In administering its Aid to Families with Dependent
Children-Foster Care program (AFDC-FC), Illinois distinguishes
between children who reside with relatives and those who do not.
Children placed in unrelated foster homes qualify for the AFDC-FC
program, which provides greater monthly payments than the basic
AFDC program. But children who are placed in relatives' homes may
participate only in the basic AFDC program, because the State
defines the term "foster family home" as a facility for children
unrelated to the operator. Section 408(a) of the Social Security
Act establishes certain conditions of AFDC-FC eligibility, among
which is the requirement that the child be placed in "a foster
family home." This term is defined in § 408 as "a foster family
home for children which is licensed by the State in which it is
situated or has been approved . . . as meeting the standards
established for such licensing." The Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW) has interpreted the federal statute to
require that States provide AFDC-FC benefits "regardless of whether
the . . . foster family home in which a child is placed is operated
by a relative." Appellees are four foster children who were removed
from their mother's home following a judicial determination of
neglect, and their older sister and her husband. Two of these
children were placed by the State in the home of their sister and
her husband, which was approved as meeting the licensing standards
for unrelated foster family homes. Illinois nevertheless refused to
make AFDC-FC payments on behalf of the children because they were
related to their foster parents. Appellees then brought this action
challenging the validity of Illinois' distinction between related
and unrelated foster parents. The Court of Appeals, affirming the
District Court's judgment for appellees, struck down the Illinois
statute.
Held: The AFDC-FC program encompasses foster children
who, pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect, have been
placed in related homes that meet a State's licensing requirements
for
Page 440 U. S. 126
unrelated foster homes. Accordingly, Illinois may not exclude
from its AFDC-FC program children who reside with relatives. Pp.
440 U. S.
133-146.
(a) Both the language and Legislative history of § 408 show that
the AFDC-FC program was designed to meet the particular needs of
all eligible neglected children, whether they are placed with
related or unrelated foster parents. Distinguishing among equally
neglected children based on their relationship to their foster
parents would conflict with Congress' overriding goal of providing
the best available care for all dependent children removed from
their homes pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect. Pp.
440 U. S.
134-143.
(b) Interpretations by HEW, the agency charged with
administering the AFDC-FC program, are entitled to considerable
deference. Pp.
440 U. S.
143-144.
562 F.2d 483, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all
other Members joined except STEVENS, J., who took no part in the
consideration or decision of the case.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this appeal is whether Illinois may exclude from its
Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program
children who reside with relatives.
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program
(AFDC-FC) authorizes federal financial subsidies
Page 440 U. S. 127
for the care and support of children removed from their homes
and made wards of the State pursuant to a judicial determination
that the children's homes were not conducive to their welfare. §§
408(a)(1), (2) of the Social Security Act of 135 (Act), as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 608(a)(1), (2). [
Footnote 1] To
Page 440 U. S. 128
qualify for Foster Care assistance, these children must be
placed in a "foster family home or child care institution." §
408(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(3). [
Footnote 2] The basic AFDC program, already in existence
when the Foster Care program was enacted in 1961, provides aid to
eligible children who live with a parent or with a relative
specified in § 406(a) of the Act. [
Footnote 3] In administering these programs, Illinois
distinguishes
Page 440 U. S. 129
between related and unrelated foster parents. Children placed in
unrelated foster homes may participate in the AFDC-FC program. But
those who are placed in the homes of relatives listed in § 406(a),
and who are entitled to basic AFDC benefits, cannot receive AFDC-FC
assistance because the State defines the term "foster family home"
as a facility for children unrelated to the operator. [
Footnote 4] Foster children living with
relatives may participate only in Illinois' basic AFDC program,
which provides lower monthly payments than the Foster Care program.
[
Footnote 5] The specific
question presented here is whether Illinois has correctly
interpreted the federal standards for AFDC-FC eligibility set forth
in § 408(a) of the Act to exclude children who, because of
placement with related, rather than unrelated, foster parents
qualify for assistance under the basic AFDC program.
I
Appellees are four foster children, their older sister (Linda
Youakim), and her husband (Marcel Youakim). In 1969, Illinois
removed the children from their mother's home and made them wards
of the State following a judicial determination
Page 440 U. S. 130
of neglect. The Department of Children and Family Services
(Department), which became responsible for the children, [
Footnote 6] placed them in unrelated
foster care facilities until 1972. During this period, they each
received full AFDC-FC benefits of $105 a month. In 1972, the
Department decided to place two of the children with the Youakims,
who were under no legal obligation to accept or support them.
[
Footnote 7] The Department
investigated the Youakim home and approved it as meeting the
licensing standards established for unrelated foster family homes,
as required by state law. [
Footnote
8] Despite this approval, the State refused to make Foster Care
payments on behalf of the children because they were related to
Linda Youakim.
The exclusion of foster children living with related caretakers
from Illinois' AFDC-FC program reflects the State's view that the
home of a relative covered under basic AFDC is not a "foster family
home" within the meaning of § 408(a)(3), the federal AFDC-FC
eligibility provision at issue here. Interpreting that provision,
Illinois defines a "foster family home" as
"a facility for child care in residences of families who receive
no more than 8 children
unrelated to them . . . for the
purpose of providing family care and training for
Page 440 U. S. 131
the children on a full-time basis. . . ."
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 2212.17 (Supp. 1978) (emphasis added).
[
Footnote 9] Homes that do not
meet the definition may not be licensed, [
Footnote 10] and, under state law, only licensed
facilities are entitled to Foster Care payments. [
Footnote 11]
Although Illinois refused to make Foster Care payments, it did
provide each child basic AFDC benefits of approximately $63 a
month, substantially less than the applicable $105 AFDC-FC rate.
[
Footnote 12] The Youakims,
however, believed that these payments were insufficient to provide
proper support, and declined to accept the other two children.
These children remain in unrelated foster care facilities and
continue to receive AFDC-FC benefits.
In 1973, the Youakims and the four foster children brought a
class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for themselves and persons
similarly situated, challenging Illinois' distinction between
related and unrelated foster parents as violative of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge
District Court certified the class, but granted
Page 440 U. S. 132
summary judgment for the state officials on the constitutional
claim.
374 F.
Supp. 1204 (ND Ill.1974).
While the direct appeal from the summary judgment was pending in
this Court, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)
issued a formal interpretation of the scope of the federal AFDC-FC
program, providing in pertinent part:
"When a child has been removed from his home by judicial
determination and is placed in foster care under the various
conditions specified in Section 408 of the Social Security Act and
45 CFR 233.110, the foster care rate of payment prevails regardless
of whether or not the foster home is operated by a relative."
HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9 (Oct. 25, 1974). In light of
this administrative interpretation, we vacated the judgment and
directed the District Court to consider whether the Illinois foster
care scheme is inconsistent with the Social Security Act, and
therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause, U.S.Const., Art. VI,
cl. 2.
Youakim v. Miller, 425 U.
S. 231 (1976) (per curiam).
On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment for
appellees, holding that the State's denial of AFDC-FC benefits and
services to otherwise eligible foster children who live with
relatives conflicts with §§ 401 and 408 of the Social Security Act.
431 F. Supp.
40, 45 (ND Ill.1976). [
Footnote 13] It found that, under the "plain words" of §
408, dependent children adjudged to be wards of the State, removed
from their homes, and placed in approved foster homes are entitled
to AFDC-FC benefits, regardless of whether their foster parent is a
relative. 431 F. Supp. at 44-45. In so ruling, the court relied on
HEW's interpretive ruling and on the national policy embodied
Page 440 U. S. 133
in § 401 of the Act to "encourag[e] the care of dependent
children in their own homes or in the homes of relatives." 431 F.
Supp. at 44. Since the State had approved the Youakim home as
meeting the licensing standards for unrelated foster homes, the
District Court concluded that the requirements of § 408 had been
satisfied. 431 F. Supp. at 43-44.
The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the judgment of the
District Court. 562 F.2d 483 (CA7 1977). [
Footnote 14] It held that the statutory definition of
"foster family home" in the last sentence of § 408 does not exclude
relatives' homes, and found no "implied legislative intent" to
create such an exclusion. 562 F.2d at 487;
see id. at 486,
n. 4. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that any home
approved as meeting the State's licensing standards is a "foster
family home" within the meaning of § 408. 562 F.2d at 486, 490.
We noted probable jurisdiction, 434 U.S. 1060 (1978), and now
affirm.
II
A participating State may not deny assistance to persons who
meet eligibility standards defined in the Social Security Act
unless Congress clearly has indicated that the standards
Page 440 U. S. 134
are permissive.
See, e.g., Burns v. Alcala,
420 U. S. 575,
420 U. S. 580
(1975);
Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.
S. 598 (1972);
Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.
S. 282,
404 U. S. 286
(1971);
King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309
(1968). Congress has specified that programs, like AFDC-FC, which
employ the term "dependent child" to define eligibility must be
available for "all eligible individuals." § 402(a)(10), 42 U.S.C. §
602(a)(10);
see Quern v. Mandley, 436 U.
S. 725,
436 U. S.
740-743, and n. 18 (1978). Section 408(e) reinforces
this general rule by requiring States to provide Foster Care
benefits to "any" child who satisfies the federal eligibility
criteria of § 408(a). Thus, if foster care in related homes is
encompassed within § 408, Illinois may not deny AFDC-FC benefits
when it places an eligible child in the care of a relative.
In arguing that related foster care does not fall within § 408's
definition of "foster family home," appellants submit that Congress
enacted the Foster Care program solely for the benefit of children
not otherwise eligible for categorical assistance. We disagree. The
purpose of the AFDC-FC program was not simply to duplicate the AFDC
program for a different class of beneficiaries. As the language and
legislative history of § 408 demonstrate, the Foster Care program
was designed to meet the particular needs of all eligible neglected
children, whether they are placed with related or unrelated foster
parents.
A
Section 408(a), in defining "dependent child," establishes four
conditions of AFDC-FC eligibility. First, the child must have been
removed from the home of a parent or other relative specified in §
406(a), the basic AFDC eligibility provision, "as a result of a
judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein
would be contrary to the welfare of such child." § 408(a)(1), 42
U.S.C. § 608(a)(1). Second, the State must remain responsible for
the placement and care of the child. § 408(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §
608(a)(2). Third, the
Page 440 U. S. 135
child must be placed in "a foster family home or child care
institution." § 408(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(3). Fourth, the child
must have been eligible for categorical assistance under the
State's plan prior to initiation of the removal proceedings. §
408(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(4).
The dispute in this case centers on the meaning of "foster
family home" as used in the third eligibility requirement, §
408(a)(3) of the Act. The statute itself defines this phrase in
sweeping language:
"[T]he term 'foster family home' means a foster family home for
children which is licensed by the State in which it is situated or
has been approved, by the agency of such State responsible for
licensing homes of this type, as meeting the standards established
for such licensing."
§ 408, 42 U.S.C. § 608 (last sentence). Congress manifestly did
not limit the term to encompass only the homes of nonrelated
caretakers. Rather, any home that a State approves as meeting its
licensing standards falls within the ambit of this definitional
provision. That Congress intended no distinction between related
and unrelated foster homes is further demonstrated by the AFDC-FC
definition of "aid to families with dependent children," which
includes foster care for eligible children who live "in the foster
family home
of any individual." § 408(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §
608(b)(1) (emphasis added). Far from excluding related caretakers,
the statute uses the broadest possible language when it refers to
the homes of foster parents.
Appellants concede that these provisions do not explicitly bar
from the Foster Care program children living with related foster
parents. Juris.Statement 11; Brief for Appellants 22; Reply Brief
for Appellants 5; 562 F.2d at 486, and n. 4. Nevertheless, they
infer from two isolated passages of § 408 a congressional intent to
except relatives' homes from the definition of "foster family
home."
Page 440 U. S. 136
Appellants first rely on the definition of dependent children in
§§ 408(a)(1) and (3). These provisions state in relevant part:
"(a) the term 'dependent child' shall, notwithstanding section
[406(a) -- the basic AFDC eligibility provision],
also
include a child (1) who would meet the requirements of such section
[406(a)] except for his removal . . . from the home of a relative
(specified in such section [406(a)]) as a result of a judicial
determination to the effect that continuation therein would be
contrary to the welfare of such child . . . [and] (3) who has been
placed in a foster family home."
(Emphasis added.) Appellants construe the "notwithstanding"
language of § 408(a)(1) in conjunction with § 408(a)(3) as creating
a class of AFDC-FC beneficiaries distinct from the dependent
children covered under basic AFDC. In their view, "notwithstanding
§ 406(a)" means that the Foster Care definition of "dependent
child" both suspends the basic AFDC requirement that the child
reside with a parent or close relative, and precludes a foster
child who meets that requirement from participating in the AFDC-FC
program. Under appellants' construction, §§ 408(a)(1) and (3) would
read: For the purpose of Foster Care aid, a "dependent child" shall
only include a child who would meet the requirements of §
406(a) except that he has been both removed from the home of a
parent or relative specified in § 406(a) and placed in a
nonrelative's home.
The difficulty with this strained interpretation is that §
408(a)(1) does not use the word "only." It states that a dependent
child shall "also" include a child removed from the home of a
parent or relative. Thus, there is no basis for construing language
that unquestionably expands the scope of the term "dependent child"
as implicitly contracting the definition to exclude a child who
meets the eligibility criteria of § 406(a). Because § 408(a)(1)
does not have the preclusive meaning
Page 440 U. S. 137
urged by appellants, it cannot implicitly modify the phrase
"foster family home" in § 408(a)(3) to denote solely unrelated
homes. We think it clear that neither § 408(a)(1) nor § 408(a)(3)
embodies a congressional intent to constrict the broad statutory
definition of "foster family home."
Appellants next maintain that interpreting AFDC-FC to encompass
foster care by relatives would render meaningless another provision
of the program. Section 408(f)(1) of the Act obligates States to
ensure that
"services are provided which are designed to improve the
conditions in the home from which [the foster child] was removed
or to otherwise make possible his being placed in the home
of a relative specified in section [406(a)]."
42 U.S.C. § 608(f)(1) (emphasis added). According to appellants,
if related homes were "foster family homes," it would be
unnecessary to require States to make the home of a relative
suitable for placement when the foster child already lives in a
relative's home.
By ignoring the critical word "or," appellants misconstrue the
import of this provision. To be sure, § 408(f) expresses a
preference for the return of children to their original home or
their transfer to the care of a relative. Congress, however,
expressed this preference in the alternative. When a child is
placed in related foster care, the State obviously can satisfy §
408(f)(1) by working toward his ultimate return to the home from
which he was removed, in this case the mother's home. Thus, §
408(f)(1) is fully consonant with including in the AFDC-FC program
foster children placed with relatives.
Had Congress intended to exclude related foster parents from the
definition of "foster family home," it presumably would have done
so explicitly, just as it restricted the definition of "child-care
institution." [
Footnote 15]
Instead, the statute plainly
Page 440 U. S. 138
states that a foster family home is the home of any individual
licensed or approved by the State as meeting its licensing
requirements, and we are unpersuaded that the provisions on which
appellants rely implicitly limit that expansive definition.
B
The legislative history and structure of the Act fortify our
conclusion that the language of § 408 should be given its full
scope. The Foster Care program was enacted in the aftermath of
HEW's declaration that States could no longer discontinue basic
AFDC assistance due to unsuitable home conditions "while the child
continues to reside in the home." State Letter No. 452, Bureau of
Public Assistance, Social Security Administration, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (Jan. 17, 1961) (hereinafter
Flemming Ruling). In directing States "either to improve the home
conditions" or "make arrangements for the child elsewhere,"
ibid., the Ruling prompted Congress to encourage state
protection of neglected children. [
Footnote 16] Accordingly, Congress designed a program
carefully tailored to the needs of children whose "home
environments . . . are clearly contrary to the[ir] best interests,"
[
Footnote 17] and it offered
the States financial subsidies to implement the plan. Neither the
legislative history nor the structure of the Act indicates that
Congress intended to differentiate among neglected children based
on their relationship to their
Page 440 U. S. 139
foster parents. Indeed, such a distinction would conflict in
several respects with the overriding goal of providing the best
available care for all dependent children removed from their homes
because they were neglected.
See S.Rep. No. 165, p. 6; 107
Cong.Rec. 6388 (1961) (remarks of Sen. Byrd).
Although a fundamental purpose of the Foster Care program was to
facilitate removal of children from their homes, Congress also took
steps to "safeguard" intact family units from unnecessary upheaval.
See S.Rep. No. 165, p. 7; 107 Cong.Rec. 6388 (1961)
(remarks of Sen. Byrd). [
Footnote 18] To ensure that children would be removed
only from homes demonstrably inimical to their welfare, Congress
required participating States to obtain "a judicial determination .
. . that continuation in the home was contrary to the welfare of
the child." S.Rep. No. 165, p. 7;
see 108 Cong.Rec. 12693
(1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene McCarthy); § 408(a)(1). Protecting
the integrity of established family units by mandating judicial
approval of a State's decision to remove a child obviously is a
goal that embraces all neglected children, regardless of who the
ultimate caretaker may be. Yet, under appellants' construction of §
408, the State would have no obligation to justify its removal of a
dependent child if he were placed with relatives, since the child
could not be eligible for Foster Care benefits. But the same child,
placed in unrelated facilities, would be entitled under the Foster
Care program to a judicial
Page 440 U. S. 140
determination of neglect. The rights of allegedly abused
children and their guardians would thus depend on the happenstance
of where they are placed, which is normally' determined after a
court has found removal necessary. We are reluctant to attribute
such an anomalous intent to Congress, particularly in the absence
of any indication that it meant to protect from unnecessary removal
only those dependent children placed with strangers.
Congress was also concerned with assuring that States place
neglected children in substitute homes determined appropriate for
foster care.
See S.Rep. No. 165, pp. 6-7. To deter
indiscriminate foster placements, Congress required that States
establish licensing standards for every foster home, § 408
(definition of "foster family home"), and supervise the placement
of foster children. § 408(a)(2);
see 45 CFR §§ 220.19(a),
233.110(a)(2)(i) (1977). The legislative materials at no point
suggest that Congress intended to subject some foster homes, but
not others, to minimum standards of quality, as could result if §
408 excluded relatives' homes from the definition of "foster family
home." Indeed, in authorizing an approval procedure as an
alternative to actual licensing of "foster family homes," [
Footnote 19] Congress evinced its
understanding that children placed in related foster homes are
entitled to Foster Care benefits. At the time the AFDC-FC program
was enacted in 1961, many States exempted relatives' homes from the
licensing requirements imposed on all other types of settings in
which foster children could be placed. [
Footnote 20] It is
Page 440 U. S. 141
therefore likely that Congress, by including an approval
procedure, meant to encompass foster homes not subject to State
licensing requirements, in particular, related foster homes.
The specific services offered by the AFDC-FC program further
indicate that Congress did not intend to distinguish between
related and unrelated foster caretakers. Congress attached
considerable significance to the unique needs and special problems
of abused children who are removed from their homes by court order,
distinguishing them as a class from other dependent children:
"The conditions which make it necessary to remove [neglected]
children from unsuitable homes often result in needs for special
psychiatric and medical care of the children. . . ."
"
* * * *"
"These are the most underprivileged children, and often have
special problems. . . ."
108 Cong.Rec. 12692-12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene
McCarthy). Section 408 embodies Congress' recognition of the
peculiar status of neglected children in requiring that States
continually supervise the care of these children, § 408(a)(2),
develop a plan tailored to the needs of each foster child "to
assure that he receives proper care," § 408(f)(1), and periodically
review both the necessity of retaining the child in foster care and
the appropriateness of the care being provided.
See ibid.;
45 CFR §§ 220.19(b), (c), 233.110(a)(2)(ii) (1977). Additionally,
the States must work to improve the conditions in the foster
child's original home or to transfer him to a relative when
feasible, § 408(f)(1);
see supra at
440 U. S. 137.
This procedure comports with Congress' preference for care of
dependent children by relatives, a policy underlying the
categorical assistance program since its inception in
Page 440 U. S. 142
1935.
See S.Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 117
(1935); H.R.Rep. No 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10-12 (1935);
Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. at
420 U. S.
581-582; § 401, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 601,
supra at
440 U. S.
132-133. We do not believe that Congress, when it
extended assistance to foster children, meant to depart from this
fundamental principle. [
Footnote
21] Congress envisioned a remedial environment to correct the
enduring effects of past neglect and abuse. There is nothing to
indicate that it intended to discriminate between potential
beneficiaries, equally in need of the program, on the basis of
their relationship to their foster parents.
That Congress had no such intent is also evidenced by the 1967
amendments to the Act, which increased the federal matching
Page 440 U. S. 143
payments for AFDC-FC to exceed the federal share of basic AFDC
payments. [
Footnote 22] The
increase reflects Congress' recognition that state-supervised care
and programs designed to meet the special needs of neglected
children cost more than basic AFDC care. [
Footnote 23] The legislative history of the amendment
reveals no basis for distinguishing between related and unrelated
foster homes. [
Footnote 24]
Rather, it discloses a generalized concern for the plight of all
dependent children who should be sheltered from their current home
environments but are forced to remain in such homes because of the
States' inability to finance substitute care. S.Rep. No. 744, pp.
163-165; H.R.Rep. No. 544, pp. 100-101. Significantly, the
Committee Reports suggest that increasing federal matching payments
would encourage relatives "not legally responsible for support" to
undertake the care of foster children "in order to obtain the best
possible environment for the child." S.Rep. No. 744, p. 164;
H.R.Rep. No. 544, p. 101. The amendments are therefore described,
without qualification, as providing "more favorable Federal
matching . . . for foster care for children removed from an
unsuitable home by court order." S.Rep. No. 744, p. 4; H.R.Rep. No.
544, p. 4.
C
Our interpretation of the statute and its legislative history is
buttressed by HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-79,
Page 440 U. S. 144
which requires States to provide AFDC-FC benefits "regardless of
whether the . . . foster family home in which a child is placed is
operated by a relative." In reaching this conclusion, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare reasoned:
"A non-legally liable relative has no financial responsibility
towards the child placed with him and the income and resources of
such a relative are not factors in determining entitlement to a
foster care payment. It must be noted, too, that the 1967
amendments to the Social Security Act liberalized Federal financial
participation in the cost of foster care, recognizing foster family
care is more costly than care in the child's own home."
HEW Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9.
We noted in vacating the original three-judge District Court
decision in this case that
"[t]he interpretation of a statute by an agency charged with its
enforcement is a substantial factor to be considered in construing
the statute."
Youakim v. Miller, 425 U.S. at
425 U. S.
235-236, citing
New York Dept. of Social Services v.
Dublino, 413 U. S. 405,
413 U. S. 421
(1973);
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic
National Committee, 412 U. S. 94,
412 U. S. 121
(1973);
Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U.
S. 617,
401 U. S.
626-627 (1971). Administrative interpretations are
especially persuasive where, as here, the agency participated in
developing the provision.
Adams v. United States,
319 U. S. 312,
319 U. S.
314-315 (1943);
United States v. American Trucking
Assns., 310 U. S. 534,
310 U. S. 549
(1940). HEW's Program Instruction is fully supported by the
statute, its legislative history, and the common sense observation
that all dependent foster children are similarly in need of the
protections and monetary benefits afforded by the AFDC-FC program.
[
Footnote 25]
Page 440 U. S. 145
III
We think it clear that Congress designed the AFDC-FC program to
include foster children placed with relatives. The overriding
purpose of § 408 was to assure that the most appropriate substitute
care be given to those dependent children so mistreated that a
court has ordered them removed from their homes. The need for
additional AFDC-FC resources -- both monetary and service related
-- to provide a proper remedial environment for such foster
children arises from the status of the child as a subject of prior
neglect, not from the status of the foster parent. [
Footnote 26] Appellants attribute to
Congress an intent to differentiate among children who are equally
neglected and abused, based on a living arrangement bearing no
relationship to the special needs that the AFDC-FC program was
created to meet. Absent clear support in the statutory language or
legislative history, we decline to make such an unreasonable
attribution.
Page 440 U. S. 146
Accordingly, we hold that the AFDC-FC program encompasses foster
children who, pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect, have
been placed in related homes that meet a State's licensing
requirements for foster homes.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
MR JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
[
Footnote 1]
Section 408 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 608, sets forth the
provisions governing the Foster Care program:
"Payment to States for foster home care of dependent children;
definitions"
"Effective for the period beginning May 1, 1961 -- "
"(a) the term 'dependent child' shall, notwithstanding section
606(a) of this title, also include a child (1) who would meet the
requirements of such section 606(a) or of section 607 of this title
except for his removal after April 30, 1961, from the home of a
relative (specified in such section 606(a)) as a result of a
judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein
would be contrary to the welfare of such child, (2) whose placement
and care are the responsibility of (A) the State or local agency
administering the State plan approved under section 602 of this
title . . . , (3) who has been placed in a foster family home or
child care institution as a result of such determination, and (4)
who (A) received aid under such State plan in or for the month in
which court proceedings leading to such determination were
initiated, or (b)(i) would have received such aid in or for such
month if application had been made therefor, or (ii) in the case of
a child who had been living with a relative specified in section
606(a) of this title within 6 months prior to the month in which
such proceedings were initiated, would have received such aid in or
for such month if in such month he had been living with (and
removed from the home of) such a relative and application had been
made therefor;"
"(b) the term 'aid to families with dependent children' shall,
notwithstanding section 606(b) of this title, include also foster
care in behalf of a child described in paragraph(a) of this section
-- "
"(1) in the foster family home of any individual, whether the
payment therefor is made to such individual or to a public or
nonprofit private child-placement or child care agency, or"
"(2) in a child care institution, whether the payment therefor
is made to such institution or to a public or nonprofit private
child-placement or child care agency. . . . "
"(c) the number of individuals counted under clause(A) of
section 603(a)(1) of this title for any month shall include
individuals . . . with respect to whom expenditures were made in
such month. . . . "
"
* * * *"
"but only with respect to a State whose State plan approved
under section 602 of this title -- "
"(e) includes aid for any child described in paragraph (a) of
this section, and"
"(f) includes provision for (1) development of a plan for each
such child (including periodic review of the necessity for the
child's being in a foster family home or child care institution) to
assure that he receives proper care and that services are provided
which are designed to improve the conditions in the home from which
he was removed or to otherwise make possible his being placed in
the home of a relative specified in section 606(a) of this title. .
. . "
"For purposes of this section, the term 'foster family home'
means a foster family home tor children which is licensed by the
State in which it is situated or has been approved, by the agency
of such State responsible for licensing homes of this type, as
meeting the standards established for such licensing; and the term
'child care institution' means a nonprofit private child care
institution which is licensed by the State in which it is situated
or has been approved, by the agency of such State responsible for
licensing or approval of institutions of this type, as meeting the
standards established for such licensing."
[
Footnote 2]
The eligibility requirements of the AFDC-FC program are
contained in the statutory definition of "dependent child," §
408(a).
See n 1,
supra.
[
Footnote 3]
The eligibility criteria for the basic AFDC program are set
forth in its statutory definition of "dependent child," § 406(a) of
the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 606(a):
"When used in this part -- "
"(a) The term 'dependent child' means a needy child (1) who has
been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death,
continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity
of a parent, and who is living with his father, mother,
grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother,
stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, or
niece, in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such
relatives as his or their own home, and (2) who is (A) under the
age of eighteen, or (b) under the age of twenty-one and (as
determined by the State in accordance with standards prescribed by
the Secretary) a student regularly attending a school, college, or
university, or regularly attending a course of vocational or
technical training designed to fit him for gainful employment."
[
Footnote 4]
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 2212.17 (Supp. 1978).
See
infra at
440 U. S.
130-131.
[
Footnote 5]
Illinois, like most other States, has consistently authorized
substantially greater AFDC-FC payments than basic AFDC benefits.
See 25 Soc.Sec.Bull., No. 2, Tables 10, 14, pp. 28, 30
(Feb.1962); U.S. Dept. of HEW, Public Assistance Statistics: April
1977, Tables A, B, 4, 6, 7 (Sept.1977);
infra at
440 U. S. 130,
440 U. S.
131.
[
Footnote 6]
See Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 37, § 705-7(1)(f) (1975);
Ill.Ann.Stat, ch. 23, § 5005 (Supp. 1978), as amended, Pub. Act
80-1124, 1977 Ill. Laws 3367; Pub. Act 80-1364, Ill.Legis.Serv. 713
(West 1978).
[
Footnote 7]
See Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 10-2 (Supp. 1978).
[
Footnote 8]
Ch. 23, §§ 4-1.2 and 2217 (Supp. 1978); Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services, Child Welfare Manual 2.8.2 (1976)
(hereinafter DCFS Welfare Manual). The DCFS Welfare Manual recently
has been revised to conform to the decisions below.
The Agency documented its approval in two "Relative Home
Placement Agreements" which were identical, both in form and in
obligations imposed, to those used for unrelated foster care
placements, except that the term "foster" was sometimes crossed
out, two references were made to the familial relationship among
appellees, and the usual promise of AFDC-FC benefits was deleted.
See 431 F. Supp.
40, 43-44, and nn. 4, 5 (ND Ill.1976); App. 20-23.
[
Footnote 9]
Similarly, the phrase "facility for child care," which is used
to define "foster family home," includes
"any person, group of persons, agency, association or
organization, whether established for gain or otherwise, who or
which receives or arranges for care or placement of one or more
children,
unrelated to the operator of the facility. . .
."
Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 2212.05 (Supp. 1978) (emphasis added)
.
[
Footnote 10]
See §§ 2213-2215; DCFS Welfare Manual 2.8.2.
[
Footnote 11]
See Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 23, § 5005 (Supp. 1978).
[
Footnote 12]
As an exception to this benefit differential, the State has
authorized special supplemental payments, upon an adequate showing
of need by related foster parents, to bring basic AFDC related
foster care assistance up to $105 per month. Brief for Appellants
5;
374 F.
Supp. 1204, 1206 (ND Ill.1974). Since September 1, 1974, the
Youakims have received these need-based payments for their foster
children. This Court previously held that receipt of the
supplemental benefits does not render the case moot.
Youakim v.
Miller, 425 U. S. 231,
425 U. S. 236
n. 2 (1976) (per curiam) .
[
Footnote 13]
The District Court had pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1343(3) to consider this statutory issue.
See Youakim v.
Miller, supra, at
425 U. S. 236;
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528
(1974).
[
Footnote 14]
It appears that every other court to consider the issue has also
concluded that dependent children who have been removed from their
homes by judicial order and placed by a State in relatives' homes
are entitled to AFDC-FC benefits.
See Jones v. Davis, Civ.
No. 76-805 (Ore., Apr. 8, 1977),
appeal docketed, CA9, No.
77-2254;
Alston v. Department of Health and Social
Services, [1974-1976 Transfer Binder] CCH Poverty L.Rep. �
22,336 (Wis.Cir.Ct., Jan. 21, 1976);
Thompson v. Department of
Health and Social Services, [1974-1976 Transfer Binder] CCH
Poverty L.Rep. � 22,303 (Wis.Cir.Ct., Jan. 9, 1976);
Taylor v.
Dumpson, 79 Misc.2d 379, 362 N.Y.S.2d 888 (Sup. Ct.1974),
vacated as moot, 37 N.Y.2d 765, 337 N.E.2d 600 (1975);
Clampett v. Madigan, [1972-1974 Transfer Binder] CCH
Poverty L.Rep. � 17,979 (SD, May 24, 1973);
Jackson v. Ohio
Dept. of Public Welfare, Civ. No. C72-182 (ND Ohio, Apr. 17,
1972);
Sockwell v. Maloney, 431
F. Supp. 1006, 1008, and n. 3 (Conn.1976) (dicta),
aff'd, 554 F.2d 1236 (CA2 1977) (per curiam).
[
Footnote 15]
In contrast to the broad definition of "foster family home," the
term "child care institution" is explicitly qualified to exempt
private institutions operated for profit and public institutions. §
408, 42 U.S.C. § 608 (last sentence) .
[
Footnote 16]
See S.Rep. No. 165, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 6-7 (1961)
(hereinafter S.Rep. No. 165); S.Rep. No. 1589, 87th Cong., 2d
Sess., 12-13 (1962); Hearings on the Public Assistance Act of 1962
before the Senate Committee on Finance, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 65
(1962) (memorandum from HEW Secretary Ribicoff to Sen. Byrd);
Hearings on the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 before the House
Committee on Ways and Means, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 294-297, 305-307
(1962).
[
Footnote 17]
S.Rep. No. 165, pp. 6-7
[
Footnote 18]
This precaution reflected Congress' awareness of the events that
had culminated in the Flemming Ruling. In the years preceding the
Ruling, there was considerable concern that States were using
suitability rules intrusively to impose various moral and social
standards on parents of dependent children.
See King v.
Smith, 392 U. S. 309,
392 U. S.
321-327 (1968). For example, by threatening to
discontinue basic AFDC aid or to initiate neglect proceedings,
States had coerced many welfare mothers into "voluntarily" placing
their children with relatives, although a court might not have
ordered removal had formal proceedings been initiated.
See
ibid.; W. Bell, Aid to Dependent Children 124-136 (1965).
[
Footnote 19]
§ 408, 42 U.S.C. § 608 (last sentence).
[
Footnote 20]
Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 22-12-2, 22-12-3 (1953); Fla.Stat. § 409.05
(1961); Idaho Code §§ 39-1201, 39-1202 (1961); Ill.Rev.Stat., ch.
23, §§ 2304, 2310, 2314 (1961); Iowa Code Ann. §§ 237.2, 237.3,
237.8 (1949); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 88A, §§ 20, 21 (1957); Mo.Ann.Stat.
§ 210.211 (1952 and Supp. 1961); Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. §§ 10-520,
10-521 (1957); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 170:1-170:3 (1964);
Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 801, 802 (Purdon 1939 and Supp. 1964);
R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 40-14-2, 40-14-11 (1956); Vt.Stat.Ann., Tit. 33, §§
501, 502 (1959); Wis.Stat. § 48.62 (1957).
[
Footnote 21]
Despite the broad language of § 408 and the clear legislative
goals behind the AFDC-FC program, appellants maintain that, as a
policy matter, relatives' homes should not constitute "foster
family homes." They contend that permitting AFDC-FC assistance for
foster children who live with relatives would create a "financial
incentive" for relatives to refrain from caring for needy children
until the children are removed from their homes by court order.
Brief for Appellants 26. Even if this were true, "issue[s] of
legislative policy . . . [are] better addressed to the wisdom of
Congress than to the judgment of this Court."
Marquette Nat.
Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.
S. 299,
439 U. S. 319
(1978). Furthermore, we view the inclusion of related foster homes
in § 408 as fully consistent with Congress' determination that
homes of parents and relatives provide the most suitable
environment for children. Congress evidently believed that
encouraging relatives to care for these "most underprivileged
children," 108 Cong.Rec. 12693 (1962) (remarks of Sen. Eugene
McCarthy), whatever the cost, was worth the price. Indeed, if the
State's interpretation of the statute were correct, relatives would
have an incentive to refuse to accept foster children altogether.
Concerned relatives might subordinate their interests in
supervising the wellbeing of youngsters they love to ensure that
these children receive the greater cash benefits and services
available only to foster children placed in unrelated homes.
Similarly, the availability of significantly more financial
assistance under AFDC-FC might motivate child placement authorities
to refrain from placing foster children with relatives even when
these homes are best suited to the needs of the child.
[
Footnote 22]
Social Security Amendments of 1967, Pub.L. 9248, § 205(b), 81
Stat. 892, § 403(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(1)(b);
see S.Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong.,
1st Sess., 286 (1967) (hereinafter S.Rep. No. 744). These
amendments also require all States that participate in the basic
AFDC program to establish a Foster Care program. 81 Stat. 892,
adding § 402(a)(20) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(20).
[
Footnote 23]
See S.Rep. No. 744, pp. 163-164; H.R.Rep. No. 544, 90th
Cong., 1st Sess., 100-101 (1967) (hereinafter H.R.Rep. No.
544).
[
Footnote 24]
Nor does the Illinois system indicate why such a distinction
should be made. Since a related foster parent is subject to the
same state-imposed responsibilities as a nonrelated foster parent,
their costs must be equivalent.
[
Footnote 25]
Relying on
General Electric Co. v. Gilbert,
429 U. S. 125,
429 U. S.
142-143 (1976), appellants maintain that the Program
Instruction conflicts with an earlier HEW pronouncement, and
therefore deserves little weight. They refer to an inconsistent
interpretation of § 408 sent to Illinois authorities in 1971 by a
regional HEW official, which stated that foster children placed in
related homes are not eligible for Foster Care benefits under the
federal program. However, this correspondence was not approved by
HEW's General Counsel or by any departmental official in the
national office.
See letter from HEW's Assistant General
Counsel to Illinois Special Assistant Attorney General Richard Ryan
(Dec. 22, 1976), App. to Brief for United States as
Amicus
Curiae 1a. Since the letter did not reflect an official
position, we take the Program Instruction to be the agency's first
and only national interpretation concerning § 408's coverage of
foster care by relatives. Appellants' reliance on
General
Electric Co. v. Gilbert, supra, is therefore misplaced, and we
are bound by the "principle that the construction of a statute by
those charged with its execution should be followed unless there
are compelling indications that it is wrong."
Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367,
395 U. S. 381
(1969) (footnote omitted);
see Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System v. First Lincolnwood Corp.,
439 U. S. 234,
439 U. S. 251
(1978);
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1,
381 U. S. 11-12
(1965);
Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S.
1,
380 U. S. 16-18
(1965).
[
Footnote 26]
Illinois recognizes as much by providing special grants to some
foster children placed with relatives which are not available to
other basic AFDC recipients.
See n 12,
supra.