A quadriplegic woman from Michigan who was not allowed to be a foster parent did not present an adequate plan, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Zamaria Metcalf sued the state of Michigan, the Ennis Center for Children, and four individual defendants. She claimed violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
Twenty years ago, Metcalf was paralyzed from the neck down in a car accident. She uses a motorized wheelchair and only has limited use of her left hand.
Metcalf’s insurance pays for her full-time caretakers, and she also pays family members and friends to help with her daily activities.
Despite these limitations, Metcalf has cared for children, including her nephew, who called her a “great parent.”
Child Protective Services has also placed children in Metcalf’s home. As Circuit Judge Rachel Bloomekatz described, “she played with them, imposed discipline, provided emotional guidance, initiated medical care, and generally ensured the children were taken care of. In other words, she performed the mental and emotional tasks one would expect of a parental figure.”
Metcalf wanted to be become a foster parent like her mother and aunt. She applied to care for up to three children between the ages of 4 and 18.
However, her doctor, Neil Friedman, filled out a form that stated that her physical condition would not allow her to care for children.
In the deposition, Friedman stated, “she cannot even care for herself.”
However, he did state that Metcalf could succeed as a foster parent if she paid for help out of her own pocket.
In 2020, the Division of Child Welfare Licensing told Metcalf that her application was being closed. This was different than a denial, which would have barred her from reapplying for five years.
Metcalf sued for disability discrimination, but the Eastern Michigan federal court ruled against her.
The 6th Circuit Court of appeals upheld the decision in an opinion written by Bloomekatz.
“Although we reject the defendants’ argument that each of Metcalf’s aides would need to be separately licensed as foster parents, we agree with their second reason for rejecting Metcalf’s accommodation request: Metcalf had not secured—nor even promised to secure—supplemental care that would reliably provide the type of full-time physical assistance needed for her to care for foster children,” she wrote.
The judge acknowledged value of Metcalf’s “loose network of over 20 different friends and family members.”
“But we agree with the defendants that placing foster children in Metcalf’s care without more concrete assurance that Metcalf could reliably meet the physical needs of foster children would fundamentally alter the licensure system and is, therefore, not a reasonable accommodation,” Bloomekatz added.
