Archibald v. Whaland

• Decision Date: 18 August 1976
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 75-245.
• Citation: 418 F. Supp. 991
• Parties: Ruth Morse ARCHIBALD, Individually and on behalf of her four minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frank WHALAND, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Health and Welfare, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

418 F. Supp. 991

Ruth Morse ARCHIBALD, Individually and on behalf of her four minor children and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frank WHALAND, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Health and Welfare, et al.

Civ. A. No. 75-245.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.

August 18, 1976.

Richard A. Cohen, N. H. Legal Assistance, Manchester, N. H., Raymond J. Kelly, N. H. Legal Assistance, Keene, N. H., for plaintiffs.

Wilbur A. Glahn, III, State of New Hampshire, Concord, N. H., for defendants.

OPINION

BOWNES, District Judge.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging infringement of constitutional rights and violation of federal statutory rights. It is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 with jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Plaintiff Ruth Morse Archibald and intervenor Patricia Ann Lawrence, on behalf of their respective children, seek a permanent injunction restraining the enforcement of defendants' policy under which Aid to Families with Dependent Children (hereinafter AFDC) and medical assistance are denied to an otherwise eligible needy minor solely on the ground that his or her recipient parent has married or remarried and there is a stepparent living in the home. Plaintiffs claim that this policy violates their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and also contravenes the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (hereinafter Act). Defendants deny any constitutional violation and assert that, under New Hampshire law, stepparents are liable for the support of stepchildren to the same extent as natural parents are liable for the support of their children and that these stepchildren, like natural children living with their married parents, are not entitled to AFDC benefits and medical assistance. Defendants claim, therefore, that the Division's policy falls within the narrow confines of 45 C.F.R. § 233.90(a) and King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968). Because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims are not insubstantial, this court has pendent jurisdiction to hear and decide the statutory allegation, and I must do so as a single judge prior to the convening of a three-judge court for the constitutional issues. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970).

On September 25, 1975, this court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of defendants' policy as to plaintiff Ruth Morse Archibald. Intervenor Patricia Ann Lawrence's motion for a preliminary injunction was granted on March 30, 1976. Both parties have submitted cross-motions for summary judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 56.

THE FACTS

The parties have stipulated to the following facts:

"1. Prior to October 15, 1974 Plaintiff Ruth M. Archibald was receiving medical and financial assistance for herself and her two minor children, Jamey Morse and Stephen Allen Morse.

"2. Effective October 15, 1974 Plaintiff Ruth M. Archibald was informed that she and her children were not eligible for medical and financial assistance.

"3. The reason for the termination of the aforesaid benefits to Plaintiff Ruth A. Archibald and her two children of a previous marriage was her marriage to Henry L. Archibald.

"4. Henry L. Archibald is neither the natural father of the two Morse children or the third child Russell Tood Sinosky named in the Complaint dated August 11, 1975, nor has he adopted them.

"5. Plaintiff Ruth M. Archibald and the aforementioned three children did not receive any financial or medical assistance from the Division of Welfare from October 15, 1974 to September 15, 1975.

"6. Since September 16, 1975 Plaintiff Archibald and her three minor children have received financial assistance payments in the amount of $76 per month until April 15, 1976.

"7. As of April 16, 1976 the grant to Plaintiff Archibald was increased from $76 per month to $82 per month.

"8. The denial of Plaintiff Archibald's financial assistance and medicaid benefits, which became effective in October of 1974, was based on the policy of the Division of Welfare which provides that a child living in his home with a natural parent and a stepparent is not `deprived of parental support and care' within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

"9. Plaintiff Ruth M. Archibald did not appeal the denial of benefits to the fair hearings board.

"10. . . . As of the date of the issuance of the Preliminary Injunction concerning Plaintiffs Ruth M. Archibald and her three minor children (i. e., September 25, 1975), in the absence of the stepparent in the home and, using Plaintiffs' proposed formula, with the stepparent in the home, Plaintiff Archibald and her children were financially eligible for medical and financial assistance.

"11. Since the issuance of the Preliminary Injunction dated September 25, 1975 the income of Henry L. Archibald, Sr. has increased and therefore the amount of income available to the family has increased accordingly. . . .

"12. Prior to September 16, 1975 (with respect to financial assistance) and to September 30, 1975, with respect to medical assistance, intervenor Patricia Ann Lawrence received medical and financial assistance from the Division of Welfare on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children. The number of minor children living at home during the period in which Plaintiff Patricia Ann Lawrence received assistance (1966-1975) fluctuated. At present, five children are living with her. Three of these children (by a previous marriage) are Plaintiffs in this action.

"13. On September 15, 1975 the Plaintiff received notice from the Defendants' Concord District Office that her benefits were being terminated due to her reconciliation with her husband John Lawrence.

"14. In December, 1975 Plaintiff Lawrence reapplied for assistance at the Concord District Office.

"15. On January 21, 1976 Plaintiff Lawrence was informed that she and her three children by a previous marriage were ineligible for assistance because there was a stepparent in the home.

"16. The reason for the denial of assistance was the same policy referred to in Stipulation Number 8 above.

"17. On February 2, 1976 Plaintiff Lawrence requested a fair hearing on the denial of assistance. No hearing has as yet been held.

"18. . . . As of the date of intervention in this case, March 29, 1976, Plaintiffs Lawrence and her three minor children, in the absence of a stepparent in the home and, using Plaintiffs' proposed formula, with the stepparent in the home, were financially eligible for medical and financial assistance.

* * * * * *

"20. Plaintiffs Lawrence and her children did not receive assistance until May 1, 1976 because the parties were attempting to reach the agreement on the issue of whether assistance should be determined in accordance with Plaintiffs' proposed formula. The April assistance (Plaintiff Lawrence intervened on March 29, 1976) will be made together with the June payment."

THE ISSUE

The issue is whether New Hampshire by "State law of general applicability . . requires stepparents to support stepchildren to the same extent that natural or adoptive parents are required to support their children." 45 C.F.R. § 233.90(a).

New Hampshire, by its policy of refusing AFDC benefits to children with a stepparent ceremonially married to the recipient parent, has made such children ineligible for welfare assistance. The stepparent rule thus places stepchildren in the same position as children whose two natural parents are living with them; neither of these groups of children is eligible for AFDC. While this court does not sit in judgment of the wisdom of the policy, I note, parenthetically, that it encourages cohabitation without the benefit of matrimony. Nevertheless, because the stepparent rule renders otherwise qualifying recipients flatly ineligible, it bears no relationship to a determination of need. Therefore, the actual financial situation of the plaintiffs is irrelevant to the decision of this case. The question is simply whether New Hampshire may declare ineligible for AFDC otherwise qualifying children solely because the recipient parent marries or remarries and the stepparent lives in the same house with the children.

New Hampshire participates in Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a categorical assistance program authorized by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.; NH RSA 161, 167. The administration of the AFDC program is "a scheme of cooperative federalism," King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. at 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, by which federal grants are made to the states for aid and services to needy families with dependent children. Because New Hampshire has chosen to participate, it is bound to administer the program in compliance with federal law. Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U.S. 338, 95 S.Ct. 1741, 44 L.Ed.2d 208 (1975); Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971); King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128.

Eligibility for the AFDC program must be determined in accordance with federal law. Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 92 S.Ct. 1932, 32 L.Ed.2d 352 (1972); King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128. Aid to needy families provides assistance to "needy dependent children." 42 U.S.C. § 601. For purposes of this case, a "dependent child" is defined as

a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the . . . continued absence from the home . . . of a parent, and who is living with his father or mother . . in a place of residence maintained by . . . relatives as his or their own home, and (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen, . . .. 42 U.S.C. § 606(a).

Whether or not a child has been deprived of parental support or care may be determined by reference only to

the child's natural or adoptive parent, or in relation to the child's

...