteria)
after February 8, 2006, the date the DRA was enacted; eligibility must be
based on the home of the parent from whom the child was removed, as set forth
in MPP 45-202.331. Although the Rosales
court order confirms this instruction, the court has delayed the
implementation date for the new eligibility criteria to June 9, 2006, which
supersedes the date stated in the federal transmittal dated February 8, 2006. In addition,
counties must now reexamine cases, if any, in which Rosales eligibility has already been terminated, and those in
which Rosales eligibility was
denied, on or after February 8, 2006, based on the DRA, as instructed by ACIN
I-19-06. This ACIN instructed counties to "immediately 'track' all Rosales cases until clarification is
received from the court and DHHS." Per the court order, the counties
must continue to apply the Rosales
criteria in MPP 45-202.332 to determine eligibility until June 9, 2006, and
must pay any benefits due to such cases until the redetermination of
eligibility as required by the federal instructions. For cases that were
determined eligible for foster care benefits using Rosales criteria on or prior to February 8, 2006, the federal
transmittal also requires that eligibility must be redetermined based upon
MPP 45-202.331 on the annual redetermination date, beginning on February 8,
2006. The federal court again confirmed this instruction to redetermine
eligibility but delayed the implementation date until June 9, 2006.
Specifically, the federal instructions regarding redeterminations of
eligibility, as modified by the court order, states as follows: "For children in the Ninth Circuit who
were determined eligible only because of the Rosales decision on or
prior to [June 9, 2006], we will permit eligibility for Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments to continue through the month when the
child's next annual redetermination of eligibility is due. After the
month of redetermination, States will no longer be eligible to receive
Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments on behalf of children determined
eligible only because of the Rosales decision, in accordance with
section 472(a) of the Act as amended… if redeterminations are not held
timely (i.e. at least every 12 months) for children determined
eligible pursuant to Rosales, the child will not be eligible for Title
IV-E foster care maintenance payments from the month subsequent to the
month when the last redetermination was due." (All
County Letter 06-19, June 30, 2006) |
|
181-4 |
|
To be
eligible for the federal AFDC-FC program, the child shall meet one of the
following criteria for placement in FC. The child shall be removed from the
home of a parent or relative as the result of a court order which specifies
that responsibility for placement and care is given to one of the designated
county agencies; and if the child was placed into FC on or after October 1,
1983, reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for
removal of the child from his or her home and to make it possible for the
child to return to his or her home. The court order shall result in the
child's placement in FC with a nonrelative or with a different relative than
the one from whose home the child was removed. (§§45-202.411(a) and (b)) Subsequent
dismissal of jurisdictional and dispositional orders shall not result in the
loss of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) provided all other general and
federal AFDC-FC requirements continue to be met, and the court order was
dismissed because the child turned 18 and certain other requirements are met;
or the court order was dismissed because the child was relinquished or a
termination of parental rights of one or both parents was granted and
placement and care is with one of certain designated agencies.
(§45-202.411(c), as modified effective November 26, 1997) |
|
181-5 |
REVISED
5/05 |
In the
FC program, FFP means Federal Financial Participation and is participation by
the federal government in sharing the cost of AFDC-FC payments. (§45-101.1(f)(3)) |
|
181-6 |
|
Effective
July 1, 1997 Federal and State AFDC-FC eligibility shall be determined using
the AFDC eligibility standards which were in effect on July 16, 1996. No AFDC
waivers may be applied in determining eligibility. (All-County Letter No.
98-01, January 2, 1998) |
|
181-6A |
ADDED
6/07 |
Some AFDC/TANF requirements are different from those
of the AFDC program as it existed on July 16, 1996, due to AFDC demonstration
projects. Demonstration projects
incorporated under the AFDC/TANF program include Assistance Payments
Demonstration project/California Work Pays Demonstration Project
(APDP/CWPDP). Counties must use July 16, 1996 eligibility factors,
excluding waivers, to determine whether the child would have been eligible
for AFDC in the petition month and whether the child continues to be eligible
at redeterminations. The following divergent eligibility standards must be
addressed: ·
Recipient
Property Limits Counties may not apply recipient property limits
associated with APDP/CWPDP including the $2000 personal property limit, the
$4500 vehicle limit or the $5000 restricted account limit. Prior
to January 1, 1998, state regulations provided that the net market value of
nonexcluded real and personal property owned by an AFDC family shall not
exceed $1,000. If this limit is exceeded, the family or child is ineligible.
The property limit is $2,000 for AFDC FG/U recipients subject to the
California Works Pays Demonstration Project. (§42-207.1, invalidated by
W&IC §11155) Prior
to January 1, 1998, state regulations provided that one motor vehicle is
exempt from consideration as property if its net market value does not exceed
$1,500. If the market value exceeds $1,500, the excess over $1,500 shall be
treated as a resource and included in the property limit. (§42-213.2z.,
invalidated by W&IC §11155) ·
Income Standards The
MBSAC and 185% income test as of July 16, 1996 must be used to establish
linkage to foster care. ·
100 Hour Rule Even
though the 100 hour rule was waived for AFDC recipients as of December 12,
1992, this rule must be used for initial determinations and redeterminations
when deprivation is based on unemployment. ·
$30 and 1/3 Income Disregard
Limit For
purposes of AFDC-foster care eligibility, the four month time limit applies
when making initial AFDC linkage determinations. (All-County
Letter No. 98-01, January 2, 1998) |
|
181-6B |
ADDED
6/07 |
Prior to January 1, 1998, state regulations provided
that, for federal AFDC-U eligibility purposes, the principal earner must have
established a connection with the labor force by meeting the requirements of
any of the following in six calendar quarters within any 13-calendar-quarter
period which ends within one year before the quarter of application: (a)
earned gross income of at least $50 per quarter or (b) participated in the
Work Incentive Program, Work Incentive Demonstration Program, Community Work
Experience, or Greater Avenues for Independence, or (c) a combination of (a)
and (b), or (d) by receiving or being eligible to receive Unemployment
Insurance Benefits within one year before application or transfer to federal
AFDC-U. (§41-440.41, invalidated by W&IC §11201, and formally repealed July
1, 1998) |
|
181-7 |
ADDED
6/04 |
An
additional requirement for federal AFDC-FC eligibility is that the child be
living in an “eligible facility”. An
eligible facility can include the “approved” home of a relative, former
relative or nonrelative extended family member. (§45.202.51) |
|
181-8 |
ADDED
7/06 |
County
staff must verify that the court made a finding that “continuance in the home
is contrary to the welfare of the minor” or a finding to that effect. Other
acceptable examples include: “there is substantial danger to the welfare of
the minor without removing the minor,” or “the welfare of minor requires that
custody be taken from parents.” For
federal AFDC-FC, this court finding must be in the first court order which
removes the child from his or her home (typically the detention hearing). If
this finding is not made at the first hearing which removes the child
from his/her home, the child is ineligible for federal AFDC-FC funding
for the duration of that stay in foster care. Special attention should be made in
cases where continuances are requested at the detention hearing. If the continuance
is granted without a contrary to the welfare finding, the child will be
ineligible for federal AFDC-FC for the duration of that stay in foster care.
If a continuance is requested, county court staff should request that the
judge make the contrary to the welfare finding prior to granting the
continuance. For
State AFDC-FC, this finding must be made prior to the approval of State
AFDC-FC, but need not be in the first court order removing the child from his
or her home. (ACIN
I-27-06, April 25, 2006) |
|
181-8A |
ADDED
7/06 |
County
staff must verify that the court made a finding that “placement and care” is
vested with one of the agencies listed in MPP §45-202.6 (federal) or 45-203.5
(State), or a finding to that effect. Other
acceptable examples include: “temporary placement and care is vested with the
county” or “care, custody, and control is vested with the county.” This
finding may be in any court order, but State and federal AFDC-FC foster care cannot be
granted prior to the finding being made. (ACIN
I-27-06, April 25, 2006) |
|
181-8B |
ADDED
7/06 |
County
staff must verify that the court made a finding that “reasonable efforts to
prevent or eliminate the need for removal” have been made by the county. This
finding must be made by the court no later than 60 days from the date the
child is removed from the home; if this finding is not made timely, the
child is ineligible for federal AFDC-FOSTER CARE funding for the duration of
that stay in foster care. For State AFDC-FC, this finding must be made
prior to the approval of State AFDC-FC, but need not be made within 60 days
from the date of removal. A
finding that reasonable efforts to prevent removal and/or reunify the family
is NOT required where the county obtains a finding from a judge that
reasonable efforts were not necessary because: a. the parent has subjected the child to
aggravated circumstances such as abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, or
sexual abuse; or b. the parent has been convicted of
murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent; or |