Samantha A. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Samantha A. v. Dep t of Soc. & Health Servs. No. 84325-2 MADSEN, C.J. (concurring in dissent) I concur in the dissent. However, I disagree that our decision in Jenkins v. Department of Social & Health Services, 160 Wn.2d 287, 157 P.3d 388 (2007), is distinguishable. In that case, the department reduced a recipient s qualified level of care hours by the percentage of time devoted by live-in caregivers to household tasks if a caregiver resides with a recipient on the assumption that the caregiver benefited from those tasks as well. I see little difference between this case and Jenkins in that the department here reduces the recipient s care hours through a formula designed to capture the hours of care that a parent provides as part of parental responsibility based on age. As in Jenkins, this formula also rests on an assumption that the parent is meeting the child s needs. Nevertheless, because I agree with the dissent s analysis and believe it is inconsistent with Jenkins, I would overrule Jenkins as incorrect and harmful. No. 84325-2 AUTHOR: Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen WE CONCUR: Justice Mary E. Fairhurst 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
