Dcpp v. H.V.

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NOS. A-3362-23 A-3391-23 A-3710-23 A-3789-23 A-3791-23 A-3850-23 A-3898-23 A-4045-23 A-0097-24 A-0102-24 A-0103-24 A-0271-24 A-1801-24 A-1802-24 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION June 16, 2026 v. APPELLATE DIVISION H.V.,1 Defendant-Respondent, and W.D., deceased, 1 We use initials to protect privacy of the families' identities. R. 1:38- 3(d)(12).  Defendant. _________________________ IN THE MATTER OF I.V., a minor, Appellant. _________________________ NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. D.K.L.H., deceased, Defendant, and T.T.H., SR., Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ IN THE MATTER OF T.T.H., JR. and C.C.P.H., minors, Appellants. _________________________ NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, A-3362-23 2 v. A.D., Defendant-Respondent, and A.H., deceased, Defendant. _________________________ IN THE MATTER OF A.R.H. and A.H., minors, Appellants. _________________________ NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. C.J., deceased and R.A., deceased, Defendants. ________________________ IN THE MATTER OF C.J. and A.K.A., minors, Appellants. ________________________ IN THE MATTER OF M.V. A-3362-23 3 ________________________ NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.L.P. and B.J.W., Defendants-Respondents. __________________________ IN THE MATTER OF J.C.P., J.E.P., and J.M.P., minors, Appellants. __________________________ NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. S.D., deceased, B.S., and A.M., Defendants-Respondents. __________________________ IN THE MATTER OF M.M., a minor, Appellant. __________________________ A-3362-23 4 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.G., JR., D.P., and H.G., Defendants-Respondents, and R.F., Defendant. __________________________ IN THE MATTER OF J.G., III and I.G., minors, Appellants, and H.G., a minor, Respondent. __________________________ Argued April 14, 2026 – Decided June 16, 2026 Before Judges Sumners, Susswein and Augostini. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, Docket No. FN-19-0011-23, Monmouth County, Docket Nos. FN-13-0056-22 and FN-13-0147-22, Somerset County, Docket No. FN-18-0124-22, A-3362-23 5 Hudson County, Docket No. FC-09-0184-20, Ocean County, Docket No. FN-15-0045-23, Bergen County, Docket No. FN-02-0021-23, and Cumberland County, Docket No. FN-06-0087-23. Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant I.V. in A-3362-23 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs; Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellants T.T.H. and C.C.P.H. in A-3391-23 and A-3850-23 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellants A.R.H. and A.H. in A- 3710-23 and A-3898-23 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel; Jennifer M. Sullivan, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellants C.J. and A.K.A. in A- 3789-23 and A-3791-23 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs; Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant M.V. in A-4045-23 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel; Neha Gogate, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). A-3362-23 6 Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellants J.C.P., J.E.P., and J.M.P. in A-0097-24, A-0102-24, and A-0103-24 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant M.M. in A-0271-24 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs; Neha Gogate, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellants J.G., III and I.G. in A- 1801-24 and A-1802-24 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, of counsel; Daniel L. J. Adamek, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). Adrienne Kalosieh, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent H.V. in A-3362-23 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Adrienne Kalosieh, of counsel and on the brief). Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for respondent A.D. in A-3710-23 and A-3898-23 (Richard Foster, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for respondent J.L.P. in A-0097-24, A-0102-24, and A- 0103-24 (T. Gary Mitchell, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Adrienne Kalosieh, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent H.G. in A-1801-24 and A-1802-24 (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, A-3362-23 7 attorney; Adrienne Kalosieh, of counsel and on the brief). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency in A-3362-23 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle McBrian, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency in A-3391-23 and A-3850- 23 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency in A-3710-23 and A-3898- 23 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julia B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency in A-3789-23 and A-3791- 23 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency in A-4045-23 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of A-3362-23 8 counsel; Nicholas Dolinsky, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency in A-0097-24, A-0102-24, and A-0103-24 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent in A-0271-24 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Nicholas Dolinsky, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Leah A. Schmidt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent in A-1801-24 and A-1802-24 (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Randi Mandelbaum argued the cause for amici curiae Rutgers Child Advocacy Clinic, and Advocates for Children of New Jersey (Rutgers Child Advocacy Clinic, and Advocates for Children of New Jersey, attorneys; Randi Mandelbaum, Mary E. Coogan, Jared M. H. Flanery, and Meghan K. Knapp, on the briefs). Mitchell Y. Mirviss (Venable LLP) of the District of Columbia and Maryland bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for amici curiae Children's Advocacy Institute, Children's Rights, Facing Foster Care in Alaska, Juvenile Law Center, Lawyers for Children, Legal Aid Society, National Center for the Rights of Abused Children, National Foster Youth Institute, and Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public A-3362-23 9  Interest in A-1801-24 and A-1802-24 (Mitchell Y. Mirviss, attorney; Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Jessie F. Beeber (Venable LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Stephanie P. Diu (Venable LLP) of the New York bar, of counsel; Patrick J. Boyle and Michael A. Guerra, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by SUMNERS, JR., C.J.A.D. In these fourteen appeals, which were calendared back-to-back, argued together, and consolidated for purposes of issuing a single opinion, we are asked to determine whether the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), in its capacity as representative payee designated by the Social Security Administration (SSA), can use the fourteen minors' Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (survivor) benefits (collectively, Social Security benefits) to reimburse itself for the maintenance costs incurred for the minors' care and custody. The eight Family Part courts issued orders dismissing the minors' motions to terminate the Division's reimbursement practice. The courts, in various ways, determined that: (1) they lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the issue was preempted by the Social Security Act (the Act); (2) the Division's practice does not violate state law; (3) the minors' due process rights were not violated by the Division's failure to notify them of its intent to use their Social Security benefits for reimbursement; and (4) the minors' equal A-3362-23 10 protection rights were not violated when the Division used their Social Security benefits for reimbursement but did not seek reimbursement from minors without Social Security benefits. We affirm the dismissal orders but take a different path in doing so. We disagree with the trial courts' determination that federal law preempts state court review. Several states, including New Jersey through N.J.S.A. 9:6B-7, have enacted laws specifying how, if at all, their administrative agencies can use the Social Security benefits of minors under state care and custody for reimbursement of maintenance costs, and the Supreme Court of the United States has approved of such practices. Because Congress's intent to fully occupy the field is not clear from federal law, and family law is an area of law traditionally regulated by states, state courts can review the minors' claims against the Division. We, however, agree with some of the trial courts' determinations that the Division's actions did not violate state law. Until the recent enactment of N.J.S.A. 9:6B-7, effective December 1, 2026, state law has not prohibited the Division's reimbursement efforts. See L. 2025, c. 162 § 1. And although N.J.S.A. 30:4C-30 requires the State to bear the cost of maintenance for children under its care and custody, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-22 allows the Division to apply funds—other than earned income, the corpus of a trust, devise or A-3362-23 11 intestate share, insurance proceeds or a personal injury award—to offset maintenance expenses for a child under its custody, care, guardianship, or placed in a resource family home. We hold that SSA representative payee accounts are not trust accounts and are not excluded as a permissible source of reimbursement. Furthermore, we conclude that the minors' due process and equal protection claims lack merit. The Division's failure to provide advance notice of its intent to file a representative payee application does not violate the minors' due process rights because the risk of erroneous deprivation is low, the current procedures afford sufficient notice, and additional procedures would not affect a minors' eligibility for benefits. As for the equal protection claim, the minors do not show that they are similarly situated to the proposed comparator groups because the alleged distinctions are created by the Act not the Division. Moreover, the Division's policy survives rational basis scrutiny as the State has a legitimate interest in the policy which is rationally related to the classification it has created. I. We briefly summarize the undisputed factual and procedural background involving each minor appellant: I.V., A-3362-23: Survivor Benefits A-3362-23 12  I.V. was born on May 6, 2008 to H.V. (mother) and W.D. (father). Following W.D.'s death in January 2020, I.V. began receiving survivor benefits under the Act. On July 19, 2022, the trial court issued an order approving I.V.'s removal and granting the Division's application for ongoing care, custody, and supervision of I.V. H.V. consented to the trial court's order, and the Division placed I.V. in the care of L.L. (maternal grandmother). In October of 2022, the SSA granted the Division's application to be appointed I.V.'s representative payee. About two months later, the SSA denied L.L.'s application to become I.V.'s representative payee, stating "it would be best for [I.V.] to have his checks sent to another payee." The Division later used I.V.'s survivor benefits to offset maintenance costs for his care. Subsequent efforts by I.V. to prevent the Division from using his survivor benefits to offset maintenance costs and to have L.L. or H.V. become his representative payee culminated in an April 24, 2024 court order denying I.V.'s reconsideration motion. The court reiterated its denial of I.V.'s requested relief in its August 9, 2023 order dismissing his motion without prejudice because he had not exhausted administrative remedies under the Act. The court noted in its oral decision that the Division "was not acting in [I.V.'s] best interests" and that the funds "should be held in trust for [I.V.]" but it was A-3362-23 13 constrained by the procedural requirements under the Act. On May 15, 2024, the court issued an order and oral decision terminating the litigation. T.T.H., JR. and C.C.P.H., A-3391-23 & A-3850-23: Survivor Benefits T.T.H., Jr., born October 28, 2008, and C.C.P.H., born July 10, 2011, are the sons of D.H., their mother, who died in October 2021. Three days after D.H.'s death, the trial court granted the Division's request for custody and care of the children at an order to show cause hearing. The minors' father had previously been ordered not to have contact with them. On January 23, 2022, the SSA approved the Division's application to serve as the minors' representative payee. The Division applied the funds to their maintenance expenses and held any excess money on their behalf in interest-bearing accounts. On July 9, 2023, T.T.H., Jr. and C.C.P.H. filed a motion seeking that the court: require the Division to cease using their survivor benefits to reimburse maintenance costs and return all funds; prevent the Division from objecting to the maternal grandmother's application to serve as their representative payee; and compel an accounting of the survivor benefits it received. On January 12, 2024, the trial court issued an order and statement of reasons denying the minors' motion, finding that "federal preemption prevent[ed] [it] . . . from granting the [requested] relief." Three months later, A-3362-23 14 the court denied their reconsideration motion and granted the minors' application for a stay of the disbursement of any SSI funds pending appeal. On June 24, the court issued an order and oral decision terminating litigation and granting Kinship Legal Guardianship (KLG) to the maternal grandmother. A.R.H. and A.H., A-3710-23: Survivor Benefits A.R.H., born January 16, 2008, and A.H., born September 2, 2013, are the children of A.D., the mother, and A.H., the father. A.H. passed away in September 2018, and A.D. was designated as the representative payee of the minors' survivor benefits. On January 26, 2022, the Division removed the children from their mother's care due to physical abuse and substance abuse issues and placed them with a paternal uncle. Two days later, the court issued an order and oral decision placing the children in the Division's custody. On June 29, the SSA approved the Division's application to serve as the minors' representative payee. The minors subsequently moved to enjoin the Division from using their survivor benefits to reimburse maintenance costs, return the benefits that had been applied to maintenance costs, and provide an accounting of the benefits received. A-3362-23 15  On May 30, the trial court issued an order and written decision denying the minors' motion, finding that their arguments were preempted by federal law, and dismissing their due process and equal protection arguments based on Guardianship Estate of Keffeler v. State (Keffeler III), 88 P.3d 949 (Wash. 2004). Three weeks later, the court issued an order terminating litigation because the minors were placed in the care of their maternal grandparents. C.J. and A.K.A., A-3789-23 & A-3791-23: Survivor Benefits C.J., born September 27, 2007, and A.K.A., born April 6, 2009, share a mother but have different fathers. Their mother passed away in May 2022. On June 27, 2022, the trial court granted the Division's application for custody and care of the minors. A few months later, the SSA approved the Division's application to serve as the minors' representative payee. On April 29, 2024, the minors moved to have the Division cease using their survivor benefits to reimburse maintenance costs, objected to the maternal grandmother's appointment as representative payee, requested the return of the benefits, and asked for an accounting of the benefits received. The trial court denied the motion in a June 4 order and a statement of reasons finding that it lacked jurisdiction over federal claims but granted the minors' accounting demands. Two weeks later, the trial court issued a written order terminating litigation and granting KLG to the maternal grandmother. A-3362-23 16  M.V., A-4045-23: Survivor Benefits M.V. was born on August 28, 2018. His father passed away almost two months before his birth. On February 25, 2020, M.V. was removed from his mother's custody due to her substance abuse. Three months later, the SSA approved the Division's application to serve as the minor's representative payee. A February 22, 2022 court order placed M.V. under the Division's guardianship, which was affirmed on appeal. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.M., No. A-2072-21 (App. Div. Apr. 11, 2023) (slip op. at 17). Following a court-ordered accounting of the Division's use of the survivor benefits, M.V. moved on December 21, 2023, to compel the Division to return $15,870 it withdrew from his payee account while he was in placement. On July 11, 2024, the trial court issued an order and oral decision denying M.V.'s motion, finding that he failed to show there was "an excess of funds that should have been set aside for [him] in a[n] [interest bearing account]" since the monthly reimbursement cost was $763 and exceeded the monthly SSI benefits of $411. Although the trial court didn't address federal preemption, it reasoned that the Division's actions complied with the Act. A-3362-23 17 That same day, the trial court terminated the litigation because M.V. was adopted by his paternal aunt. J.C.P., J.E.P., and J.M.P., A-0097-24, A-0102-24 & A-0103-24: SSI Benefits J.C.P., J.E.P., and J.M.P. are triplets with multiple disabilities born on February 19, 2013. The SSA found them eligible for SSI benefits on January 24, 2023. On November 18, 2022, the trial court approved the Division's emergent removal and placed the children in the Division's custody. Two months later, the SSA approved the Division's request to serve as the minors' representative payee in place of their mother. At a permanency hearing on April 10, 2024, where the Division sought to have the triplets adopted by their resource parents, the minors requested that the court bar the Division from using the children's SSI benefits to offset maintenance costs. On July 29, 2024, the trial court issued an order and oral decision denying the minors' motion to: bar the Division from using their SSI benefits to offset maintenance costs; place the SSI benefits in an account; and require the Division to provide notice to the court and minors prior to using SSI benefits for reimbursement. The trial court reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction to hear federal claims. The court also terminated the litigation and ordered A-3362-23 18 that the Division retain legal custody of the minors, and the resource parents retain physical custody of them. M.M., A-0271-24: Survivor Benefits M.M. was born on August 15, 2006. Her mother passed away on September 29, 2018. On July 19, 2022, the Division obtained custody of M.M. and placed her in a non-relative resource home. Two months later, the SSA approved the Division's request to become the M.M.'s representative payee. On June 7, 2024, the trial court denied M.M.'s motion to stop the Division from using her survivor benefits for reimbursement purposes but granted her request that the Division provide an accounting of her survivor benefits and required the Division to assist her in becoming her own representative payee. The trial court reasoned that the Division's practice "no matter how abhorrent it may seem," was authorized under New Jersey law. The trial court also denied M.M.'s request for the Division to open a separate account as moot. J.G., III and I.G., A-1801-24 & A-1802-24: SSI benefits On December 5, 2017, H.G., the paternal grandmother, obtained care and custody of J.G., III, born June 16, 2006, and I.G., born July 26, 2009, who are disabled and were removed from their mother's care due to concerns of A-3362-23 19 neglect. In June 2023, the Division emergently removed the children from H.G.'s home and placed them in the Division's custody. Four months later, the Division's application to the SSA to become the minors' representative payee was approved. On April 16, 2024, H.G. moved for the court to order the Division to pay over $6,000 of her past bills because she was dependent on the children's SSI benefits. The court issued a written order and oral decision requiring the Division to pay H.G.'s mortgage, car payment, and utility costs. The Division moved for a stay and reconsideration of the order; the court reversed its order in part rescinding the requirement to pay H.G.'s car loan. On April 19, the trial court issued a written order requiring the Division to provide "particularized accounting" of its use of the children's SSI funds. After J.G., III and I.G. were reunited with H.G., on March 15 and June 6, respectively, the Division notified the SSA that it was no longer the children's legal custodian, relinquished its payee status, and returned the children's conserved funds to the SSA. On June 7, J.G., III and I.G. filed a motion seeking: (1) the Division to repay the SSI funds it used to offset maintenance costs; and (2) provide a final accounting of its use of the children's SSI benefits. After a motion hearing on September 3, the trial court issued a written order and oral decision on A-3362-23 20 September 20, denying the minors' motion without prejudice. The trial court reasoned that because the minors' arguments were preempted by federal law, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the federal claims, and the Division's actions were permitted under New Jersey law. On January 6, 2025, the court issued an order and oral decision terminating the litigation because the children were returned home and conditions had been remediated. II. To avoid a repetitive and unnecessary recitation of each trial court's decision, we summarize them except to highlight a particular court's reasoning. In denying the minors' requests to cease the Division's use of their Social Security benefits and to refund those benefits, seven of the eight trial courts found that they lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption. Because 42 U.S.C. § 405(a) vests in the SSA Commissioner the exclusive "authority to make rules and regulations . . . necessary or appropriate to carry out such provisions" of the Act, the trial courts determined that our state courts have no lawful authority under New Jersey law to monitor the Division's use of Social Security benefits as the minors' representative payee. Federal preemption was also evident when the United States Supreme Court recognized that "a [representative] payee must expend funds 'only for the use and benefit of the beneficiary,' in a way that the payee determines 'to be in the [beneficiary's] A-3362-23 21 best interest.'" Wash. State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Est. of Keffeler (Keffeler II), 537 U.S. 371, 376 (2003) (second alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2035(a), 416.635(a)). Six of the eight trial courts also relied on a Maryland Court of Appeals decision, In re Ryan W., 76 A.3d 1049, 1061-63 (Md. 2013), which held that amendments to the Act enhancing the "'monitoring of institutional representative payees'" and giving federal remedies for the misuse of Social Security benefits indicate federal preemption over "'disputes regarding the allocation of benefits by representative payees.'" Six of the eight trial courts dismissed the minors' argument—that the Legislature's intent to prohibit the Division's reimbursement policy could be gleaned from the amendment to N.J.S.A. 9:6B-4. part of the Child Placement Bill of Rights (CPBR). That amendment, effective January 16, 2024, requires the Division to notify a child in its care of the Division's "intent to file for federal benefits on the child's behalf." N.J.S.A. 9:6B-4(z). The amendment was considered by the six courts as merely authorizing them to enforce the Division's obligation to provide notice to a child under its care, custody, and supervision. Two trial courts viewed the primary issue as a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in 42 U.S.C. § 405(b), and three viewed the A-3362-23 22 issue as one of misuse. One court cited an Indiana Court of Appeals decision, Randall v. Woodson, 212 N.E.3d 691, 693, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), where a trust beneficiary sued an individual acting as representative payee to recover misused Social Security benefits, and the court found the claims preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1383, which is "directed at preventing, identifying, and rectifying the misuse of benefit funds by representative payees." Id. at 695. Trial courts that addressed the merits of the minors' claims determined that the Division's reimbursement policy did not violate state law. Although the policy was considered unfair to the minors, there was no law preventing it. In fact, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-22, was seen as conferring to the Division the control over the minors' assets and the ability to use them to cover their maintenance costs. As for the trial court that addressed the state constitutional equal protection and due process claims, it relied on the Washington Supreme Court's opinion in Keffeler III. The equal protection claims were dismissed because "there was only one group of foster children" and the Division was using the Social Security benefits "lawfully under state and federal laws and regulations." Keffeler III, 88 P.3d at 954. Therefore, the trial court reasoned, the minors were not treated differently from others under the Division's care and custody who have assets from jobs or inheritance that are used to offset A-3362-23 23 maintenance costs. The court did not directly address the minors' due process claims regarding failure to provide notice of the Division's reimbursement measures, but relied on the reasoning in Keffeler III, which held that the "federal notice sent to beneficiaries and their guardians is sufficient to fulfil any procedural due process rights the children may have." 88 P.3d at 956. III. Our resolution of these appeals turns on: (1) whether state courts have jurisdiction to decide if the Division can use minors' Social Security benefits to reimburse the agency for the maintenance costs of their care, custody and supervision; and if so, (2) whether the Division's reimbursement actions violate state law or constitutional due process and equal protection rights. We address these issues in turn. IV. FEDERAL PREEMPTION Arguments The minors aver that the trial courts erred in holding that the courts lack jurisdiction over their Social Security benefits claims. They emphasize that a family court's inherent equitable parens patriae authority allows it to intervene and override the Division's policy of using Social Security benefits to offset maintenance costs. See Hoefers v. Jones, 288 N.J. Super. 590, 607-08 (App. A-3362-23 24 Div. 1994). They contend that the Child Placement Review Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-50 to -65, and the CPBR authorize the family court to intervene and protect the child's best interests, which is the situation here. The minors2 assert that the Act does not preempt New Jersey law because they are not claiming the Division misused their Social Security benefits, which falls under the purview of the SSA and not state court. The dispute here, the minors contend, is whether New Jersey law prohibits the practice. The minors contend that the trial court misinterpreted 42 U.S.C. § 405(a) as preempting New Jersey law because although the Act's regulations govern the designation of representative payees and the scope of their fiduciary duties, the regulations are silent on whether a state can utilize Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for a minor's maintenance costs. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.2035(a). The minors 3 also argue that there are no federal statutes or regulations providing an equitable remedy for the Division's actions in utilizing SSI benefits to offset maintenance costs. For instance, the minors allege "restitution against state or local government agencies who serve as 2 M.V. did not address federal preemption in his brief. 3 M.V. did not address federal remedies for misuse of SSI benefits in his brief. A-3362-23 25 representative payees" is precluded per 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(7)(A), which governs misuse of funds. Thus, the minors contend the Division's reimbursement policy should be reviewable by a state court to prevent the Division from being immune from liability and to hold the Division accountable to the minors. Lastly, the minors contend the courts' reliance on Keffeler II and Ryan W. are misplaced because those cases are distinguishable from the present matter. They note that the state statutes implicated in Keffeler II and Ryan W. expressly required the Division to use Social Security benefits to offset maintenance costs, whereas here, they argue New Jersey law, prior to the enactment of N.J.S.A. 9:6B-7, prohibited it. Moreover, the minors argue Keffeler II is distinguishable because it focused on whether maintenance costs amounted to an "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process" under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), whereas here, the minors challenge the Division's maintenance costs based on New Jersey law. 537 U.S. at 382. The minors contend that the Supreme Court's analysis in Keffeler II affirming Washington State's reimbursement practice was dicta, and its discussion on the best interests of the child implicated Chevron4 deference to the SSA, which has 4 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). A-3362-23 26 since been overruled in Loper Bright Ent. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), and is thus not binding. The minors add that, to the extent the Supreme Court's approval is relevant, it indicates "consideration of state law is essential to the ultimate determination on this issue." Amici Rutgers Law School Child Advocacy Clinic and Advocates for Children of New Jersey present no argument regarding federal preemption. Amici Child-Advocacy Organizations 5 agree with the minors' contention that the Act does not preempt New Jersey law and that the minors are not required to exhaust federal remedies before bringing a claim in state court. The Division contends that "[c]ongressional intent to preempt state jurisdiction and fully occupy the field in this case is 'clear and manifest.'" See Health Maintenance Org. of New Jersey, Inc. v. Whitman, 72 F.3d 1123, 1127 (3rd. Cir. 1995). It argues that the minors' claims are subject to federal preemption because they constitute allegations of misuse of benefits , which, under the Act's comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme, are expressly resolved by the SSA and, thereafter, federal court. Thus, minors must exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in the SSA. 5 These organizations are comprised of the Children's Advocacy Institute, Children's Rights, Facing Foster Care in Alaska, Juvenile Law Center, Lawyers for Children, Legal Aid Society, National Center for the Rights of Abused Children, National Foster Youth Institute, and Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest. A-3362-23 27  The Division asserts that other states' laws addressing their use of Social Security benefits do not invite federal preemption because the laws were "carefully crafted to fall well within the benefit use permitted under federal law" and do not "attempt to confer jurisdiction onto state courts to resolve claims of benefit misuse," which is the case here. The Division argues that despite its parens patriae role over the minors, state court jurisdiction is not conveyed over allegations that it misused their Social Security benefits as their representative payees. State court jurisdiction, according to the Division, is not conferred by the requirement under N.J.S.A. 9:6B-4(z) that minors be notified of the Division's plan to be appointed as representative payee of their Social Security benefits. The Division rebuts the minors' claim that the Act provides no remedy, arguing that it explicitly precludes liability from governmental agency payees like the Division, pointing to 42 U.S.C.