8.3A.10 TITLE IV-E, Foster Care Maintenance Payments Program, Eligibility, Redeterminations
1. Question: We believe failure to hold a timely redetermination of title IV-E eligibility is a program issue, not an eligibility issue. Is this correct?
Answer: You are correct in your assessment that failure to hold a timely redetermination of title IV-E eligibility is a State plan issue (a program issue, as stated in your question) rather than an issue related to the eligibility of the child for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
Under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, an eligibility redetermination is a State plan requirement (45 CFR 206.10 (a)(9)(iii)) and not a factor affecting the child's eligibility. While there is no statutory requirement under title IV-E concerning the frequency of eligibility redeterminations, such a procedure should be carried out periodically in order to assure that Federal financial participation is claimed properly. (Section 471 (a)(1) allows for Federal financial participation for foster care maintenance payments only in accordance with the requirements in section 472. Therefore, the State must assure that the child meets those eligibility requirements.)
ACYF has advised State agencies that an appropriate period for redetermination would be every 12 months, at which time factors subject to change, such as continued deprivation of parental support and care and the child's financial need would be reviewed and documented. However, if the State agency misses the twelve month eligibility redetermination schedule in certain cases, those cases would not be considered ineligible for Federal financial participation for that reason alone. When the eligibility review is held, however, if the child is found to have been ineligible for any prior month, no claim for Federal financial participation may be made for that month.
Answer: The criteria to be used in determining whether an initial determination or redetermination of a child's eligibility for foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E would be required hinge on whether the child is continuously in foster care status and remains under the responsibility of the State agency for placement and care. In making this determination, the State would ask: (1) Is the child in foster care? (2) Is the original court order or voluntary placement agreement still in effect in relation to removal of the child from his home? (3) Is the child still under the responsibility of the State agency for placement and care? If all of these conditions are in effect, even though there has been a temporary interruption of the foster care placement, a redetermination of eligibility would be appropriate.
If the child is discharged from foster care and returned to his own home (the home from which he was removed), he could not be considered to be in foster care status, even if the State agency maintains a supervisory role with the child and family. If the child leaves foster care to live with a relative, the State agency would need to determine whether the child remained in foster care status or whether the home of the relative was now considered to be the child's own home. Any continuing foster care status, where the child is still under responsibility of the State agency, would indicate the need for periodic redeterminations of eligibility at regular 12 month intervals. Short trial visits to a child's home would not be considered interruptions in foster care status. In the event the child returns home (for what is expected to be a permanent period), but is later returned to foster care, a new determination of eligibility based on circumstances at the time of that placement would be required. If the child leaves the foster home and is placed in a State training school for a temporary period, and the court order of removal is still in effect, he may retain his foster care status during the training school placement. A redetermination of eligibility would be required after the child returns to the foster care facility. Of course, Federal financial participation is allowed only during the time the child is in a licensed or approved foster care facility.
Answer: If the child has not returned to his own home and has been continuously in a foster care status since removal from the home (whether or not the facility is eligible to receive payments under title IV-E), a redetermination of eligibility would be appropriate at the time he returned to a facility eligible for Federal financial participation (FFP).
A redetermination of the deprivation factor at that tiime would consist of a confirmation that the conditions at the time of removal from the home continued to exist or that termination of parental rights (TPR) had occurred. In the latter case, the TPR would, from that point and throughout this episode of foster care, become the reason for continuing eligibility in terms of the deprivation factor.
If, however, the child is not continuously in foster care status and returns to the home of a relative that is considered to be his own home, then a subsequent re-entry into the foster care system requires a new (initial) determination of all eligibility factors.
In such a situation, where the child was living in the home of another relative after termination of parental rights and was later removed from the home of that relative, deprivation would then be based upon the absence of the parent(s) from the home of the relative, rather than TPR. (See section 406(a) as in effect on July 16, 1996).