Los Angeles County v. Department of Social Welfare
| Decision Date | 26 November 1952 |
| Parties | LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE et al. * Civ. 18748. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Lee B. Stanton, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents (named in petition) and appellants.
Kenny & Morris and Eleanor V. Jackson, Los Angeles, for intervenors and appellants.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Gerald G. Kelly, Asst. County Counsel, and John B. Anson, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for petitioner and respondent (on appeal).
In a petition for a writ of mandate, filed in the superior court, the Department of Social Welfare of California and its director, and the Social Welfare Board of California and its members, were named as respondents. They are the appellants herein. The appeal is from a judgment ordering them to set aside orders which they made upon certain appeals by recipients of old age security and aid to needy blind.
In May, 1949, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County adopted a new policy with respect to giving financial aid to an indigent person whose spouse is a recipient of old age security or aid to needy blind, when the spouses are living together. That policy was to the effect that in determining the amount to be given monthly as such indigent aid, the amount received monthly by the indigent person's spouse as old age security or blind aid should be deducted from the amount which the board of supervisors determined was needed monthly for the support of the husband and wife, living together, as a family unit. Thus, if the supervisors determined that the amount needed monthly for the support of the husband and wife, living together, was $90, and if the husband received $75 per month as old age security, the amount of $15 would be allowed to the wife as indigent aid. Prior to adopting such new policy, the board of supervisors, in determining the amount needed by an indigent spouse, did not regard the old age security or blind aid of the other spouse as family income.
Old age security in the sum of $75 per month is provided by the federal, state, and county governments jointly to persons who have attained the age of 65 years and who have certain residence requirements and certain limited property holdings. The amount paid by each government per month is as follows: federal, $30; state, $38.58; county, $6.42.
Aid to the needy blind in the sum of $85 per month is also provided by those governments to persons with certain degrees of blindness who have certain residence requirements and certain limited property holdings. The amount paid by each government per month is as follows: federal, $30; state, $41.25; county, $13.75.
Applications for old age security and aid to the needy blind are made to, and determined by, the board of supervisors. Such old age security and blind aid are paid by the county with its own money and money furnished by the state and federal governments.
Also applications for indigent aid are made to, and determined by, the county. Such aid is furnished by the county from its own funds and facilities. At the time said new policy of the supervisors (regarding aid to indigents) was adopted, ten certain persons, among many others, were recipients of old age security in the sum of $75 each per month; and one person, among many others, was a recipient of aid to the needy blind in the sum of $85 per month. (The names of those eleven persons are stated in the petition herein.) The amounts received by them were the maximum amounts allowed by statute. At the time of adopting the new policy, each of said persons was married and was living with his or her spouse. Also at said time, each spouse of each such recipient was an applicant for indigent aid. After the new policy became effective, the board of supervisors reconsidered the matter of the amount of aid to be awarded, upon the basis of need, to said indigent spouses. In fixing the amount to be so awarded upon such reconsideration, the board made a determination as to the amount required to meet the needs of the husband and wife living together and then deducted from said amount the amount of old age security or blind aid received by the spouse of the indigent person, and the difference between those amounts (if the amount needed by husband and wife exceeded the amount of old age or blind aid) was the amount awarded as indigent aid. Under the former method of fixing the amount to be awarded to an indigent spouse (wherein old age or blind aid of the other spouse was not regarded as family income), the total amount received by the husband and wife was larger than the total amount received by them under the new method. It may be stated generally that the total amount received monthly by the husband and wife, under the former method, exceeded the total amounts received monthly by them, under the new method, in various sums ranging from approximately $12 to $48.
Each of the eleven persons, acting through the Citizens Committee for Old Age Pensions, sent a letter to the Director of the Department of Social Welfare, stating that he (or she) was dissatisfied with the action of the board of supervisors and was appealing to said department to prohibit the board of supervisors from considering his (or her) $75 old age security grant as family income and allotting a portion of it to meet the needs of his wife (or husband), who is a general relief applicant. The spouse who was an applicant for general or indigent relief was not a party to the appeal.
The Social Welfare Board notified the county that the board would hear the appeals on August 24, 1950. The county, acting through its superintendent of charities, sent a letter on August 17, 1950, to the Social Welfare Board stating that neither the Social Welfare Board nor the Department of Social Welfare of California had jurisdiction over the general relief policy of the county of Los Angeles, and that no representative of the Department of Charities of Los Angeles County would appear at the hearing for the purpose of discussing general relief.
On August 24, 1950, the Social Welfare Board decided that it would hear the appeals; and thereafter the matters were continued to October 20, 1950. On October 18th, the County of Los Angeles filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court (action No. 579018, superior court). An alternative writ of mandate was issued and an order was made temporarily restraining the Social Welfare Board from proceeding further with the appeals. The eleven persons, who had appealed to the Department of Social Welfare, intervened in said action as respondents. On October 30, 1950, the superior court denied the petition for a writ of mandate, discharged the alternative writ and the temporary restraining order. The county appealed from that judgment, and an opinion on that appeal has been filed this day, Cal.App., 250 P.2d 716.
On November 17, 1950, the Social Welfare Board commenced the hearings in said eleven matters. The county of Los Angeles filed written objections to the jurisdiction of the Social Welfare Board, and the objections were overruled. The said board made findings in each of the eleven matters. Some of the findings in the matters pertaining to old age security were, in substance, as follows: Since July 1, 1949, Los Angeles County, pursuant to order of its board of supervisors, has followed the policy of treating payments under the old age security program as income to a family unit, comprising the recipient of such aid and his ineligible spouse, and applying such program payments to the general relief needs of the spouse; the result has been to require the old age security recipient, through duress, to support his (or her) indigent spouse or to let him (or her) starve or live apart; a further effect has been to divert a portion of old age security to the support of a spouse of a recipient, thus diverting federal or state funds from the purpose for which they were appropriated, and to subsidize the general relief program of Los Angeles County; in the application of said policy Los Angeles County has treated the spouses who were recipients of old age security as paupers on a par with their indigent spouses; by said policy and practice the county has made restricted payments of old age security; federal funds granted to California, on condition that they be used exclusively for old age assistance, have been alienated and diverted to the payment of general relief for indigent spouses; by such practice the county has failed to provide the recipients of old age security with the protection, care, and assistance to which they are entitled under standards established by the old age security law.
The Social Welfare Board made determinations of issues, pertaining to old age security, in substance, as follows: The Social Welfare Board had no general jurisdiction over general relief policy as such; it is not authorized to enforce the duty of the county to make general relief payments to aid indigent persons; however, in order to conform with the requirements of the federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., the Legislature of California has enacted section 2141 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, whereunder it is the duty of the Department of Social Welfare and the Social Welfare Board to supervise and pass upon the measures taken by the county boards of supervisors for the care of needy aged citizens to the end that they shall receive suitable care and that there shall be throughout the State a uniform method of treatment of aged persons based upon their individual needs and circumstances; it is the duty of the Social Welfare Board to take corrective action wherever a policy of a county obstructs the administration of laws respecting old age security, and such action may take the form of accepting jurisdiction in appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Detrich
...county. The superior court denied the writ and the county appealed. While this appeal was pending (County of Los Angeles v. Dept. of Social Welfare (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 827, 250 P.2d 716), the state board completed its hearings and issued its order that the county immediately discontinue t......