Legal Decisions: Adoption Assistance

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

CASE NO. A-9901284

KATHLEEN WEAVER - Appellant
vs
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - Appellee

Judge THOMAS C. NURRE

ENTRY ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

Pursuant to Civil Rule 53, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate's Decision filed AUGUST 19, 1999 The objection period has expired with no objections having been filled or no extensions having been granted. A copy of the Magistrate's Decision is hereby attached hereto and repeated herein.

For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate's Decision, the court remands this case to the Ohio Department of Human Services to determine. consistent with the decision, if Jason or Andrea Weaver is eligible for adoption assistance.

Judge Nurre

RENDERED THIS 19th DAY of August, 1999.

This matter Is an administrative appeal pursuant to O.R.C. 119.12 and 5105.35(e) from a decision of the Ohio Department of Human Services to deny Appellant Kathleen Weaver's application for federally funded adoption assistance benefits.

PROCEDURAL FACTS

The Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program, 42 U.S.C..A.. 673, provides federal financial support for children who are adopted and described as having special needs. The state is charged with the responsibility of administering this program, as set out in Title IV-E . In Ohio, this program is administered by local public children services agencies as described in the Ohio Administrative Code.

On June 25, 1998, Weaver applied for Adoption Assistance benefits on behalf of her two non-related children, Jason and Andrea. Jason was born on December 18, 1983 to an eighteen year old college freshman and adopted by appellant ten days after birth. Andrea was born on August 10, 1986 to a seventeen-year old minor and adopted by Weaver four days after birth. Both children suffer from a variety of physical and mental ailments. Both adoptions were arranged through a private attorney.

On July 2, 1998, the Ohio Department of Human Services (ODHS) issued a denial of Weaver's application for Adoption Assistance benefits. The reasons asserted for the denial include: 1) the application was received after finalization of the children's adoption; 2) mothers' eligibility to receive APDC at the time of the adoption was not established: and 3) the children were not placed by a public or private children services agency. Pursuant to Weaver's request, a state hearing was held on November 20, 1998. The State Hearing Officer, in a decision dated January 7, 1998, affirmed the denial of benefits.

On January 27, 1999, Weaver requested an administrative appeal of the State Hearing Decision. An Administrative Hearing Examiner reviewed the State Hearing Decision, and on February 8, 1999, an Administrative Appeal Decision was issued affirming the State. Hearing Decision. The Administrative Hearing Examiner upheld the denial of the application on behalf of Andrea for three reasons: 1 ) the application was received after the finalization of the adoption; 2) the inability to establish whether the child met the ADC-relatedness test; and 3) the child was not placed into permanent custody by an Ohio public children services agency or an Ohio private child placing agency. The Administrative Hearing Examiner upheld the denial of the application for benefits on behalf of Jason for two of the three enumerated reasons: 1) the application was submitted post-finalzation; and 2) the child was not placed in the permanent custody of either an Ohio public children services agency or an Ohio private child placing agency.

Weaver then filed a Notice of Appeal with this court.

DISCUSSION

When a party appeals from the Commission's final action pursuant to O.R.C. 119.12, the standard of review is as follows:
The court may affirm, the order of the agency complained of in the appeal if it finds, upon consideration of the entire record and such additional evidence as the court has admitted that the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with the law. In the absence of such a finding, it may reverse, vacate or modify the order or make such other ruling as is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with the law.

The standard of review for cases appealed to the court from a state agency is whether the agency's order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with the law. Henry's Cafe‚ Inc. v. Board of Liquor Control (1959),170 Ohio St. 233, 163 N.E.2d 678.

PLACEMENT BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCY

In this case, appellant first argues that the state requirements for eligibility are stricter than what is defined by Title IV-E, and therefore, the federal guidelines should control. In the denial of adoption assistance benefits to Weaver on behalf of both children, the Ohio Department of Human Services (ODHS) referred to O.A.C. 5101:2-47-29(B) as the regulation supporting the denial on the grounds that the children were not placed in permanent custody of an Ohio public children services agency or private child placing agency. O.A.C. 5101:2-47-29((B) states that in order to be eligible for adoption assistance benefits, ''[t]he child must have been placed for adoption by an Ohio [public children services agency PCSA or a certified Ohio [private child placing agency] PCPA. The PCSA OR PCPA must have permanent custody of the child at the time of adoptive placement, either through commitment by a court with juvenile jurisdiction or by an ODHS 1666 'Permanent Surrender of Child.'.

It is not clear which version of the code is used by the ODHS. This rule was effective January 1, 1983 with revisions on April 1, 1986, July 1, 1986, July 2, 1987, September 1 , 1988, May 1,1994, May 1, 1998 and March 18, 1999. The ODHS quotes Section (B). However, the current version of this section continues with "[n]o agency custody is required if the child meets SSI eligibility requirements or is living with a specified relative . . . at the time the specified relative petitions the court to adopt the child.. As the code is now written, custody is not required if the child meets SSI eligibility requirements. This is still narrower than the Federal requirements.

This court must determine whether the requirement by the State of Ohio that the children be placed by a public or private children services agency conflicts with the Federal requirements for eligibility. A conflict arises when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, Florida Lime v. Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132, 142-143, or when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), 312 U.S,. 52, 67.

The purpose of the Adoption Assistance Program as set out in 42 U.S.C. 670 is to enable the state to provide, in appropriate cases, adoption assistance for children with special needs. This statement of purpose does not limit adoption assistance to children which special needs that are adopted through a private or public services agency. In addition, the federal statute states that "[e]ach state having a plan approved under this part shall enter into adoption assistance agreements . . . with the adoptive parents of children with special needs. 42 U.S.C. 673(a)(1)(A).

Again there is no requirement that the children be adopted through a private or public services agency. The statute further states that "[u]nder any adoption assistance agreement entered into by a State with parents who adopt a child with special needs, the State . . . in any case where the child meets the requirements of paragraph (2), may make adoption assistance payments to such parents, directly through the State agency or through another public or nonprofit private agency, in amounts so determined." 42 U.S.C. ~ 673(a)(l)(B)(ii). By narrowing the eligibility requirements, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the purposes and objectives of Congress.

In a long line of cases dealing with the eligibility requirements of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under the Social Security Act, it has been held that "at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusions clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal AFDC standards violates the Social Security Act and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Townsend v. Swank (1971), 404 U.S. 282, 286; Quern v. Mendley (1978), 436 U.S. 725; King v. Smith (1968), 392 U.S. at 334. 309. As to the AFDC, each state is entirely free to set its own monetary standard of need and level of benefits. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. at 334. However, the states are not free to narrow the federal standards that define the categories of people eligible for aid. Id.

The Adoption Assistance Program is similar to the AFDC program and therefore, the same reasoning applies. This court holds that the state eligibility requirements improperly narrow the federal requirements, and therefore, the state eligibility requirements are invalid. It is improper to limit eligibility to children that were placed through private or public services agencies The Ohio Department of Human Services must use the applicable federal requirements as set out in 42 U.S.C. 673.

APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED AFTER FINALIZATION OF ADOPTION

Appellant in this case did not apply for the adoption assistance program until after the adoptions were finalized. One of the reasons enumerated by the ODHS for denial of benefits for both children was that the application was received after the adoption was finalized.

The State Hearing Officer does not enumerate the section of the Ohio Administrative Code that was used to support the requirement that the application for benefits must be received prior to the finalization of the adoption. However, the Administrative Hearing Examiner refers to O.A.C. 5101:6-8-01 which allows for an Administrative Appeal from a state hearing decision. The Administrative Hearing Examiner states "OA.C. 5101:2-47-35 allows for the consideration of post-finalization eligibility if a state hearing decision determines that one or more extenuating circumstances were present, that all eligibility requirements for AA [Adoption Assistance] have been met with the exception of the application being submitted prior to finalization of adoption."

The text of O.A.C. 5101:2-47-35 provides that:

The PCSA shall consider eligibility for AA after finalization and negotiate an ODHS 1453 "Adoption Assistance Agreement" with the-adoptive parent(s) in accordance with the provision of rules 5101:2-47-36 and 5101:2 47-42 of the Administrative Code if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) An ODHS 1451 was not completed or an ODHS 1453 was not executed prior to the final decree of adoption due to one of the following extenuating circumstances:
(a) Information about the child's special needs, other facts relevant to the child's eligibility for AA, or information about the AA program was not presented to or was otherwise unavailable to the adoptive parent(s) prior to final decree of adoption; or
(b) The child manifested a physical, mental, developmental, or emotional condition after the final decree of adoption as a result of factors in the child's medical history or background of the child's biological parents that existed prior to the final decree of adoption; or
(c) An administrative error prevented an AA agreement from being signed prior to the final decree of adoption on behalf of an otherwise eligible child.

Both the State Hearing Officer and Administrative Hearing Officer denied benefits on behalf of both of Weaver's children because the applications were submitted post-finalization of the adoption.

The circumstances in this case meet the requirements of O.A.C. 5101:2-47-35(1)(b). Weaver did not know of the mental and physical conditions of her adopted children until after the adoptions were finalized. She thought she was adopting two healthy infant children, as represented by the adopting attorney. She was not made aware of any medical or physical conditions of the children prior to the final decree of adoption.

This court holds that Weaver should be permitted to apply for the Adoption Assistance Program, even though the adoptions were already finalized at the time of the application.

ELIGIBILITY

The State Hearing Officer, using O.A.C. 5101:2-47-29(D), denied benefits to Weaver's children because an adoptive child must meet either SSI eligibility requirements or ADC-relatedness. The State Hearing Officer found that ADC-relatedness could not be established for either mother of the adopted children. ADC-relatedness of minor birth mothers is based on their parents' income. It was later determined that the birth mother of Jason was eighteen and a college freshman at the time of the child's adoption. Benefits were still denied to this child for all of the above reasons, even though ADC-relatedness could have possibly been established. The other child's mother was found to be seventeen at the time of the adoption, and therefore, her parent's income would have been necessary to determine ADC-relatedness.

Under O.A.C. 5101:2-47-29{D) (currently O.A.C. 5101:2-47-29(B)), used by the ODHS, a child is eligible for the adoption assistance program if he or she meets the requirements of SSI eligibility or ADC-relatedness as defined by OAC 5101:2-47-31.

O.A.C. 51O1:2- 47-31 provides that SSI eligibility is met if, at the time the adoption proceedings were initiated, the child was in receipt of SSI benefits or the child met all the requirements of Title XVI of the Social Security Act with respect to eligibility for SSI benefits based on a determination made by the regional office of the Social Security Administration. It also provides for ADC-relatedness if certain conditions are met.

Appellant Weaver argues that both children met the definition of a special needs child for SSI eligibility at the time the adoption proceedings were initiated. Weaver argues that "both children qualify almost as a matter of definition meeting the requirements of the classification 'special needs' by virtue of their race (bi-racial) and their medical/psychiatric conditions." It is also unclear if either child meets the requirements for ADC-relatedness, if it is found that they do not meet the definition for SSI eligibility.

For the above reasons, this court remands this case to the Ohio Department of Human Services to determine, consistent with this decision, if Jason or Andrea Weaver is eligible for adoption assistance.

DECISION

This court holds, as to the placement by a public children services agency or private child placing agency, that the state eligibility requirements improperly narrow the federal requirements. It is improper to limit eligibility to children that were placed through private or public services agencies.

This court holds that it is improper to deny an application for adoption assistance benefits because it was filed after the finalization of adoption.

As to the eligibility of appellant's children for adoption assistance benefits, this case is remanded to the Ohio Department of Human Services for a determination of whether Andrea Weaver and/or Jason Weaver met the requirements for SSI at the time adoption procedures were initiated or if either one of them met the requirements for ADC-relatedness as defined by O.A.C. 5101 :2-47-31