Cacfs

OPinion by Judge RYMER; Concurrence by Judge WU.

California Alliance of Child and Family Services, an association of private, nonprofit agencies that provide adoption, foster care, and group home services, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of Cliff Allenby, the interim director of the California Department of Social Services (the State). We must determine whether the State is in compliance with the federal Child Welfare Act’s (CWA) mandate that a participating state “cover the cost” of certain enumerated items for foster care group homes when it pays at a rate that is approximately 80 percent of actual 1986-1987 costs adjusted for inflation. The district court concluded that this substantially complies with the CWA. We disagree; the natural meaning of “cover the cost” is to pay in full, not in part. As the State isn’t doing this, we reverse.

I

The CWA, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 -679b, was enacted in 1980 and creates an opt-in scheme whereby states can receive federal funding to assist in the costs associated with raising children who are depen-dants or wards of the state. To qualify for federal funding, the state agrees to abide by certain requirements.

The…

concurring:

I agree that the district court’s grant of summary judgment should be reversed and remanded but for different reasons than delineated in the majority’s opinion.

Initially, the majority characterizes the Child Welfare Act (“CWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 -79b, as having a “mandate” that a participating State “cover the cost” of certain enumerated items for children’s foster care homes. See 42 U.S.C. § 675 (4)(A). It then seems to suggest that it is adopting the “natural meaning” of the term “cover the cost” which is “to pay in full, not in part.” The majority also states that “because the CWA leaves ‘cover’ unqualified, the common understanding is that it must refer to meeting all the costs of food, clothing, shelter, etc. [emphasis added].” 1 Later, the majority indicates that it is acceptable under the CWA for a State to create a plan which allows for an estimate of the enumerated costs for various categories of foster care providers (such as the Rate Classification Level or “RCL” herein) and to pay such estimates where the plan also has a provision for annual adjustments (such as the California Necessities Index or “CNI” herein). I agree with the latter conclusion but…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLIFF ALLENBY, Interim Director of No. 08-16267 the California Department of Social Services, in his official  D.C. No. 3:06-cv-04095-MHP capacity; MARY AULT, Deputy

OPINION

Director of the Children and Family Services Division of the California Department of Social Services, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2009—San Francisco, California

Filed December 14, 2009

Before: Alfred T. Goodwin and Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Rymer; Concurrence by Judge Wu

*The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

16421 16424 CACFS v. ALLENBY

COUNSEL

William F. Abrams, East Palo Alto, California, for the appel- lant.

George Prince, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, Cal- ifornia,…