Background
Kenneth and Angela Hensley sued SCDSS on behalf of their minor child and a proposed class after the agency reduced an adoption-assistance subsidy. They characterized the adoption-assistance agreement as a contract and pursued a third-party-beneficiary theory. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment on liability without requiring the family to complete the administrative review process provided for subsidy disputes.
The appeal placed those facts in the procedural framework governing administrative law, breach of contract, class actions. The court reviewed the preserved questions under the standards applicable to the tribunal and ruling below, while keeping separate factual disputes, legal conclusions, and issues that could be reached on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. The governing program supplied an administrative mechanism to challenge the reduced subsidy, and the family had not exhausted that remedy or established that an administrative appeal would have been futile. Recasting the dispute as contract and declaratory-relief claims did not permit the plaintiffs to bypass an available process capable of addressing the challenged agency action.
The result is tied to the record and posture before the court. Practitioners should read the disposition together with the court’s preservation and standard-of-review analysis; the opinion does not create broader relief than was necessary to resolve the issues properly presented.
Key Takeaways
- A contract label does not eliminate an exhaustion requirement when the dispute centers on agency administration of a statutory program.
- Futility requires a developed showing; a party may not assume the administrative process will be ineffective.
- Class allegations do not cure the named plaintiff’s failure to pursue an available individual remedy.
Why It Matters
South Carolina counsel evaluating agency-benefit litigation should map the administrative path before filing in circuit court. The complaint’s theory and requested relief matter less than whether the agency process can correct the challenged decision. Preserving deadlines and building the agency record may be essential even when the eventual lawsuit will assert contractual or class-wide claims.
The immediate practice point is to develop the decisive facts at the earliest stage and connect each requested remedy to the correct South Carolina authority. Clear preservation, a complete record, and precise proposed findings will make later review more useful and reduce the risk that procedure controls an otherwise substantial issue.