References to -- Social Security representative payee

Post and discuss your research and resources.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

References to -- Social Security representative payee

Postby Marina » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:26 pm

Social Security representative payee

https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502159

Social Security Administration Policy Site: POMS Section GN 00502.159

Additional Development/Considerations When Social Agency or Juvenile Court Has Custody of Minor Child

B. POLICY
While many times a social agency/court is the best payee choice, that may not always be the case. Gather all pertinent information and make a thoughtful and careful choice and decide each case on its own merit. When you select a payee for a child in foster care, exercise caution and ensure that you follow proper procedures and give due process.

Do not routinely appoint the social agency as payee because a child is in foster care. The primary concern must always be that the payee you select will serve the best interest of the child.

In instances where the parent is barred from having contact with the child, the parent generally should not be appointed payee.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0472.htm

FOSTER CARE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM

(ii) a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home from which removed would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts of the type described in section 471(a)(15) for a child have been made;

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0471.htm#a15

(15) provides that—
(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern;
(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families
(i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home; and
(ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child's home;
(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child;

- - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/n ... tstory.jsp

Fri, Jun. 16, 2006
N.C. taking foster kids' Social Security money

ERIC FRAZIER

Child welfare agencies in the Carolinas have joined others across the nation in diverting to themselves more than $100 million in Social Security money the federal government pays to foster children with deceased or disabled parents.

The agencies say the money helps pay for care of the children, but some child advocates say the government is effectively making parentless children pay toward the cost of care that should be free to them.

The Mecklenburg Department of Social Services, for instance, took $437,000 in its 2005-06 budget year to help care for about 110 foster children.

DSS officials said that money offset the roughly $1.2 million spent on their care, mostly in group homes or with foster families. Those children represent about 10 percent of the foster children for whom the county is legal guardian.

"I think people are entitled to their different views," said Dannette Smith, Mecklenburg's top child welfare official. But "if that money was not used, the state and county would have to make up the difference."

The N.C. Division of Social Services said it couldn't estimate how often it happens. N.C. counties decide whether to screen children to see whether they qualify for Social Security benefits.

"It is standard operating practice," said Cleveland County DSS Director John Wasson. "The rationale is that you use money from the DSS budget to support the child, and any resource they have ought to go toward their upkeep."

S.C. DSS officials estimate that they took in about $2.3 million in Social Security money for the current budget year.

Generally, when DSS officials find a child who does qualify, the agencies insert themselves as the "representative payee" for the child's funds, a practice allowed under federal policies. The monthly Social Security or disability payment then goes to the DSS agency.

The issue provokes emotional debate between DSS agencies struggling with underfunded budgets and child advocates who say the money should be saved to help children transition into adulthood.

"When you use up the children's benefits, they are essentially turned out into the street at 18 with little to no resources," said Lewis Pitts, an attorney with Legal Aid of North Carolina.

"There are national as well as North Carolina groups that are morally outraged at the nationwide practice of offsetting budget cuts ... by taking, by misappropriating, Social Security benefits that belong to the foster kids."

Pitts' client, John G., a 15-year-old Greensboro-area boy, is battling the Guilford County Department of Social Services for control of his Social Security money.

The teen, who can't be fully identified for confidentiality reasons, has an $80,000 house his late adoptive father willed to him. The home was threatened with foreclosure because DSS officials wouldn't use his $538 per month Social Security payment to handle the mortgage. The mortgage on the Habitat for Humanity home is $221 per month.

In a telephone interview Wednesday with the Observer, John said the house represents one good thing he has left from a troubled childhood; he wants to live in it after he turns 18.

"That'd be something I wouldn't have to worry about right then," he said.

But Guilford DSS Director John Shore said if the Social Security money can't be used, "it's (like) ordering county taxpayers to preserve this asset for the child."

He said his agency was only following state and federal policies allowing it to take the Social Security money. Some DSS officials point to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case in which justices said the state of Washington wasn't violating a Social Security Act provision that says the money can't be garnished.

In a ruling on John G.'s case late last year, District Judge Susan Bray scolded Guilford DSS officials and noted that while the high court's ruling in the Washington case made it permissible for DSS to take the money, it didn't make it mandatory.

Shore said Guilford DSS is paying John's mortgage now, but is also appealing the decision to the N.C. Court of Appeals.

Daniel Hatcher, a University of Baltimore law professor, mentioned John G. in May as he testified before Congress on the issue. Hatcher believes the money should be conserved to help children transition to adulthood once they age out of the foster care system at 18.

He cited government statistics showing about 40 percent of foster children who age out are dependent on public assistance or Medicaid, and more than half were unemployed.

"When a rational person looks at this issue," Hatcher said in a telephone interview, "it's hard to come up with a decent argument why abused and neglected children shouldn't be allowed to keep their own money."

- - - - - - - - - - -

Court case links

Social Security for Foster Care
http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/cours ... us_371.htm

Social Security for Foster Care
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/child/ ... ffeler.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.atg.wa.gov/releases/rel_fost ... 31402.html

State Asks High Court to Review Decision on Foster Care Funding

OLYMPIA - March 14, 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court today will be asked to reverse a Washington Supreme Court decision that prohibits the state from using foster children's Social Security money to provide for their care.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0900.htm

WASHINGTON (STATE) CASE ON STATE USE OF FOSTER CHILDREN'S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

By: Saul Spigel, Chief Analyst

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/3mer/1ami ... er.ami.pdf

In the Supreme Court of the United States
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF DANNY KEFFELER, ET AL.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-13-05-15047.pdf

page 3
The Agency considers various factors in appointing representative payees for children
in foster care. SSA policy instructions indicate that the parent or relative may be chosen
as payee even in a foster care situation.2SSA acknowledges while many times the social agency is the best payee choice, that may not always be the case. Among the
factors SSA considers in making its decision about who will be the best payee in these
situations, is why the child was placed in foster care and whether there are family
members who show a strong concern for the child. In addition, the Agency considers
whether the foster care placement is expected to be temporary or long-term.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:30 am

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860099.txt

OTIS R. BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLANT V.
BEATY MAE GILLIARD, ET AL.

DAVID T. FLAHERTY, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, ET AL., APPELLANTS V. BEATY MAE GILLIARD, ET AL.

No. 86-509, No. 86-564

In the Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1986

On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina



4. Although appellees naturally craft their argument in terms of
child-support income, the logic of their Takings Clause theory would
necessarily apply to any sort of income received by the siblings of a
needy child. A co-resident minor sibling may have many types of
income other than child support. He may have unearned income, such as
social security survivors' benefits (see S. Prt. 98-169, at 980) or
interest on a savings account. Or he may have earned income from a
part-time or full-time job. /2/ On appellees' theory, it would be
unconstitutional for Congress to require that any income of an
arguably self-sufficient minor -- be it income from a paper route,
from shovelling snow, or from working at McDonald's -- be counted as
"family income" for purposes of determining the family's need for
public assistance.

This obviously cannot be the law. Appellees' theory violates
common sense, for it ignores the fact, drawn from human experience and
recognized by Congress (S. Prt. 98-169, at 980), that members of
subsistence-level families who live together, who are bound together
by close emotional ties, typically regard their income and expenses,
their resources and responsibilities, as shared. Appellees' theory,
moreover, would disable Congress from enacting any sort of reasonable,
needs-based eligibility requirements for the AFDC program. This Court
has emphasized that the AFDC program provides for a "family grant"
(Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 477 (1970) (emphasis in
original)). /3/ No sensible allocation of AFDC benefits can be made
unless the incomes of the family's members can be considered in
determining how large that grant should be.

5. Appellees make two other points that may be answered briefly:

a. Appellees liken Section 602(a)(38) to various "deeming"
provisions of the social security laws (Br. 24, 48-49). These
provisions "deem" a specified portion of the income of another person
who is not seeking AFDC assistance -- e.g., a grandparent (42 U.S.C.
(Supp. III) 602(a)(39)) or an alien sponsor (42 U.S.C. (& Supp. III)
615) -- as being available to an AFDC applicant. Appellees contend
that child support, as a matter of state law, is not in fact
"available" to the rest of the child's family, and hence that Section
602(a)(38) violates the "availability principle."

Contrary to appellees' contention, this is not a "deeming" case.
Section 602(a)(38) requires that the child-support recipient be
included in the family filing unit. The child's income is then
included in the family's aggregate income for purposes of calculating
benefits for the unit, of which he is a part. The child-support
income is not "deemed" available to anyone; it is available to the
child-support recipient, and he is a member of the filing unit seeking
assistance. The statute is thus completely consistent with the
"availability principle."

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:37 pm

Another news article on the current John G. case, mentioned in news article above

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswir ... 181r1.html

First Star (www.firststar.org) announced today a legal project in collaboration with Sullivan & Worcester LLP to champion the rights of fifteen year-old foster youth, John G. First Star and Sullivan & Worcester are seeking leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the North Carolina Court of Appeals requesting that the Court order the Guilford County Department of Social Services (DSS) to apply John's social security payments to his monthly mortgage and to the costs of repairs on a house that John inherited.

After over a decade of neglect and mistreatment at the hands of abusive guardians, fifteen year-old John finds a measure of stability in the form of Social Security survivor benefits and a small house left to him by his late father. Unfortunately, John's current needs and the fate of his home are being threatened by Guilford County's DSS. In selecting itself as John's representative payee, DSS retains control over John's social security benefits. But, rather than make monthly mortgage payments and repairs to the home with John's social security benefits, DSS has chosen instead to let the house hover near foreclosure by redirecting John's money into its own accounts.

In December 2005, the District Court ordered DSS to make the monthly mortgage payments to save John's house. DSS, however, continues to resist using John's money to help John keep his house, and has now appealed the District Court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Given its unusual circumstances, John's case has come to characterize the ongoing clash between children's advocates and state welfare agencies across the country regarding the proper use of over $100 million in social security benefits for foster children with deceased or disabled parents.

First Star recognizes the widespread negative ramifications of a decision in favor of DSS. A decision overturning the District Court's order would be a frightening blow to John's future in that it would squander the only asset of a boy who will age out of foster care in less than two years with nothing but the clothes on his back. In addition, it would promote nationwide the horrific message that it is permissible and, indeed, acceptable, for state welfare agencies to require foster children to pay for the cost of their own foster care. Because of this, First Star is seeking to file this brief to facilitate the Court's understanding of the broad legal effects of its decision and how that decision affects the most vulnerable of America's children.

Amicus curiae briefs are submitted to the Court by independent persons or entities that don't have any personal gain in the case at hand, but believe that the effects of the Court's decision in a particular case may have far reaching consequences. "Amicus curiae" is a Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court."

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:45 pm

Sometimes I get so angry with it all I just don't know what to say or do.

This has been very informative. I suddenly realized that when our granddaughter was in a theraputic foster home, (theraputic in name only) we had to beg them to buy her her shoes. We know they took her SSD monies and did not provide for her at all. We bought her her clothes and shoes. We made a point that whenever we were to see her we wanted to see those clothes and shoes on her feet and back.

Our daughter never received before or after any SSD for our granddaughter and yet they received the money that was denied our family.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:36 pm

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .6&idno=20

Federal regulations – Representative payee – social agency last in order of preference

20 CFR §§404.2021

(c) For beneficiaries under age 18, our preference is—
(1) A natural or adoptive parent who has custody of the beneficiary, or a guardian;
(2) A natural or adoptive parent who does not have custody of the beneficiary, but is contributing toward the beneficiary's support and is demonstrating strong concern for the beneficiary's well being;
(3) A natural or adoptive parent who does not have custody of the beneficiary and is not contributing toward his or her support but is demonstrating strong concern for the beneficiary's well being;
(4) A relative or stepparent who has custody of the beneficiary;
(5) A relative who does not have custody of the beneficiary but is contributing toward the beneficiary's support and is demonstrating concern for the beneficiary's well being;
(6) A relative or close friend who does not have custody of the beneficiary but is demonstrating concern for the beneficiary's well being; and
(7) An authorized social agency or custodial institution.

[47 FR 30472, July 14, 1982; 47 FR 32936, July 30, 1982

- - - - - - - - -

---- A representative payee has the responsibility to use the payments in the best interests of the beneficiary.

§ 404.2035 Responsibilities of a representative payee.
2. A representative payee has a responsibility to—
(a) Use the payments he or she receives only for the use and benefit of the beneficiary in a manner and for the purposes he or she determines, under the guidelines in this subpart, to be in the best interests of the beneficiary;

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 11&idno=20

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:56 pm

.

.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/762541.html

Published: Nov 06, 2007 05:31 PM
Modified: Nov 06, 2007 05:39 PM

NC appeals court: county can't use child's Social Security money

By ESTES THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. - A county child welfare agency must use a teenager's Social Security benefits to pay the mortgage and upkeep on a home he inherited, and the agency can't use the money in its budget, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
The teen, identified in court documents as "J.G.," has been living in a foster home but is likely to move into the house when he turns 18 next year, said his lawyer.

Attorney Lewis Pitts of Legal Aid of North Carolina, which represented the teen, said the ruling means a state judge "has the power to order (the Department of Social Services) to use his money to pay his mortgage and not stick it in their pocket."

Pitts said the case was the first to go to court in the state. He also said it is common across North Carolina and in other states for Social Security benefits to be used in a similar way.

"Hopefully this case will help the general public realize that we have starved the budget of the child welfare agency such that they have an incentive to steal from the kids they are responsible for," Pitts said.

Pitts said the youth will leave the Guilford County foster care system next year.

The county is exploring its options in the case, said Lynne Schiftan, deputy county attorney.

Schiftan said the law allows use of benefits "for his living expenses, maintenance, current care and that's exactly what we did."

The case highlights what happens to children in the child welfare system, said Amy Harfeld, executive director of First Star. Her group is a Washington-based child welfare nonprofit that filed a friend of the court brief in the case.

Harfeld said federal figures show that 24,000 children aged out of foster care nationwide in 2005. Congressional testimony shows that 13.8 percent of foster children are homeless two years after they leave the system.

"This case has national implications and is a major victory for foster children across the country," Harfeld said. "This ruling is a step in the direction of banning the practice of intercepting foster children's benefits to reimburse states for the costs of foster care - costs that they are mandated to cover in any event."

Daniel Hatcher, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law who testified before Congress and written on the issue, said states may be taking more than $100 million in Social Security payments to foster children.

"It's a bad practice," Hatcher said. "I understand why states are doing this because state foster care agencies across the country are cash-strapped. They're not high on the priority list for funding."

.


Return to “Research Resources”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest