Department of Health and Human Services
Departmental Appeals Board
AFDC QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW PANEL
SUBJECT: South Carolina Department
of Social Services
Docket No. A-92-136
DATE: August 3, 1992
DECISION
The South Carolina Department of Social Services (State)
appealed a March
30, 1992 quality control (QC) review
determination by the Regional
Administrator, Region IV,
of the Administration for Children and Families
(Agency).
The Agency determined that S.B. was ineligible for Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) assistance
because S.B.'s
children were not, as claimed by the
State, temporarily absent from S.B.'s
home, but were
residing elsewhere. 1/
The State Quality Control review (SQCR) had determined
that, as of June
1, 1991, the review date, S.B.'s
assistance unit (AU), consisting of
himself, his wife,
and two children, had been overpaid $85 because of S.B.'s
and his wife's failure to participate in the Job
Opportunities and Basic
Skills (JOBS) training program.
2/ The federal QC review,
however, concluded that the
SQCR had erred by not finding that S.B.'s AU was
ineligible for any AFDC assistance because the children
were no longer
living with S.B. or his wife as of the
review date. The SQCR had
examined this question, but
had determined that S.B.'s two children,
although
residing at their maternal grandparents' home on the
review
date, were still in the control and care of their
parents. The SQCR
viewed the children's residence at
their grandparents as a temporary absence
from S.B.'s
home, with the parents having no intention of
relinquishing
care and control of the children to the
grandparents.
The question before us, then, is whether the children
were only
temporarily absent from S.B.'s home on the
review date. For the
reasons described below, we find
that on June 1, 1991, S.B.'s children were
living in
their grandparents' home and were no longer under the
care and
control of S.B. and his wife. Accordingly, we
affirm the Agency's
determination that S.B.'s AU was
ineligible for AFDC assistance.
Statutory and Regulatory Background
Section 406(a) of the Act lists the criteria for a child
to qualify for
AFDC assistance. Among these criteria,
the child must be living with a
specified relative "in a
place of residence maintained by one or more of
such
relatives as his or their own home."
The regulations define what is meant by a "home":
A home is the family setting maintained . . . as
evidenced by
assumption and continuation of
responsibility for day to day care of the
child by
the relative with whom the child is living. A home
exists
so long as the relative exercises
responsibility for the care and control of
the
child, even though either the child or the relative
is temporarily
absent from the customary family
setting.
45 C.F.R. �233.90(c)(1)(v)(B).
In this particular case, S.B.'s children, in order to be
qualified for
AFDC assistance, were therefore required to
be living in a residence
maintained by the specified
relatives, S.B. and his wife.
Factual Background
Although S.B. and his wife were divorced in October 1989,
they resumed
living together in June 1990. Neither S.B.
nor his wife were employed
at that time. They, along
with their son and daughter, now ages 13 and
10
respectively, were living in Anderson, South Carolina, in
December
1990. At that time, S.B. and his ex-wife moved
to Pendleton, South
Carolina, some 10-15 miles from
Anderson. The children's maternal
grandmother, who also
lived in Anderson, offered to keep the children while
the
parents got settled in Pendleton, so that the children
could remain
in the same school in Anderson until
Christmas vacation.
When school resumed, in order for the children to remain
in the same
school, S.B. drove the children back and
forth to Anderson. When his
car broke down, either the
grandmother or her son ferried the children to
Anderson
for school. Soon the grandmother began keeping the
children in Anderson during the school week. Thereafter,
the
children stayed continuously at the grandmother's
home, with the mother
visiting several times during the
school week and on week-ends. On the days
she did not
visit the children, the mother attempted to talk with
them
by telephone. S.B. visited with his children on the
week-ends.
While the children were staying at the
grandmother's, the
grandmother engaged in such activities as taking the
children to doctors and hospitals for medical care and
attending
conferences at the children's school. The
children were registered at
school as living at the
grandparents' address.
As of the review date of June 1, 1991, the children
continued to reside
with their maternal grandparents.
3/
Analysis
The State argued that S.B. and his wife had not
relinquished control of
the children and that the
children had not permanently moved into the
grandmother's
home. The State contended that S.B. and his wife never
intended to relinquish care and control of their
children, and, in fact,
exercised as much care and
control as possible given their financial
situation and
distance from the children's temporary home. The State
provided signed statements from S.B. and his wife
attesting to the fact
that they allowed their children to
remain at the grandparents' home on only
a temporary
basis due to the parents' financial circumstances and the
children's wish to remain in school in Anderson. The
mother
attested to the fact that it was her intention to
have her children returned
to her as soon as the family
car was repaired.
The Agency acknowledged that within the interpretation of
45 C.F.R.
�233.90(c)(1)(v)(B) states are given some
leeway to define what constitutes
a "temporary" absence
from the specified relative's home. The State
referred
to Section 2.03.02 of the South Carolina AFDC/FS Policy
Manual
which states:
Temporary absence from home requires an evaluation
of the absent
person's eligibility to remain in the
AFDC budget. The important
factor affecting
eligibility is the exercise of parental control and
guidance by the parent or specified relative.
To be eligible for AFDC, the absent person must not
be:
1. Residing elsewhere permanently; . . .
The State maintained that there is no requirement in
federal regulations
or State policy that requires that
daily contact be maintained with the
children to
establish temporary absence. The State contended that
the Agency put too much emphasis on the physical location
of the
children and ignored the actual care and control
provided by the
parents. The State also suggested that
the Agency was influenced by
the wealth and economic
status of the grandparents.
Notwithstanding the latitude states are given to
interpret "temporary
absence," the evidence here clearly
shows that S.B. and his wife were not
exercising care and
control of the children at the time of the SQCR.
We
cannot overlook, despite the State's arguments to the
contrary, the
actual physical location of the children
during the review period. The
children had been living
continuously at the grandparents' home for close to
six
months, some 10-15 miles away from their parents'
residence.
While the parents may have visited the
children on a regular basis, the fact
remains that the
children were sleeping at the grandparents' home, eating
their meals there, had their clothes there, and were
attending school
nearby.
Section 3500 of the Quality Control Manual (QCM) sets
forth verification
standards for the development of
correct and reliable case findings based on
actual case
conditions for each member of the AU as of the review
date. 4/ The QCM explains --
Verification standards have been established to
provide a
systematic and nationally uniform level of
documentation in the QC review
process and provide a
thorough, consistent method of substantiating the
reviewer's decision regarding each element of
eligibility and
payment. Minimum verification
standards have been developed for each
eligibility
and payment determination element. All requirements
in
the verification standards must be met before the
element can be considered
to be properly verified
and documented.
(Emphasis in original.)
Section 3535 of the QCM proceeds to discuss verification
standards for
Element 150 -- Living Arrangement and
Household Composition. In
determining whether a child is
living with a specified relative, the QCM
specifies the
type of evidence establishing a child's living
arrangement. For school-age children, the QCM lists as
primary
evidence:
1. Current school record showing the same address
for the
child as the specified relative.
2. Visual observation of the child in the home
setting
(documented on the worksheet), plus at least
one piece of corroborating
secondary evidence. . . .
Id. Section 3.32.02 of the State's own AFDC Policy
Manual also
places emphasis on a child's school records
as evidence that the child is
living with the specified
relative:
Living with Specified Relative - Verification
Sources
1. School and day care center record showing the
same address
for the child and specified
relative; . . .
Here the evidence is uncontroverted that, as of the
review date, the
school records for S.B.'s children show
that the children did not have the
same address as the
specified relative, but rather the grandparents'
address.
Apart from the children's mere physical absence from
their parents, the
evidence shows that the grandmother
was exercising more care and control
over the children's
lives than the parents. The grandmother attended
parent-
teacher conferences at the children's school. The
grandmother took the children to the doctor and the
hospital.
While the parents insisted that the
grandmother performed such activities
without their
knowledge or consent, the record here shows that the
parents had little if any control over their children's
lives during the
review period.
Furthermore, the issue of whether S.B. and his wife
actually intended to
exercise continued responsibility
for the care and control of their children
when the
children were residing at the grandparents' home is not
dispositive here. We have no method of ascertaining
intentions. We do, however, have evidence, such as the
school
records giving the children's home as the
grandparents' address, that
indicates that the children
had left their parents' home on more than a
temporary
basis. Nor, as the State suggests, do we find any basis
that the Agency's position in this matter may have been
influenced by
the grandparents' comparative wealth.
Whatever the grandparents'
economic status, there is
simply no evidence in the record before us to show
that
the parents were exercising care and control over their
children.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, we find that, at the
time of the review
of S.B.'s case, his children were not
merely temporarily absent from his
home, but were living
at their grandparents' home, under the care and
control
of their grandmother. As the children were no longer
living with S.B. and his wife as required by 45
C.F.R. �233.90(c)(1)(v),
S.B. was ineligible for any AFDC
assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the Agency's
determination.
__________________________
Thomas D. Horvath
__________________________
Peggy McFadden-Elmore
__________________________
Maxine Winerman
* * * Footnotes * * *
1. We identify the recipient
by his initials in
order to protect his privacy. The State quality
control
review number is 021193.
2. The AFDC-Unemployed Parent (UP) program
provides
assistance to families in which a child is
deprived because one of the
parents in the household is
unemployed. Section 407(a) of the Social
Security Act
(Act) expands the definition of "a dependent child" in
section 406(a) of the Act to include for AFDC purposes a
child "who has
been deprived of parental support or care
by reason of the unemployment . .
. of the parent who is
the principal earner." Section 407(b)(1)(B)(v)
of the
Act provides, however, that the needs of the parents
shall not be
taken into account in determining the family
needs if the parents do not
participate in JOBS.
3. On June 17, 1991, the grandparents were
awarded
temporary custody of the two children. The
grandparents were awarded
permanent custody of the
children on October 17, 1991. The son,
however,
voluntarily returned to live with his parents in October
1991,
and the daughter returned to live with her parents
in December 1991.
The children currently reside with
their parents.
4. Each state is required
to operate its quality
control system in accordance with policies and
procedures
prescribed in a Quality Control Manual issued by the
Department of Health and Human Services. 45 C.F.R.
�205.40(b)(1).