FAMILY LAW
United States District Court for the District of Alaska (2025)
James Blair
In Mary B. v. Kovol, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (D. Alaska 2025), the United States District Court for the District of Alaska held that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (CWA) created rights, enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to an adequate written case plan and an adequate case review system. (Id. at 1171–74). Children brought suit against Alaska’s Office of Children’s Services (OCS), alleging violations of their federal rights under the CWA. (Id. at 1164). The children alleged that the CWA creates a right to (1) individual written case plans that advance placement, support, and reunification goals; (2) a case review system that facilitates appropriate placements and ensures parental rights termination filings are made when statutorily required; (3) placements that satisfy statutory requirements; and (4) quality health and safety services. (Id. at 1171–73). OCS filed a motion to dismiss, in which it argued that the relevant CWA sections focused on the required features of a state’s plan, rather than the individual benefits conferred on children, and thus failed to create individual rights enforceable under § 1983. (Id. at 1169). The court disagreed with OCS as to the first and second claims, and agreed with OCS as to the third and fourth claims. (Id. at 1174). The court reasoned that the “written case plan” language was focused on each child individually. (Id. at 1170–71). Similarly, the court reasoned that the “case review system” language focuses on the benefits that each child derives from the procedure. (Id. at 1171–73). Concerning the third claim, the court reasoned that the CWA’s language only secured a right to a procedure designed to facilitate appropriate placements—not the placement itself. (Id. at 1172). For the fourth claim, the court reasoned that the CWA’s language focused on the state’s requirement to provide quality services for foster care children generally, rather than each child, and so did not create an individual right. (Id. at 1173). The court held that the CWA created rights to written case plans and a case review system due to the individual-centric language mandating those items. (Id. at 1174).
