Purpose and Scope of Program

California's Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) provides financial assistance for the adoption of hard-to-place children. (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code Secs. 16115, 16122; see also 22 CCR. Sec. 35333.) The intent of the program is to encourage and promote adoption of children who would otherwise remain in long-term foster care. (Id.)

The amount of financial assistance in any particular case is based on the needs of the child and the circumstances of the family, but may not exceed the maximum amount the child would receive if living with a foster family. (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code Sec. 16212.) Collectively, the program aims to be revenue neutral. The Legislature did not intend to increase expenditures to provide adoption assistance benefits. The theory is that money that might otherwise be spent on foster care will be the source of the adoption subsidy. (In re Jesse S. (2017) 12 Cal.App.Sth 611,616-17.)

Governing Code Regulations for Eligibility

To be eligible for state AAP benefits, a child must have been relinquished for adoption to a licensed adoption agency, and the child must "have otherwise been at risk of dependency" at the time of adoptive placement. (Cal. VVelf. & Inst. Code Sec. 16120(i)(2); 22 CCR. Sec. 35326(f)(2).) The prospective adoptive parents must obtain an "at risk" certification from the appropriate "public child welfare agency," and submit that certification, along with a "Request for Adoption Assistance," to the agency responsible for determining the child's AAP eligibility. (22 CCR. Sec. 35325(c).)

Risk of Dependency Certification

Where a child is relinquished to a private adoption agency, it is the adoption agency's responsibility to obtain the risk of dependency certification from the county welfare department and include the certification in the AAP benefits request submitted to the agency for determining the child's AAP eligibility. (See ALR 16-38.^) The county where the prospective adoptive parents reside is the public agency responsible for determining the child's AAP eligibility. (See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16118(e); 22 CCR. § 35325(c); see also All County Letter No. 16-38^ ("ALR 16-38") [AR 101 etseq.].) The county welfare department where the child was born is the "child welfare agency" responsible for making the risk of dependency determination. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, Sec. 16118(c).)

ALR 16-38 differs somewhat from the Regulations, which provides that when a request for AAP benefits is submitted, the responsible public agency shall ask the county welfare department for a written determination whether the child would or would not have been at risk of dependency if the child had not been relinquished for adoption. (See 22 CCR. Sec. 35325(e).)

The Department administers the AAP program statewide. The Department has adopted regulations and issued "All County Letters" giving guidance to adoption agencies and counties on administration of the program. (See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Secs. 16118,10950.)

Grounds for "At Risk" Finding

Institutions Code section 300 describes the circumstances supporting a petition for dependency. Thus, section 300 describes the grounds under which a child may be considered "at risk" of dependency. Such grounds include that the child has suffered or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer:

1. “serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child... or by the willful or negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse;” and
2. “serious emotional damage . . . as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or [because the child] has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care.”

(Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 300.)

Right of Judicial Review of Finding

If any applicant for or recipient of public social services is dissatisfied with anv action of the countv department relating to his or her application for or receipt of public social services, if his or her application is not acted upon with reasonable promptness, or if any person who desires to apply for public social services is refused the opportunity to submit a signed application therefor, and is dissatisfied with that refusal, he or she shall, in person or through an authorized representative, without the necessity of filing a claim with the board of supervisors, upon filing a request with the State Department of Social Services or the State Department of Health Care Services, whichever department administers the public social service, be accorded an opportunity for a state hearing. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 10950.)

That section plainly affords a right to a hearing to "any applicant... for public social services . . . dissatisfied with any action of the county department relating to his or her their application for public social services (AAP benefits)." Under section 10950, the Department has jurisdiction to review the County's risk determination.

"The appropriate degree of judicial scrutiny is not susceptible of precise formulation. In each case the court must satisfy itself that the order was supported by the evidence, although what constitutes reasonable evidentiary support may vary depending upon the nature of the action." (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 232.)

Judicial Review Process and Procedure

For the judicial review of a state agency decision made after hearing governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the “complete record of proceedings” shall be prepared. (Govt. Code §11523.) The complete record consists of “the pleadings, all notices and orders issued by the agency, any proposed decision by an administrative law judge, the final decision, a transcript of all proceedings, the exhibits admitted or rejected, the written evidence and any other papers in the case.” (Id.)

The general rule is that a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency. (Toyota of Visalia v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881.) The court can only admit additional evidence in limited circumstances. Specifically, extra-record evidence may be considered only if it is shown that:

1. the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been presented at the administrative hearing, or
2. was improperly excluded at that hearing.

(Id., citing CCP §1094.5(e); see also, Fairfield v. Super. Ct. of Solano County, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 768, 771-72; see Western States Petroleum Association v. Super. Ct. (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 578.)

In addition, extra-record evidence is admissible only if it is relevant. (Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 570.) The Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly provide for a motion to augment or correct the administrative record, but they are routinely made. (See e.g., Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Super. Ct. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101.)

Standard of Review

In an administrative mandamus action reviewing a decision denying an application for benefits, the court exercises its independent judgment on the evidence. (Frink v. Prod (1982) 31 Cal.3d 166, 179; Calderon v. Anderson (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 607, 612.) The court examines the administrative record and exercises its independent judgment to determine if the weight of the evidence supports the Department’s findings. (City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817; see also, City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 522, 536.)

As the party challenging the Department’s decision, Petitioners bear the burden of convincing the court that the Department’s findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence. (Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 817; Arthur, supra, 184 Cal. App. 4th at 1205.) Issues of law, such as interpretation of statutes, are subject to the court’s independent review. (Donaldson v. Department of Real Estate (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 948, 954.)