Skip to comments.Judge orders state to boost foster payments
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 ...
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.
He is a ten horn dictator and should be impeached for ignorance.
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.
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?
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.
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...
A judge is just a lawyer with too much power.
The State of California should dare this judge to send troops to enforce his ruling.
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)
How does Uncle Sam even get a legal foot in this door? Is it by kicking in Federal funds with strings attached?
“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.
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.
True, but most red state courts would not rule favorably on them. Only federal judges can make rights magically appear where none exist.
“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.
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...)