Author: Webdog

ACL 09-05: CalWORKs Information Regarding California Registered Domestic Partners (RDPs) And Same-Sex Spouses (2/27/09)

Posted on by

Policy direction regarding eligibility of same-sex married spouses to the CalWORKs, Food Stamp, and Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) programs, and instructions regarding eligibility for Medi-Cal. (DHCS has issued ACWDL 09-03 and ACWDL 09-04 regarding this.) The California RDP is an individual who has a declaration of domestic partnership registered with the California Secretary of State. AB 205 extended these rights and responsibilities to a member of a legal union validly formed in another jurisdiction that is equivalent to a California RDP.

For CalWORKs , RDPs have the same rights and responsibilities as stepparents. Pending judicial resolution, all same-sex marriage licenses issued between June 16, 2008 (when the In re Marriage Cases finding the bar on same-sex marriages unconstitutional became final) and November 4, 2008 (Prop 8 ) are deemed to be valid on the basis of marriage for the purposes of CalWORKs eligibility. Massachusetts and Connecticut also permit same-sex marriages. CalWORKs Stage One child care services does not change – RDPs and same sex spouses are treated as stepparents. The CalWORKs parent will have the option include or exclude the RDP/same-sex spouse in the AU, which could impact the availability of child care in the home. If a RDP/same-sex spouse adopts the eligible child(ren), the RDP/same-sex spouse will be considered a parent and a member of the AU, so the same eligibility requirements for two-parent families will be applied.

No change to the Food Stamp Program, which never cared about this, looking only at the group that purchases/prepares food together.

RCA is the same as CalWORKs.

RDPs/same-sex spouses are not eligible for federal Medi-Cal benefits unless they are a natural or adoptive parent of a child in the AU, the name of both RDPs/same-sex spouse appear on the child’s birth certificate, or they can establish eligibility on their own behalf (e.g. by being aged, blind, disabled, pregnant, etc.) The RDP/same-sex spouse may be eligible for specific state funded Medi-Cal programs because he/she is treated as a spouse under state law. When the RDP/same-sex spouse is not the natural or adoptive parent of a child in the AU, but he/she is eligible for CalWORKs, a separate Medi-Cal determination must be made for that RDP/same-sex spouse and in some instances for the rest of the family. [Download]

ACL 09-12: Implementation Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009; Temporary Increase In Benefits Of The Value Of The Thrifty Food Plan (2/27/09)

Posted on by

Economic stimulus hits the world of benefits: 13.6 percent temporary increase in Food Stamp; the increased benefit amount for a household will not be considered in any overissuance (O/I) determinations; increase in the minimum monthly benefit amount for 1 and 2 person households; elimination of the ABAWDS work requirements through September 30, 2010; QC hold harmless and error rate provisions.

In addition, Unemployment benefits will increase by $25 per week; a one-time payment of $250 for SSI, Railroad Retirement and Veterans and Veterans Disability Compensation or Pension recipients recipients; and tax credits of $400 ($800 for families filing a joint return).

The counties are to send a mass Change Notice for informing households of these provisions. [Download]

ACL 09-09: Relative Caregivers and Permanency Options (2/23/09)

Posted on by

New legislation has made changes to statutes regarding how legal guardianship for a relative is considered as a permanency placement option:
1) a relative caregiver’s preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, cannot be the sole basis for recommending the removal of a child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement;
2) requires that a relative caregiver be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption. This information should include the long-term benefits and consequences of each option. To ensure complete and comparable information, counties are encouraged to use PUB 344 and provides links to two charts;
3) changes the order of preference for findings and orders for permanent placement of the child. The court shall now consider, as the second option after that of termination of parental rights, appointing as the legal guardian the relative with whom the child is currently residing.
4) requires that the court, under certain circumstances, not terminate parental rights if the child is living with a relative who is unable or unwilling to adopt the child because of circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, but who is willing and capable of providing the child with a stable and permanent environment through legal guardianship, and the removal of the child
from the custody of his or her relative would be detrimental to the emotional wellbeing of the child. For purposes of an Indian child, “relative” includes an “extended family member,” as defined in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act;
5) changes to the report that the county must prepare for the court prior to proceedings to terminate a guardianship established by the juvenile court, to address circumstances in which the child may be returned to the guardian and whether family maintenance or reunification services are recommended.
[Download]

ACL 09-13: CalWORKs Child Care Programs Changes To Instructions Regarding The Regional Market Rate (RMR) Payment Ceilings And Family Fees (2/27/09)

Posted on by

This letter rescinds the portion of ACL 09-03 regarding the change in RMR ceiling payments and family fees for CalWORKs families. The recent budget legislation requires child care costs to continue to be reimbursed using the 2005 RMR payment ceilings. Also prohibited the assessment of a family fee for current CalWORKs cash aid recipients. CDSS “has learned that additional coordination and clarification with the California Department of Education (CDE)” is needed, so now tells the counties to continue to assess all CalWORKs child care recipients for a family fee if one would have been applied, until further notice. (Which seems contrary to law, but heh, Regs@ just reports what it says…) [Download]