Maynard v. Williams ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals,
    Eleventh Circuit.
    No. 94-2629.
    Collene MAYNARD, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Robert WILLIAMS, John Awad, Dr., Defendants-Appellants.
    Jan. 12, 1996.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of Florida. (No. 92-40279MMP), Maurice Mitchell Paul,
    Chief Judge.
    Before COX, Circuit Judge, and CLARK and WOOD*, Jr., Senior Circuit
    Judges.
    HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge:
    James Towey, the Secretary1 of the Florida Department of
    Health and Rehabilitative Services, and John Awad, the District
    Administrator of District II of the Department of Health and
    Rehabilitative Services, (together, "HRS") appeal the district
    court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Tanja Mathis. Mathis
    and two others brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after HRS
    imposed a freeze on the provision of child care services to
    recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") who
    were, or who wished to be, engaged in an approved education or
    training program as detailed in Title IV-F of the Social Security
    *
    Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., Senior U.S. Circuit Judge
    for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    1
    James Towey replaced Robert Williams as the Secretary of
    the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
    during the pendency of this case. Pursuant to Rule 43(c)(1) of
    the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mr. Towey automatically
    replaced Mr. Williams as a party. Since this appeal was filed
    under the name of Mr. Williams, however, the original caption of
    the case has been retained in order to avoid confusion.
    Act, 42 U.S.C. § 681, et seq.       Mathis alleged that HRS was required
    to provide child care services to all such AFDC recipients pursuant
    to 42 U.S.C. § 602(g), as amended by the Family Support Act of
    1988.    HRS argues that summary judgment was improperly granted
    because (1) no private right of action exists under § 1983 to
    enforce § 602(g)'s child care provisions;                 (2) the plaintiffs
    lacked standing because they had not been officially approved to
    participate in an education or training program;             and (3) § 602(g)
    does not, on the merits, require states to provide child care to
    all AFDC recipients who are, or who seek to be, enrolled in an
    approved education or training program.                 We conclude that no
    private right of action exists here under § 1983, and we reverse
    the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mathis.
    I. BACKGROUND
    The   Aid   to   Families    with      Dependent   Children   program,
    authorized    by   Title   IV-A    of   the    Social   Security   Act,    is   a
    cooperative federal-state program which provides a variety of
    financial assistance to needy families with minor children.                     42
    U.S.C. § 601 et seq.       Participation in the program is voluntary,
    but participating states, such as Florida, must comply with the
    requirements imposed by the Social Security Act and with the
    regulations issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
    ("Secretary").      Turner v. Ledbetter,          
    906 F.2d 606
    , 609 (11th
    Cir.1990), cert. denied, 
    500 U.S. 928
    , 
    111 S. Ct. 2041
    , 
    114 L. Ed. 2d 125
    (1991).
    One such requirement mandates the creation and operation of a
    "job    opportunities    and   basic    skills   training    program"     ("JOBS
    program").     42 U.S.C. § 681,       et seq.      ("Title IV-F").       The JOBS
    program is designed to provide a bootstrap to families receiving
    AFDC assistance;       through education and training, the JOBS program
    seeks to help recipients avoid long-term welfare dependence.                     42
    U.S.C.   §   681.      Florida's     JOBS   program      is   entitled   "Project
    Independence."
    Recognizing       that   the    high   cost    of   child   care    services
    prohibits    many     parents   or   guardians      of   minor   children     from
    participating in the JOBS program, Congress amended Title IV of the
    Social Security Act in an effort to make the JOBS program more
    available    to     those   individuals     who,   arguably,     need    it   most.
    Therefore, pursuant to the Family Support Act of 1988, persons
    participating in a JOBS program are now eligible to receive child
    care services.       42 U.S.C. § 602(g).      Section 602(g) provides:
    Each State agency must guarantee child care in accordance
    with subparagraph (B)—
    ....
    (II) for each individual participating in an education
    and training activity (including participation in a program
    that meets the requirements of subsection (a)(19) of this
    section and part F of this subchapter) if the State agency
    approves the activity and determines that the individual is
    satisfactorily participating in the activity.
    42 U.S.C. § 602(g)(1)(A)(i).2
    2
    Section 602(g) further provides:
    The State agency may guarantee child care by—
    (i) providing such care directly;
    (ii) arranging the care through providers by use
    of purchase of service contracts, or vouchers;
    (iii) providing cash or vouchers in advance to the
    caretaker relative in the family;
    This lawsuit stems from the decision of the Florida Department
    of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the state agency responsible
    for   administering   Florida's   JOBS   program,   Fla.Stat.Ann.     §
    409.029(4)(a), to freeze the provision of child care services
    effective July 10, 1992.   The freeze does not apply to individuals
    who were receiving child care services prior to the cut-off date.
    A projected budget deficit was cited as the reason for this action.
    Thereafter, this suit was filed with Collene Maynard, Darlene
    Michal, and Tanja Mathis named as plaintiffs.    They claim that the
    child care freeze forced them to forgo their education plans.3      The
    plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief.           The
    plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction as well
    as a motion for class certification.     The plaintiffs hinged their
    suit upon § 602(g)'s "guarantee" of child care.     They alleged that
    42 U.S.C. § 602(g) imposes a statutory obligation, regardless of a
    state's fiscal situation, to supply child care services to all AFDC
    recipients who are, or who wish to be, enrolled in an approved
    education or training program.    In response, HRS primarily argues
    (iv) reimbursing the caretaker relative in the
    family; or
    (v) adopting such other arrangements as the agency
    deems appropriate.
    When the State agency arranges for child care, the
    agency shall take into account the individual needs of
    the child.
    42 U.S.C. § 602(g)(1)(B).
    3
    Mathis enrolled in Project Independence with the avowed
    goal of earning an Associate of Arts degree at Tallahassee
    Community College. Maynard and Michal are seeking to earn their
    General Equivalency Diplomas ("GED").
    that 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(19), when read      in pari materia with §
    602(g), specifically allows a state to take its financial health
    into consideration when it decides on the extent to which it will
    make child care services available.
    In brief, § 602(a) requires a state that wishes to participate
    in the AFDC program to submit a plan to the Secretary that details
    the state's proposed administration of the AFDC program.        See
    Heckler v. Turner, 
    470 U.S. 184
    , 189, 
    105 S. Ct. 1138
    , 1141, 
    84 L. Ed. 2d 138
    (1985).       Section 602(a)(19) details one required
    provision of a state's plan:
    A State plan for aid and services to needy families with
    children must—
    ....
    (19) provide—
    (A) that the State has in effect and operation a
    [JOBS] program which meets the requirements of part F of
    this subchapter;
    (B) that—
    (i) the State will (except as otherwise provided in
    this paragraph or part F of this subchapter), to
    the extent that the program is available in the
    political subdivision involved and State resources
    otherwise permit—
    (I) require all recipients of [AFDC] in such
    subdivision with respect to whom the State
    guarantees child care in accordance with section
    602(g) of this title to participate in the program;
    and (II) allow applicants for and recipients of
    [AFDC] ... who are not required under subclause (I)
    to participate in the program to do so on a
    voluntary basis....
    42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(19)(A)-(B)(i) (emphasis added).        The named
    plaintiffs were all participating in Project Independence on a
    voluntary basis.
    The litigants subsequently filed competing motions for summary
    judgment and HRS also filed a motion to dismiss the action.       On
    April 15, 1994, the district court denied HRS's motions and granted
    the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.     The district court's
    opinion, however, was specifically limited to Mathis;    Maynard and
    Michal had failed to respond to an earlier order of the district
    4
    court which directed them to update the court on their status.
    This appeal followed.
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    The district court's opinion is not a final decision within
    the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as it did not adjudicate the
    claims of all of the parties to this action, and as it did not
    direct entry of a final judgment in favor of Mathis "upon an
    express determination that there is no just reason for delay."
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).     The district court's opinion is justiciable,
    however, as it enjoined HRS from denying child care to Mathis.    28
    U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
    We review the district court's grant of summary judgment by
    considering all factual issues in the light most favorable to the
    nonmoving party (herein HRS) and determining de novo whether there
    exists any genuine issue of material fact requiring submission of
    the case to the finder of fact or whether judgment as a matter of
    law was appropriate.    Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Wilson v. Northcutt, 
    987 F.2d 719
    , 721 (11th Cir.1993) (citation omitted).
    4
    The district court did, however, indicate that it would
    consider the status of Maynard and Michal at a later date, when
    it addressed the class certification issue. These issues are not
    before us and we express no direct opinion on them.
    III. DISCUSSION
    Private Right of Action Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    The appellants argue that summary judgment was wrongly granted
    below as no private right of action exists under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    to enable Mathis to enforce § 602(g)'s child care provisions.
    Section 1983 creates a cause of action for "the deprivation of any
    rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
    laws" of the United States.     The Supreme Court has held that this
    language is not limited to constitutional violations;              § 1983
    potentially encompasses violations of all federal statutes.         Maine
    v. Thiboutot, 
    448 U.S. 1
    , 4, 
    100 S. Ct. 2502
    , 2504, 
    65 L. Ed. 2d 555
    (1980).
    The   Court   has,   however,   defined   two   exceptions   to   the
    applicability of § 1983 to claims based on statutory violations:
    (1) For an action to be cognizable under § 1983, it is not enough
    that the conduct in question merely violates federal law—that
    violation must trammel a "right" secured by federal law,           Golden
    State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 
    493 U.S. 103
    , 106, 
    110 S. Ct. 444
    , 448-49, 
    107 L. Ed. 2d 420
    (1989);        Wehunt v. Ledbetter,
    
    875 F.2d 1558
    , 1563 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 
    494 U.S. 1027
    ,
    
    110 S. Ct. 1472
    , 
    108 L. Ed. 2d 609
    (1990);     (2) Even if the statute in
    question creates such a right, a private right of action under §
    1983 may still be unavailable if "Congress has foreclosed private
    enforcement in the enactment of the statute" through the inclusion
    of sufficiently comprehensive remedial devices.         
    Wehunt, 875 F.2d at 1563
    (citing Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea
    Clammers Ass'n, 
    453 U.S. 1
    , 20-21, 
    101 S. Ct. 2615
    , 2626-27, 
    69 L. Ed. 2d 435
    (1981)).
    A. Existence of a Federal Right
    To ascertain whether 42 U.S.C. § 602(g) creates a "federal
    right" that is enforceable under § 1983, we must determine
    whether "the provision in question was intend[ed] to benefit
    the putative plaintiff." [Golden 
    State, 493 U.S. at 106
    , 110
    S.Ct. at 448 (citations and internal quotations omitted).] If
    so, the provision creates an enforceable right unless it
    reflects merely a "congressional preference" for a certain
    kind of conduct rather than a binding obligation on the
    governmental unit, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v.
    Halderman, 
    451 U.S. 1
    , 19 [
    101 S. Ct. 1531
    , 1540-41, 
    67 L. Ed. 2d 694
    ] (1981), or unless the interest the plaintiff asserts is
    " "too vague and amorphous' " such that it is " "beyond the
    competence of the judiciary to enforce.' " Golden State, [493
    U.S.] at 106 [110 S.Ct. at 448] [ (quoting Wright v. Roanoke
    Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 
    479 U.S. 418
    , 431-32, 
    107 S. Ct. 766
    , 774-75, 
    93 L. Ed. 2d 781
    (1987)).]
    Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 
    496 U.S. 498
    , 509, 
    110 S. Ct. 2510
    ,
    2517, 
    110 L. Ed. 2d 455
    (1990).    Furthermore, "each statute must be
    interpreted by its own terms."    Suter v. Artist M., 
    503 U.S. 347
    ,
    358 n. 8, 
    112 S. Ct. 1360
    , 1367 n. 8, 
    118 L. Ed. 2d 1
    (1992).
    1. Intent to Benefit
    The first step of our federal right analysis, therefore, is to
    determine whether Congress intended the child care provisions of §
    602(g) to benefit AFDC recipients who are, or who wish to be,
    voluntarily enrolled in approved education or training activities.
    As was the case in Wilder,5 it appears that the provisions in
    5
    The Wilder Court concluded that there was "little doubt"
    that health care providers were the intended beneficiaries of the
    Boren Amendment:
    The provision establishes a system for
    reimbursement of providers and is phrased in terms
    benefiting health care providers: It requires a state
    plan to provide for "payment ... of the hospital
    services, nursing facilities services, and services in
    an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded
    question were indeed intended to benefit Mathis:        The purpose
    behind Title IV-A, which contains the child care provisions here at
    issue, is "to help [the parents or relatives with whom needy
    dependent children are living] to attain or retain capability for
    the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with
    the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection."      42
    U.S.C. § 601.    Section 602(g)(1)(A)(i)(II) furthers this end by
    "guarantee[ing] child care ... for each individual participating in
    an education and training activity ... if the State agency approves
    the activity and determines that the individual is satisfactorily
    participating in the activity."    These statutory pronouncements
    convince us that § 602(g) was intended to benefit AFDC recipients
    who require child care services in order to participate in an
    education or training program under the JOBS program.
    A comparison of § 602(g)'s child care provisions with the
    child support provisions of Title IV-D, 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.,
    which we addressed in Wehunt v. Ledbetter, is illustrative:       In
    Wehunt, we held that the child support provisions of Title IV-D
    were not intended to benefit AFDC recipients.     Beyond the first
    fifty dollars of child support collected each month, 42 U.S.C. §
    602(a)(8)(A)(vi), the funds recovered through the workings of that
    title accrue directly to the state government.        42 U.S.C. §
    602(a)(26)(A).    Thus, Title IV-D's provisions were viewed as
    primarily designed to benefit all taxpayers:   "[T]he goal of Title
    provided under the 
    plan." 496 U.S. at 510
    , 110 S.Ct. at 2517-18 (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
    1396a(a)(13)(A) (emphasis added) (other citation omitted).
    IV-D was to immediately lower the cost to the taxpayer as well as
    to lessen the number of families enrolling in welfare in the
    future—benefits      to   society     as    a    whole   rather   than     specific
    
    individuals." 875 F.2d at 1565
    .
    It is true that the child support provisions of § 602(g),
    which reduce long-term welfare dependence by facilitating the
    education and training of AFDC recipients, also benefit taxpayers
    as a whole.    The effects of this program, however, are ultimately
    personal;    the benefits of education and training accrue first and
    foremost to the individual who is being so educated or trained.
    In   marked    contrast    to   the       voluntary   nature    of   Mathis's
    participation in Project Independence, "AFDC recipients do not
    apply for nor request support enforcement services [under Title IV-
    D].   They assign their child support rights to the state and are
    required to cooperate (unless good cause for refusing to do so is
    determined     to    exist)     in    whatever      legal    action    the   state
    undertakes."    
    Id. at 1566
    (footnotes omitted).
    Moreover, our holding in Wehunt impliedly acknowledged that
    Title IV-A was intended to benefit AFDC recipients:
    Title IV-D does not create any enforceable right: it was
    not enacted for the "especial benefit" of AFDC families. A
    Title IV-D program operates under a separate legislative and
    regulatory framework than that of a Title IV-A program. Title
    IV-A provides funds from the public treasure to support
    children in need. Title IV-D seeks to recover those funds and
    restore the Treasury balance by enforcement of support
    obligations owed by the absent parents of these children.
    
    Id. at 1565.
    2. Binding Obligation
    Having found that the child care provisions of § 602(g) were
    intended to benefit individuals such as Mathis, the second step of
    our inquiry addresses whether that section imposes a "binding
    obligation" upon HRS to provide child care or whether it merely
    expresses a "congressional preference" for the provision of child
    care.     
    Wilder, 496 U.S. at 509
    , 110 S.Ct. at 2517.
    (a) Section 602(g)'s Reference to § 602(a)(19)
    We note initially that § 602(g) does purport to "guarantee"
    child care to individuals participating in approved education or
    training activities. Section 602(g), however, goes on to condition
    its   guarantee   by   expressly   referring   to   §   602(a)(19),   which
    contains the "and State resources otherwise permit" language upon
    which the appellants rely.
    Moreover, Title IV-F, which details the required elements of
    a state's JOBS program, also refers to § 602(a)(19).              Section
    682(a) of that title states:       "As a condition of its participation
    in the program of [AFDC] under part A of this subchapter, each
    State shall establish and operate a [JOBS] program ... under a plan
    approved by the Secretary as meeting all of the requirements of
    this part and section 602(a)(19) of this title...."           42 U.S.C. §
    682(a)(1)(A).6
    As discussed above, § 602(a)(19) provides, in part, that AFDC
    recipients must be "allow[ed]" to voluntarily participate in the
    JOBS program to the extent that "State resources otherwise permit."
    The express reference to this provision by both § 602(g), which
    "guarantee[s]" child care, and by § 682(A)(1)(A), which addresses
    6
    See also, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(44)(A) (stating that a state
    plan must "provide that the State agency shall—(A) be responsible
    for assuring that the benefits and services under the programs
    under this part ... and part F of this subchapter are furnished
    in an integrated manner").
    the states' establishment of their JOBS programs, demonstrates that
    Congress intended for a state to consider the extent of its
    available resources when it determined the overall scope of its
    JOBS program—including the provision of child care services.
    (b) Section 602(a)(19)'s Reference to § 602(g)
    Furthermore,      §    602(a)(19)        references     §   602(g).       Section
    602(a)(19)(B)(i)(I) asserts that a state "will ... require all
    recipients of [AFDC] in such subdivision with respect to whom the
    State guarantees child care in accordance with section 602(g) of
    this title to participate in the [JOBS] program."                       In other words,
    the state must guarantee the provision of child care services to
    those individuals who are               required to participate in the JOBS
    program.     However,        subclause         (II),   which    discusses      voluntary
    participation, does not refer to § 602(g)'s child care guarantee.
    42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(19)(B)(i)(II).                 Thus, § 602(g)'s limited child
    care   guarantee    does          not   apply    to    Mathis,     as    she   chose   to
    participate in Project Independence on a voluntary basis.                              42
    U.S.C. § 602(a)(19)(B)(i)(II).
    (c) Conclusion
    There are, we admit, several obstacles to a smooth in pari
    materia reading of §§ 602(g) and 602(a)(19).                    First, both sections
    are rather long and involved. However, neither section attempts to
    constrict its reference to the other, and we must presume that
    Congress   knew    how       to    be   more    specific   if      it   wished   to    be.
    Therefore, we presume that § 602(g) was intended to reference the
    relevant portions of § 602(a)(19), and that § 602(a)(19) was
    intended to reference the relevant portions of § 602(g).
    Second, whereas these two provisions are now subsections of
    the same section, they were originally enacted under different
    titles of the Family Support Act of 1988.7       We conclude, however,
    that while this fact should inform our analysis, it need not
    dictate our result.        As discussed above, each section expressly
    refers to the other—we find this fact to be sufficient to overcome
    any       interpretative    difficulty   which    their    legislative
    disjointedness otherwise presents.
    Third, unfortunate results seem to flow from this decision.
    It is safe to say that disadvantaged people with children are
    likely to be more needy than disadvantaged people without children.
    Under our reading of the Family Support Act of 1988, Florida may
    effectively cut off the former group's participation in its JOBS
    program by freezing the provision of child care while continuing to
    allow individuals from the latter group to voluntarily enroll.
    Allowing the state to deny child care to these "more" needy
    individuals seems unfair.         We recognize, however, that state
    resources are not unlimited and hard choices have, sometimes, to be
    made. Regrettably, Henry David Thoreau was not universally correct
    when he wrote that "[i]t costs us nothing to be just."       Henry D.
    Thoreau, John Brown's Body, in The Works of Thoreau 825, 827 (Henry
    S. Canby ed., 1937).
    All in all, as our discussion demonstrates, this case presents
    a most difficult question, but we are constrained to find that the
    7
    Section 602(g) was enacted under Title III of the Family
    Support Act: "Supportive Services for Families." Section
    602(a)(19) was enacted under Title II: "Job Opportunities and
    Basic Skills Training Program."
    mutual cross-references of §§ 602(g) and 602(a)(19) modify the
    otherwise obligatory language of § 602(g)'s child care guarantee.
    The district court's opinion, which is well-reasoned in every other
    respect,   only     fails,    as   we   see    it,   to   grant   these   mutual
    cross-references their proper weight. We must, therefore, disagree
    with that court's conclusion.
    We assume that Congress would prefer that all individuals
    voluntarily enrolled in approved education and training activities
    would receive child care, but we conclude that Congress did not
    intend for 42 U.S.C. § 602(g) to impose a binding obligation upon
    the   states   to   provide    child    care   to    these   volunteers   on   an
    unlimited basis.      Accordingly, we must find that no private right
    of action exists under § 1983 to allow a voluntary participant in
    a JOBS program to enforce the child care provision of § 602(g).8
    8
    This conclusion is in keeping with the Supreme Court's
    interpretative guidance in this area: "[T]he starting point of
    the [AFDC] analysis must be a recognition that the federal law
    gives each State great latitude in dispensing its available
    funds." Dandridge v. Williams, 
    397 U.S. 471
    , 478, 
    90 S. Ct. 1153
    ,
    1158, 
    25 L. Ed. 2d 491
    (1970). See also Anderson v. Edwards, ---
    U.S. ----, ----, 
    115 S. Ct. 1291
    , 1296, 
    131 L. Ed. 2d 178
    (1995)
    (identifying the Dandridge Court's language, 
    quoted supra
    , as the
    "cardinal principle" of statutory interpretation in the AFDC
    context). Our finding is also consistent with Congress's
    recognition of the limited nature of state resources. In the
    preamble to the AFDC program, Congress stated:
    For the purpose of encouraging the care of
    dependent children in their own homes or in the homes
    of relatives by enabling each State to furnish
    financial assistance and rehabilitation and other
    services, as far as practicable under the conditions in
    such State, to needy dependent children and the parents
    or relatives with whom they are living to help maintain
    and strengthen family life and to help such parents or
    relatives to attain or retain capability for the
    maximum self-support and personal independence
    consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental
    care and protection, there is hereby authorized to be
    B. Remaining Issues
    In light of our finding that no private right of action exists
    under § 1983 to allow Mathis to enforce § 602(g)'s child care
    provisions,    we   need   not   address     the   issue    of    whether   these
    provisions    are   too    vague   and     amorphous       to    be   effectively
    interpreted and enforced by the judiciary.             In addition, we need
    not address whether the Social Security Act, as amended by the
    Family    Support   Act,     contains    a    remedial      scheme      which   is
    sufficiently comprehensive to foreclose private enforcement under
    § 1983.     Furthermore, we need not reach the question of standing
    nor need we reach the merits of this matter.
    We note in closing that we do not feel that our decision
    nullifies in any way the child care provisions of the Family
    Support Act: Florida's continued receipt of funding at its current
    level is conditioned upon its compliance with all of the Social
    Security Act's requirements.9      E.g., 42 U.S.C. § 604.             As the issue
    is not before us, however, we express no opinion on what sort of
    showing would be required—were the Secretary to later challenge
    Florida's    action—to     demonstrate     that    state   resources      did   not
    appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to
    carry out the purposes of this part....
    42 U.S.C. § 601.
    9
    It is true that the Wilder Court found the conditional
    provision of federal funds influential in its conclusion that the
    Boren Amendment does impose an obligation on states participating
    in the Medicaid program which may be privately enforced under §
    
    1983. 496 U.S. at 512
    , 110 S.Ct. at 2518-19. As discussed
    above, however, the child care provisions of the Family Support
    Act are lacking—in light of § 602(g)'s reference to §
    602(a)(19)—that mandatory cast which the Wilder Court also found
    so influential. 
    Id. "otherwise permit"
      the   provision   of   child   care   services   to
    individuals such as Mathis.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the grant of
    summary judgment by the district court and REMAND for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.