In a de novo review, the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two reversed the juvenile court’s order which found that appellant-R.G. was ineligible for extended foster care support payments between January 13 and March 13, 2015, holding that the juvenile court misinterpreted Welfare and Institutions Code § 11403(b)(3) when it found that appellant was neither employed at least 20 hours per week nor participating in a program or activity that promoted or removed barriers to employment. Here, appellant-R.G. emancipated from foster care in 2014 and at that time elected to remain in extended foster care and formulated his Transitional Independent Living Plan(TILP) with his social worker. In late 2014, appellant left his supervised independent living placement and moved into an apartment with his girlfriend in a new city. He met with his caseworker, who approved his new living situation, and formulated a new TILP which included a list of specific activities appellant needed to perform in order to find a new job. Appellant started working full-time on March 11, 2015. The juvenile court found that during the time of January 2015-March 13, 2015, appellant was in compliance with the statutory requirements of § 11403(b)(3), which require a nonminor who elects to receive extended foster care support payments to “participate in a program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to employment,” and, therefore, was not entitled to receive his support payments. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that “as long as non-minor dependents are still working towards their goals, as outlined in their Mutual Agreement and TILPs, a setback does not automatically disqualify them from the program.” Further, the court stated that this program is meant to be flexible to support the nonminor’s achievement of his or her goals and allows for participation in a program or self-directed activities aimed at achieving employment. Finally, the appellate court found that appellant was working toward his goals during the time period in question and, therefore, was entitled to financial support for that time.
Cite: No. A144684; 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 854 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2015)
Link to Full Opinion
Support Us