Smith v. Adult & Family Services Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Smith v. Adult & Family Services Division

834 P.2d 537, 114 Or. App. 401, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1481

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 22, 1992

Docket2-1701-AX1327-0; CA A69914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 834 P.2d 537 (Smith v. Adult & Family Services Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Adult & Family Services Division, 834 P.2d 537, 114 Or. App. 401, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1481 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

De MUNIZ, J.

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of Adult and Family Service Division (AFSD) that terminated her Aid to Dependent Children (ADC)¹ grant on the ground that the income of her family exceeded the maximum allowed under AFSD’s guidelines. We affirm.

Petitioner adopted her four grandchildren in 1990. Two of them are African-American. The other two are Caucasian and are the half-sisters of the African-American children. The African-American children were adopted by petitioner with the consent of the Children’s Service’s Board in Richland, Ohio, after the biological mother’s parental rights had been terminated. Ohio authorities have determined that the African-American children are “special needs children” and pay $250 per month per child in adoption assistance that can only be used for the care of those children. Those payments, when combined with petitioner’s benefits as the widow of a veteran, raise the income of the family to an amount greater than allowed for Oregon ADC recipients in a family of five. AFSD terminated the ADC grant, and petitioner requested a hearing.

In an order dated July 30, 1990, a hearings officer reinstated the ADC grant, reasoning that the Ohio adoption assistance payments were not income for the purpose of determining ADC eligibility in Oregon, because petitioner was unable to control their use. Effective January 1, 1991, OAR 461-145-001² was promulgated and, thereafter, the [404]*404ADC grant was again terminated. Petitioner again requested a hearing.

After the second hearing, the hearings officer concluded that the new rule had the effect of making the Ohio adoption assistance payments unearned income and, therefore, countable for determining ADC eligibility. The hearings officer reasoned that the term “special needs” has two meanings for purposes of OAR 461-145-001. The first meaning refers to the degree of difficulty that some children experience in being adopted; the second refers only to needs that require additional expenditures. Only adoption assistance for “special needs” children who fit the second definition is excluded from determining the family’s ADC eligibility. The hearings officer found that the African-American children did not have special needs under the second definition. As a result, the hearings officer affirmed the termination decision.

Petitioner argues that the hearings officer erred in ruling that the African-American children did not have special needs under both meanings. Even assuming, however, that petitioner’s argument is correct, we must still affirm the hearings officer. ADC is a federally funded program. ORS 291.003 requires that, “[i]n all cases where federally granted funds are involved, the federal laws, rules and regulations applicable thereto shall govern * * When the ADC grant was terminated, federal law required Oregon to include “the income of or available for” siblings living with the ADC recipients in determining ADC eligibility, unless a specific exception applied. 42 USC § 602(a)(38).³ Because no exception was applicable, the adoption assistance payments were [405]*405“the income of or available for” the use of the African-American children. See 55 Fed Reg 18912.⁴ AFSD correctly determined that the Ohio adoption assistance payments are includable for determining ADC eligibility.⁵

Affirmed.

³

42 USC § 602(a) provides:

“A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must

C<* * * * *

"(38) provide that in making the determination under paragraph (7) with respect to a dependant child and applying paragraph 8, the State agency shall (except as otherwise provided in this part) include—

“(A) any parent of such child, and

“(B) any brother or sister of such child, if such brother or sister meets the conditions described in clauses (1) and (2) of section 606(a) of this title or in section 607(a) of this title (if such section is applicable to the State),

“if such parent, brother or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child, and any income of or available for such parent, brother, or sister shall be included in making such determination and applying such paragraph with [405]*405respect to the family (notwithstanding section 405(j) of this title, in the case of benefits provided under subchapter II of this chapter.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

De MUNIZ, J.

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of Adult and Family Service Division (AFSD) that terminated her Aid to Dependent Children (ADC)¹ grant on the ground that the income of her family exceeded the maximum allowed under AFSD’s guidelines. We affirm.

Petitioner adopted her four grandchildren in 1990. Two of them are African-American. The other two are Caucasian and are the half-sisters of the African-American children. The African-American children were adopted by petitioner with the consent of the Children’s Service’s Board in Richland, Ohio, after the biological mother’s parental rights had been terminated. Ohio authorities have determined that the African-American children are “special needs children” and pay $250 per month per child in adoption assistance that can only be used for the care of those children. Those payments, when combined with petitioner’s benefits as the widow of a veteran, raise the income of the family to an amount greater than allowed for Oregon ADC recipients in a family of five. AFSD terminated the ADC grant, and petitioner requested a hearing.

In an order dated July 30, 1990, a hearings officer reinstated the ADC grant, reasoning that the Ohio adoption assistance payments were not income for the purpose of determining ADC eligibility in Oregon, because petitioner was unable to control their use. Effective January 1, 1991, OAR 461-145-001² was promulgated and, thereafter, the [404]*404ADC grant was again terminated. Petitioner again requested a hearing.

After the second hearing, the hearings officer concluded that the new rule had the effect of making the Ohio adoption assistance payments unearned income and, therefore, countable for determining ADC eligibility. The hearings officer reasoned that the term “special needs” has two meanings for purposes of OAR 461-145-001. The first meaning refers to the degree of difficulty that some children experience in being adopted; the second refers only to needs that require additional expenditures. Only adoption assistance for “special needs” children who fit the second definition is excluded from determining the family’s ADC eligibility. The hearings officer found that the African-American children did not have special needs under the second definition. As a result, the hearings officer affirmed the termination decision.

Petitioner argues that the hearings officer erred in ruling that the African-American children did not have special needs under both meanings. Even assuming, however, that petitioner’s argument is correct, we must still affirm the hearings officer. ADC is a federally funded program. ORS 291.003 requires that, “[i]n all cases where federally granted funds are involved, the federal laws, rules and regulations applicable thereto shall govern * * When the ADC grant was terminated, federal law required Oregon to include “the income of or available for” siblings living with the ADC recipients in determining ADC eligibility, unless a specific exception applied. 42 USC § 602(a)(38).³ Because no exception was applicable, the adoption assistance payments were [405]*405“the income of or available for” the use of the African-American children. See 55 Fed Reg 18912.⁴ AFSD correctly determined that the Ohio adoption assistance payments are includable for determining ADC eligibility.⁵

Affirmed.

³

42 USC § 602(a) provides:

“A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must

C<* * * * *

"(38) provide that in making the determination under paragraph (7) with respect to a dependant child and applying paragraph 8, the State agency shall (except as otherwise provided in this part) include—

“(A) any parent of such child, and

“(B) any brother or sister of such child, if such brother or sister meets the conditions described in clauses (1) and (2) of section 606(a) of this title or in section 607(a) of this title (if such section is applicable to the State),

“if such parent, brother or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child, and any income of or available for such parent, brother, or sister shall be included in making such determination and applying such paragraph with [405]*405respect to the family (notwithstanding section 405(j) of this title, in the case of benefits provided under subchapter II of this chapter.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

834 P.2d 537, 114 Or. App. 401, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-adult-family-services-division-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack