Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

New York's intestacy law, as it existed in 2013 at the time of the agency's final determination, did not permit children conceived posthumously to inherit via intestacy. In this case, plaintiff had conceived twins via in vitro fertilization eleven years after her husband, the donor spouse, died. Plaintiff filed applications for child's survivors' benefits, based on her husband's earnings history, with the Social Security Administration. The Second Circuit held that, under the applicable provisions of New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) in effect at and prior to the time of the agency's final decision, the twins were not entitled to inherit from the decedent in intestacy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of benefits. View "MacNeil v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Kentucky’s Health and Family Services commenced a Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse proceeding. The mother stipulated to neglecting her children. Kentucky placed both boys in foster care. R.O., the mother’s aunt, sought custody of the children. The state conducted a standard home evaluation and criminal background check on R.O. and eventually both children were placed in her home by court order. The family court closed the action and granted joint custody to the mother and R.O., though the boys remained living with R.O., who sought foster care maintenance payments. The family court declined to rule on the issue, “indicating that permanency had been achieved.” R.O. then sued the state, arguing that the federal Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. 672(a), required the state to provide maintenance payments, and that the failure to make payments violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The state removed the case to federal court. The district court dismissed, reasoning that the Child Welfare Act provides no privately enforceable rights, that the family lacked a property interest in the payments, and that Kentucky’s scheme rationally distinguished between relative and non-relative foster care providers. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the Act creates a private right of action. View "D.O. v. Glisson" on Justia Law

Seven entities under contract to provide residential services to youth in the state (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition for writ of mandamus requiring the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR), its Cabinet Secretary, the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services (BMS), its Acting Commissioner, the Bureau for Children and Families (BCF), and its Commissioner (collectively, Respondents) to promulgate new or amended legislative rules prior to implementing changes to existing residential child care services policies. The Supreme Court granted a writ as moulded, finding it most appropriate to order this matter to be docketed in this circuit court as if it were an original proceeding in mandamus in that court. Remanded for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. Pressley Ridge v. W. Va. Department of Health & Human Resources" on Justia Law

The single mother of five children, 8 to 15 years old, struggled with abusive relationships, homelessness and unemployment. They lived primarily in Marin County from 2000 until they moved to Richmond in 2009. In 2015, Mother asked Contra Costa Children & Family Services to place the four youngest children in foster care. CFS did so and filed petitions alleging Mother’s failure to protect and inability to provide support. The court ordered supervised visitation and that CFS refer Mother to substance abuse treatment and parenting education. CFS's disposition report recommended that the court order family reunification services and transfer the case to Marin County. Mother was participating 12- step meetings and alcohol abuse education in Marin and expected to secure a Marin apartment. Marin County court accepted the transfer and continued the case. Later, Marin’s Health and Human Services Department asked the court to transfer the cases back to Contra Costa because it had discovered that a county employee had a familial relationship to the parties, rendering the Department unable to continue services. Mother opposed the transfer; there was no evidence that the proposed transfer served the children’s best interests. The court of appeal remanded the cases to Marin, noting that all of the parties conceded error. View "In re Nia A." on Justia Law

A single mother of five children subject to dependency proceedings sought to reverse a court order denying her further reunification services with respect to her three oldest children and to stay a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26 that had been set for September 16, 2015. She claims the court erred in denying her further reunification services because she has made and continues to make reasonable efforts to address the problems that led to the removal of her children, so denial of additional services is not in the children’s best interests. The court of appeal stayed the hearing, but ultimately denied the petition and lifted the stay. Mother has received extensive child welfare services and has taken advantage of them only sporadically. The children have been involved with the dependency system for 11 years, and have spent six years in out-of-home placement with multiple caregivers, not always in healthful circumstances. Mother’s drug abuse, mental instability, and abusive relationships with men, have exposed the children to a continuing risk of harm, delayed their educational development, and left them without a stable home. The court’s factual findings in determining to withhold further services were supported by substantial evidence. View "D.T. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Juvenile Court found R.G., a nonminor dependent within the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 450), ineligible for extended foster care support payments between January 13 and March 13, 2015, because he was neither employed at least 20 hours per week nor participating in a program or activity that promoted or removed barriers to employment, as is required to receive financial support pursuant to section subdivisions (b)(4) and (b)(3) of section 11403 of the California Fostering Connections to Success Act, under which certain youth in foster care may continue receiving financial assistance after turning 18. The court of appeal agreed and reversed. The undisputed evidence indicated that R.G.’s activities, which were primarily self-directed, included formulating a specific job search plan; applying online and in person to numerous jobs; following up with prospective employers; receiving feedback from an independent living skills program specialist on how to improve his resume and job applications; and maintaining contact with the social worker on his progress. This evidence showed that he was working toward his goals during the period in question as contemplated by the statute. View "In re R.G." on Justia Law

Shelley and Christopher married in 1992. Shelley works in the private sector and has Social Security tax withheld from her pay; she expects to receive full benefits in 2033 at age 67. Christopher works for the police department and does not have Social Security tax withheld. He contributes to the Police Pension Fund and can retire with full benefits in 2017 at age 50. In their 2012 divorce, Christopher computed the estimated present value of his pension benefits, using a “Windfall Elimination Provision” to determine what part of those benefits were in lieu of Social Security, which is exempt from equitable distribution. Using Christopher’s wages, as if covered by Social Security, predicted that his Social Security benefit at age 67 would be $1,778 per month; using his wages for those years in which he contributed to Social Security, predicted that his benefit at age 67 would be $230 per month. The difference of $1,548 was posited as “in lieu of Social Security.” The difference between that amount and the pension amount was $2,479 per month, with an estimated present value of $639,720.74. The court determined that the proposed valuation would violate federal law as interpreted by Illinois Supreme Court precedent. Christopher recalculated the present value of his pension, without the offset, as $991,830. The court adopted that figure, and awarded Shelley about 35%. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Social Security benefits cannot be calculated until the participant collects them. Decreasing Shelley’s share of Christopher’s pension based on the present value of hypothetical Social Security benefits that, even if he had participated in that program, he might never receive is illogical and inequitable. Failing to consider Social Security may paint an unrealistic picture of their future finances, but Congress intended to keep those benefits out of divorce cases. View "In re Marriage of Mueller" on Justia Law

Mr. and Ms. Haynes divorced in 1995. Mr. Haynes died in 2000. Ms. Haynes sought Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1310, as a “surviving spouse.” Because Ms. Haynes was not married to Mr. Haynes at the time of his death, the VA Regional Office denied the claim. Ms. Haynes later requested that the Regional Office reopen her claim on the presentation of new documentation showing a decision by the Army Board of Correction of Military Records to award Ms. Haynes an annuity as a “former spouse” under the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act , 10 U.S.C. 1447(10), which permits former spouses to receive annuities. The Regional Office denied the request. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals agreed, while acknowledging Ms. Haynes’ argument that because the basis for her divorce was physical abuse, she should not be required to demonstrate marriage at the time of Mr. Haynes’ death in order to receive DIC benefits. The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. Although Mr. Haynes’ abusive actions were documented, the statute requires validly married spouses at the time of the veteran’s death. View "Haynes v. McDonald" on Justia Law

David and Melinda’s two children lived with Melinda, and David paid child support. The Napa County Department of Child Support Services moved to modify David’s child support obligation. (Fam. Code, 17400). After a hearing, the court found that David’s income, for purposes of calculating child support, was the monthly Social Security disability payment he received, ordered him to pay a portion of that to Melinda as child support, and found Melinda received $796 per month in derivative Social Security disability benefits as the representative payee of the children based on David’s disability, 42 U.S.C. 402(d). Melinda argued these benefits should be treated as part of David’s income when calculating his monthly income for purposes of his support obligation. The court concluded the derivative benefits were the income of the children, not of David, so that the $796 in derivative disability benefits would partially satisfy David’s support obligation. The monthly benefits would be credited first toward his current child support, and any excess would be credited to pay off arrears. The court of appeal affirmed. View "Daugherty v. Daugherty" on Justia Law

The parties were married for 21 years. At the time of trial, husband was 51 and wife was 53. Husband was a practicing attorney with the Army Corps of Engineers. Wife worked at the Bonneville Power Administration. Both parties were beneficiaries of federal retirement benefits. Because wife was eligible for Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) benefits, she was not eligible for Social Security benefits based on her own employment. Husband's civilian federal employment was under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and subject to Social Security taxes. The question presented in this case was whether federal law forbid a division of property by which the value of retirement benefits belonging to the nonparticipating spouse is reduced by the present value of hypothetical Social Security benefits to which that spouse would have been entitled if she had been a Social Security participant. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not violate federal law by "considering" Social Security benefits in that way, it affirmed that court's decision. View "Herald v. Steadman" on Justia Law