2162 Good Cause for Failure to Cooperate - In rare instances the caretaker may be deemed to have good cause for refusing to cooperate in establishing paternity and securing support payments. Examples of such cases would be those in which it has been determined that pursuing paternity/support is against the best interest of the child or the caretaker. EES staff have the ultimate responsibility for determining the validity of good cause claims; CSS and Prevention and Protection Services staff may also be involved in making a recommendation for such determinations to EES.

For food assistance, if the person is receiving TANF or Child Care and has already been determined to be cooperating, or has been determined to have good cause for not cooperating, then it shall be determined that the individual is cooperating for food assistance purposes.

The caretaker is primarily responsible for providing documentary evidence required to substantiate a good cause claim. When necessary, the agency shall assist the client in securing any evidence that the client cannot reasonably obtain.

Good cause for failure to cooperate must relate to one of the following criteria:

1. The child was conceived as a result of incest or rape;
    
2. There are legal proceedings for adoption of the child pending before a court;
    
3. The caretaker is currently being assisted by a public or licensed private social agency to resolve the issue of whether to keep the child or relinquish the child for adoption;
    

    4. The caretaker was a victim of sexual harassment and survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking whereby compliance with program  

        requirements would increase risk of harm for the individual or any children in the individual’s case. This includes participants in the Safe at Home program.

        Sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking includes acts on the part of perpetrators that result in:
 

1. physical acts resulting in, or threatening to result in, physical injury;
    
2. sexual abuse, sexual activity involving dependent children, or threats of or attempts at sexual abuse;
    
3. mental abuse, including threats, intimidation, acts designed to induce terror, or restraints on liberty, or stalking;
    
4. deprivation of medical care, housing, food or other necessities of life.
   
   

     5. During a non-cooperation penalty period on a child care case, the caretaker has reestablished cooperation with Child Support Services and needs child

         care to participate in a TANF or Food Assistance work program.

Good cause claims must be confirmed or substantiated. Uncorroborated statements of the caretaker do not constitute documentary evidence; the mere belief that pursuing paternity or support is not in the client's or the child's best interest is not sufficient evidence. An individual’s statement and one corroborating piece of evidence shall meet the burden of proof unless there is an independent reasonable basis to doubt the veracity of the statement. Evidence may include, but is not limited to:

1. Police or court records,
    

2. Court documents which indicate that legal proceedings for adoption of the child are pending,
    

3. Protection from abuse (PFA) orders (filed for and/or obtained),
    

4. Written statement from a public or licensed private social agency substantiating the fact that the client is involved in resolving the issue of whether to keep or relinquish the child for adoption,
    

5. Documentation from a shelter worker, attorney, clergy, medical or other professional from whom the client has sought assistance,
    

6. Other corroborating evidence such as a statement from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances which provide the basis for the claim, or physical evidence of domestic violence or any other evidence which supports the statement.
   

7. The authorization card provided to participants with the Safe at Home mailing address, a contact phone number, the participant number, and an expiration date.
    

Exception: Regardless of the policy in this section regarding uncorroborated statements by caretakers, in extremely rare situations such as when an individual is in hiding and is afraid that there could be information disclosed that could reveal her whereabouts and where the worker does not doubt the veracity of the individual’s statement, a written statement from the victim signed under penalty of perjury shall meet the burden of proof.
 

In most instances a good cause determination should be made within 60 days following the receipt of such claim. Exceptions to this would include such situations as when the evidence is extremely difficult to obtain.

The Career Navigator is required to notify eligibility staff when good cause has been established for work program participants due to domestic violence. EES is responsible for notifying CSS of pending good cause claims and subsequent determinations. On new cases this can often be accomplished at the time initial eligibility is determined. For child care, specialists should complete the good cause fields on KEES to notify CSS if the claim is pending, confirmed, or denied. The good cause provisions do not negate the timely referral of absent parent cases to CSS . Once a claim of good cause has been substantiated, it shall be reviewed as often as necessary and at each periodic review.

EES staff shall not deny, delay, or discontinue assistance pending a good cause determination as long as the caretaker has complied with the requirement of providing evidence or other necessary information. If assistance is granted pending a determination of good cause and it is subsequently determined that the claim is invalid, the assistance granted shall not be considered an overpayment.

NOTE: Do not confuse cases that involve good cause with routine cases of noncooperation. A client's claim of good cause does not negate the requirement for the assignment of support rights.

NOTE: Due to the different program rules about applying penalties for non-cooperation without good cause, there may be some instances of a TANF or FA recipient who may need child care during a penalty period of ineligibility for child care in order to participate in a TANF or FA work program.  In those instances, provided that the client has reestablished cooperation, they will be deemed to have good cause and child care will be allowed under these circumstances.

2162.1 Grandparent as Caregiver Good Cause for Failure to Cooperate - In rare instances the caretaker may have good cause for refusing to cooperate in establishing paternity and securing support payments, as described in 2162.

The caretaker is primarily responsible for providing documentary evidence required to substantiate a good cause claim. When necessary, the agency shall assist the client in securing any evidence that the client cannot reasonably obtain.

Grandparent cases not meeting one of the good cause criteria listed in 2162 may meet good cause criteria for non-cooperation with CSS if all of the following exist:

1. The caretaker relative is not a biological or adoptive parent of the child(ren) receiving CSS services;
   
   
2. At least one child (of common parents) is a minor;
   
   
3. The grandparent does not have legal custody (i.e. any court order that would allow him/her to refuse to surrender physical custody of a minor child to the parent);
   
   
4. Consensus of the DCF Integrated Services Team (composed at minimum of the TANF and CSS workers assigned) is that the grandparent has a factual basis for believing that action by CSS to establish or enforce a parent’s duty of support will cause the grandparent to lose physical custody of child. For this paragraph, it does not matter whether the parent who might demand surrender of child is the immediate target of CSS activity or the other parent;
   
   
5. Consensus of the DCF Integrated Services Team (composed at minimum of the TANF and CSS workers assigned) is that, at the time of evaluating the good cause claim, it appears to be in the child’s best interests for the grandparent to retain physical custody;
   
   
6. Consensus of the DCF Integrated Services Team that the grandparent should be instructed to pursue legal custody arrangements;
   
   
7. Good cause under this provision is good for six months;
   
   
8. Good cause under this provision has been determined to exist no more than once in the preceding 24 months, and;
   
   
9. Good cause under this provision is to be reevaluated at review or sooner if deemed necessary by the IST or the grandparent does not take steps to obtain legal custody.
   
   

Specific, formal documentation (for example, a police report) is not required, but the caretaker relative must have some factual basis for his/her expectation that CSS activity would cause loss of physical custody. Examples of such factual basis include, but are not limited to, recent oral or written statements by the parent or prior actions by the parent. Credibility is determined by the participating members of the DCF Integrated Services Team.

NOTE: If the child has more than one absent parent, the determination of good cause must be made independently for each parent.