Federal
- Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (2003), U.S. Supreme Court case upholding Washington state's practice via a narrow holding related to the anti-attachment clause of the Constitution, but abstaining from other substantive ruling.
State
- In State of Alaska, et al., v. Z.C. (2025) Alaska Supreme Court Case Nos. S-18248/18259, the Alaska Supreme Court held that foster children have a property interest in their stream of benefits, such that they are entitled to notice of the Office of Children’s Services’ (OCS) systemic practice impacting the amount of funds the children may benefit from, as well as notice of their ability to nominate a rep payee other than OCS for the SSA’s consideration.”
- In Re Ryan W. 434 Md. 577 (Md. 2013), a Maryland opinion issued subsequent to the limited holding of the SCOTUS case discussed above, holding that the state violated the due process of foster youth when they intercepted Social Security benefits without proper notice. View Amicus Brief in Support of Ryan W.
- New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.N. (2015) 223 N.J. 530, 126 A.3d 1231, among other things, explains that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency is responsible for the “maintenance ... of children,” which includes but is not limited to moneys expended for shelter, utilities, food, repairs, essential household equipment, and other expenditures to remedy situations of an emergent nature to permit, as far as practicable.
- Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached in Willingham v. McDonald, No. 96 CO 00120 (Cook County, Ill., Sept. 2000), the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services enacted policies to manage foster children’s benefits way consistent with the best interests standard rather than the state's financial interest. While not precluding the state from seeking some reimbursement for the cost of foster care, the policies require that a beneficiary’s special needs be prioritized in determining how benefits will be used. View Complaint. View Settlement Agreement.
- In Thorpe v. Prince George's County Dep't of Social Services (Circuit Court for Prince George's County, MD, CAL-09-01572), plaintiff brought an action pursuant to Maryland Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 12-101 to 12-110, the Code of Maryland Regulations Title 25, Md. Code Regs. tit. XXV, and the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 10-101 et seq., to recoup Social Security Disability benefits that were owned by plaintiff but which she alleged were illegally taken by DSS in violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, Maryland and federal statutes, and Maryland common law. View complaint. View Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
- In Alex M. v. Baltimore County Dep’t of Social Services, et al. (Circuit Court for Baltimore County, MD, 03-C-08-012642), plaintiff brought an action pursuant to Maryland Tort Claims Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 12-101 to 12-110, the Code of Maryland Regulations Title 25, Md. Code Regs. tit. XXV, and the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 10-101 et seq., to recoup Social Security Disability benefits that were owned by plaintiff but which he alleged were illegally taken by DSS in violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, Maryland and federal statutes, and Maryland common law. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County granted DSS’s Motion to Dismiss. Alex appealed the decision but the appellate court did not review the case. View Complaint. View Appellant’s Brief. View Press Release.