A Washington appeals court rules that the state's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) can demand that the guardians of a woman with developmental disabilities contribute her Social Security benefits towards the cost of her care before using the funds to make charitable donations. Knutson v. State (Wash.App.Ct., No. 64144-1-1, March 28, 2011).
Janette Knutson, who has severe developmental disabilities, lives in a residential habilitation center funded by DSHS. Since 1986, Ms. Knutson's guardians had paid a portion of her Social Security benefit to DSHS as her contribution towards the cost of her care at the center. However, in 2008 Ms. Knutson's guardians filed a proposed budget with the superior court in which they asked for approval of a plan that would pay $175 in monthly guardian fees, $200 a month to an advocacy group called Voice of the Retarded, and the "balance of [Ms. Knutson's] social security benefit after payment of attorney fees" to Friends of Fircrest, another advocacy group, leaving nothing to be paid to DSHS.
A court commissioner approved the budget as drafted in an ex parte proceeding, and DSHS filed a motion to amend the commissioner's order to direct Ms. Knutson's guardians to apply her Social Security benefit towards the cost of her care. The court approved the state's motion and Ms. Knutson's guardians appealed, arguing that the state did not have standing to bring the motion and that the Social Security Act's anti-attachment provisions forbid the state from using legal process to compel the contribution of Social Security benefits towards the cost of Ms. Knutson's care.
The Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, upholds the trial court's decision granting the state's motion to amend. The court holds "that while 42 U.S.C. Section 407(a) prohibits a court from directing the representative payee to pay Social Security benefits, it does not prevent the superior court under the guardianship statute from overseeing the estate of an incapacitated person and directing the guardians to pay for the care and maintenance of the ward . . . Because the guardianship court exercised its supervisory authority under [state law] in directing the guardians to pay DSHS for a portion of Janette's cost of care at Fircrest, the order did not violate the anti-attachment provision of the [Social Security] Act. . . "
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/64144-1.cor.doc.pdf
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,800 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
