42 U.S.C. § 678
Rule of construction
Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of children in individual cases, including cases other than those described in section 671(a)(15)(D) of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: Rios v. South Dakota Dep't of Soc. Servs., 420 N.W.2d 757 (S.D. 1988).
Rios v. South Dakota Dep't of Soc. Servs., 420 N.W.2d 757 (S.D. 1988). “2917 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 678 ), cited in Murray, 667 F.”
In the Interest of As, 322 P.3d 263 (Haw. 2014). “42 U.S.C. § 678 states, “Nothing in this part [42 USCS §§ 670 et seq.”
In Re: A.I. I.I., 211 A.3d 1116 (D.C. 2019). “105-77, at 12; see also DC ASFA, Title I, § 101; 42 U.S.C. § 678 (2012). In expending reasonable efforts, the government must devise a case plan tailored to the specific needs of each family, and encourage the parent to participate in services that will allow the parent to meet…”
Sapp v. El Paso Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 181 P.3d 1179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “Specifically, they maintain that Colorado improperly defines "special needs" on a narrower basis than the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 678 (c) (2007), and, accordingly, the federal statute controls.”
Campfield v. Perales, 169 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “The Tax Reform Act of 1986 ( 42 USC § 678 , added by Pub L 99-514) made explicit, and retroactive to October 1, 1984, that States receiving AFDC benefits for children could not continue those benefits where children were receiving Federal foster care assistance.”
Murray v. Lyng, 667 F. Supp. 668 (D. Minnesota 1987). “2917 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 678 ). 11 . In addition, there appears to be no inherent reason why a person must make the payment on his or her own behalf in order to be considered a “boarder.”
Nevels v. State, Dep't of Human Servs., 590 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “This statute was originally enacted in 1986 and later codified as 42 U.S.C. § 678 (1988). See Pub.L. No. 99-514, 100 Stat.”
Smith v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 834 P.2d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” 55 Fed Reg 18912 (May 7,1990) reads: “The exclusion of an individual under section 478 [ 42 USC § 678 ] is limited only to a child who receives foster care maintenance payments as defined by section 475(4) and authorized by section 472 of title IV-E of the Social Security Act.”
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.