U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— SOCIAL SECURITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD-WELFARE SERVICES › Part Part B— Child and Family Services › Subpart subpart 1— stephanie tubbs jones child welfare services program

42 U.S.C. § 620

Repealed. Pub. L. 109–288, § 6(a), Sept. 28, 2006, 120 Stat. 1244

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Charlie H. v. Whitman, 83 F. Supp. 2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charlie H. v. Whitman, 83 F. Supp. 2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 6× “1989) (examining purpose of Title IV-B [of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 -628b,] as set forth in language of 42 U.”
In the Matter of M.K.T., 2016 OK 4 (Okla. 2016). · cites it 3× “96-272, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq. and §§ 670 et seq.”
In Re the Adoption of A.M.B., 812 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “¶ 20 In these proceedings, the parent and child are afforded the full due process rights they have under the Juvenile Act, ASFA and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA), 42 U.”
In Interest of Ashley K., 571 N.E.2d 905 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 3× “In particular, the Act amended the Title IV — B program, 42 U.S.C. §§620 through 628 (1988), which provides funds to the States for the improvement of child welfare services, and it created the Title IV — E program, 42 U.”
Jensen v. Conrad, 570 F. Supp. 91 (D.S.C. 1983). · cites it 4× “4 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Turning first to the plaintiff’s constitutional claim: the plaintiff contends that (1) the failure of the Commissioner and the State and County Boards of the South Carolina Department of Social Services to promulgate guidelines for social workers dealing…”
State v. Pigg, 368 P.3d 771 (Okla. 2016). “96-272, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq. and §§ 670 et seq.”
State Ex Rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Keon H. (In Re Anhayla H.), 421 P.3d 814 (N.M. 2018). “287 , 288 (1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 - 28, 670 -79a) (1991, amended 1997).”
Chrissy F., by Her Next Friend & Guardian Ad Litem Donna Medley v. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 925 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq. (1988). 8 . 42 U.”
Pamela B. v. Ment, 709 A.2d 1089 (Conn. 1998). “96-272, codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 through 627 and 670 through 678, a major purpose of which is to ensure the occurrence of timely and safe reunifications of children with their biological parents, when possible.”
In Re Scott Cnty. Master Docket, 672 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Minnesota 1987). · cites it 2× “on for Summary Judgment In the Myers, Buchan, Lallak, Meger, Joe, Germundson and Morgenson cases *1200 plaintiffs move for summary judgment as to their claims that Scott County, the Scott County Human Services Department and the Scott County Department of Human Services social…”
B.H. v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). · cites it 3× “(See 42 U.S.C. § 620 , et seq. ; Welf. & Inst.”
In Re Emerald C., 949 A.2d 1266 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “As the attorney for the minor child emphasized in her statement filed pursuant to Practice Book § 67-13, "[t]he department worked with [the respondent] for nineteen months, well beyond the suggested time frame spelled out in the Adoption and Safe Families Act, 42 U.S.C. § 620 et…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.