Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders state to boost foster payments
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/31/11 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Posted on 05/31/2011 6:00:02 PM PDT by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has ordered California to increase payment rates immediately to thousands of foster parents, noting that it has been more than 2 1/2 years since he ruled that the state's reimbursement levels failed to cover the costs of raising a child.

State officials "have now had a full and fair opportunity to come into compliance with federal law. They have not done so," U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco said Friday.

He told the state Department of Social Services to raise its rates to levels specified in a UC Davis study of foster children's needs, which the state commissioned in response to the court case. For a child up to 4 years old, the reimbursement would increase to $609 a month from $446. Rates are higher for older children, and would climb to $761 from $627 for youths ages 15 to 19.

Payments would increase further each July to reflect rises in the cost of care.

. . .
Alsup said the Department of Social Services has taken no steps to comply with federal law and has instead argued that it needed legislative approval, which it has not yet obtained.

"Federal law ... does not bend to accommodate state law legislative hurdles," the judge said.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blackrobedtyrant; fostercare; fosterparents; stockpilesong

1 posted on 05/31/2011 6:00:04 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Alsup, William Haskell
Born 1945 in Jackson, MS

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 24, 1999, to a seat vacated by Thelton Eugene Henderson; Confirmed by the Senate on July 30, 1999, and received commission on August 17, 1999.

Education:
Mississippi State University, B.S., 1967
Harvard University, J.D., 1971
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, M.P.P., 1971

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Justice William O. Douglas, Supreme Court of the United States, 1971-1972
Private practice, San Francisco, CA, 1972-1978
Assistant to U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1978-1980
Private practice, San Francisco, CA, 1980-1998
Special counsel, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1998
Private practice, San Francisco, CA, 1998-1999

2 posted on 05/31/2011 6:00:34 PM PDT by SmithL (Bacon, the ultimate condiment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"Federal law ... does not bend to accommodate state law legislative hurdles," the judge said.

The federal government, your honor, does not have a vote in the California state assembly or senate, nor does it control the hand of the governor who signs the budget. Your opinion is noted.

Though, geeze, who am I fooling? The state assembly and senate will go along like sheep, because the state agencies, even though they don't have a budget, will comply with the judge's order. It'll have been done already by the time it even comes up as a topic in the assembly.

3 posted on 05/31/2011 6:07:40 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

He is a ten horn dictator and should be impeached for ignorance.


4 posted on 05/31/2011 6:12:15 PM PDT by wild74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I would just like to know WTF! all the money does go to in this freaking state. The budget is roughly $150 BILLION dollars, but nothing seems to get paid for with the money allocated for it. I work for the govt so I know there is waste, fraud and abuse. Plenty of it. I have the joy of actually arresting people for it. But, when does the welfare state get a damn paycut? When will transportation funds actually go to roads? When will school funding not result in parents in good districts have to pay for everything in a a school that isn’t bolted down? The only way out for this state is the rapture sadly.


5 posted on 05/31/2011 6:14:34 PM PDT by ScottinSacto (If anyone will beat Obama, let's not send just anyone. Cain/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wild74
By whom? Senate Democrats who use the courts to pass their liberal agenda? Republicans MIGHT make a symbolic stand in the house and pass articles of impeachment against the judge, but it'd end in the senate.

The only reasonable response to an irrational judicial decision is to treat it like an irrational judicial decision. ‘Thanks for your opinion, your honor. You're welcome to run for the California state assembly or senate if you really want a vote in this process, but otherwise, your opinion is just your opinion.’

That’ll probably never happen. Judicial tyranny needs support at all levels, and who in the state's really going to protest to stop increased payments to foster parents for abandoned children?

6 posted on 05/31/2011 6:16:04 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ScottinSacto

Until Johnson’s ploy of dumping all revenues into the general fund is stopped, there will be no funds for roads until a spending bill borrows a trillion form China to pay for it.


7 posted on 05/31/2011 6:19:40 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ScottinSacto
1/3rd of all funding in the state, by mandate of the people, goes to education. That's $50,000 per head if you assume that 27.6 percent of the population of California is in some form of educational programs. Fifty thousand dollars each.

It gets worse if you break out the cost per prisoner.

Teacher unions, prison guard unions, police and fire department unions have to be crushed, and their vice grips on the cash in California wrenched from their greedy little fists. By the by, this doesn't count all the federal dollars that pour into these programs...

And as insane the spending is in California, it is DWARFED by the federal government. Heck, 150 billion? Isn't that Obama’s travel budget?

All these government drones, at all levels, have decided not to acknowledge nor believe that they're spending OUR money. It's pretend money... So who cares? Someone will bail this out...

8 posted on 05/31/2011 6:24:38 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

A judge is just a lawyer with too much power.


9 posted on 05/31/2011 6:31:35 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The State of California should dare this judge to send troops to enforce his ruling.


10 posted on 05/31/2011 6:31:50 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Hmmm,

So it costs roughly $700 per month to raise a kid. Then WHY THE HECK do judges routinely order multiples of that amount for child support?

(and people wonder why I say never marry a woman born in the US)


11 posted on 05/31/2011 6:41:52 PM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How does Uncle Sam even get a legal foot in this door? Is it by kicking in Federal funds with strings attached?


12 posted on 05/31/2011 6:53:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“the federal government pays half the cost” ... bingo, California taxpayer, you’re screwed! The idiots in Sacramento signed up for some of that free money. Down the road, it’s not so free anymore. Remember all the strings attached to the education stimulus money, more horrors are on the way.


13 posted on 05/31/2011 7:49:02 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (There's a pill for just about everything ... except stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kingu

The problem is that states take federal money (Title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act) and agree to comply with all the “strings” that come with the money.

The way to avoid this type of involvement from a federal court is to refuse to take the “federal” money, which most states are unwilling to do.

Of course, states would then have to deal with lawsuits in state courts.


14 posted on 05/31/2011 7:49:37 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Let_It_Be_So

True, but most red state courts would not rule favorably on them. Only federal judges can make rights magically appear where none exist.


15 posted on 05/31/2011 7:52:20 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (There's a pill for just about everything ... except stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RetiredTexasVet
Only federal judges can make rights magically appear where none exist.
 
I agree.  Ideally, we would just get back to complying with the 10th amendment and be done with all of this type of thing at the federal level!  How to put those worms back into that can is beyond my ability to envision at the moment.  Sigh.

16 posted on 05/31/2011 8:58:14 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“Law clerk, Justice William O. Douglas, Supreme Court of the United States, 1971-1972”

This tells you all you need to know about this judge’s ideas and beliefs.


17 posted on 05/31/2011 9:26:01 PM PDT by rustyboots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Let_It_Be_So

But it’s an entitlement... What federal judge would permit the United States government to forbid citizens their entitlements simply because a state refuses to play the game anymore? The little dictators upon the bench wouldn’t allow that; they’d direct the federal government to find some other way of managing the dispute, rather than let them cut off the funds.

Not to mention that there’s no way it’d ever pass the muster in congress to actually cut off the funds in the first place - who wants to go on record for cheating out widows and orphans and the disabled the money, simply because a state refuses to let the federal courts dictate to them?

Yes, it’s a game of chicken, and congress will blink first if a state actually stands up for their rights. (Not that California would - they’ll do whatever the feds want, as they want a bailout...)


18 posted on 05/31/2011 9:49:03 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson