California Welfare Rights Organization v. Brian

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: BURKE; WRIGHT
• Citation: 11 Cal.3d 237,520 P.2d 970,113 Cal.Rptr. 154
• Parties: , 520 P.2d 970 CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION et al., Petitioners, v. Earl W. BRIAN, as Secretary, etc., et al., Respondents. Jacklyn Jo SHELTON, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY, Respondent; Marian BABIARZ, as Director, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. Sac. 7984.
• Decision Date: 16 April 1974

Page 154

113 Cal.Rptr. 154 11 Cal.3d 237, 520 P.2d 970 CALIFORNIA WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION et al., Petitioners,
v.
Earl W. BRIAN, as Secretary, etc., et al., Respondents.
Jacklyn Jo SHELTON, Petitioner,
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY, Respondent;
Marian BABIARZ, as Director, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. Sac. 7984. Supreme Court of California,
In Bank. April 16, 1974.

[11 Cal.3d 239]

Page 155

[520 P.2d 971] Arthur L. Meader, III, Redding, Rosalyn M. Chapman, Los Angeles, Ralph Santiago Abascal, Jay-Allen Eisen, Edmund S. Schaffer, San Francisco, and Eugene M. Swann, Pittsburg, for petitioners.

Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus & Jenkins and George R. Moscone, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., N. Eugene Hill, Raymond M. Momboisse and John Fourt, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondents and for real parties in interest.

BURKE, Justice.

In these consolidated cases, certain welfare recipients have challenged the validity, under federal and state law, of welfare regulations issued by the State Department of Social Welfare, which regulations affect the assistance grant to pregnant mothers. We have concluded that the regulations at issue are invalid because they purport to consider, contrary to the probable intent of federal and state law, that the mother's body constitutes a 'resource' of the fetus, the economic value of which 'resource' may be deducted from the assistance grant otherwise payable to the mother upon pregnancy.

Petitioner California Welfare Rights Organization (CWRO) is an unincorporated association, representing recipients of aid to families with dependent children (AFDC); this petitioner brought an original action in the Court of Appeal seeking mandamus against respondents Brian (Secretary of the California Health and Welfare Agency) and Carleson (former Director of Department of Social Welfare). Petitioner Shelton, a resident of Shasta County and a recipient of AFDC aid originally brought a class action against Babiarz, the Director of the Shasta County Welfare Department, and respondent Carleson, seeking prohibition to restrain enforcement of the regulations in issue. The trial court denied a preliminary injunction and entered an order which, in effect, permitted the Department to continue to implement its regulations. Petitioner Shelton thereupon joined petitioner CWRO in its action in the Court of Appeal, requesting mandamus against respondents Brian and Carleson, and further sought to prohibit further proceedings in the Shasta County action. The Court of Appeal denied the consolidated petition, and petitioners ask this court to review the matter.

[11 Cal.3d 240] Eligibility for AFDC aid is determine by reference to a table, set forth in section 11452 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, which establishes certain 'minimum basic standards of adequate care' depending upon the number of needy persons in the same family. Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in section 11452, however, actual aid payments are limited by another table, set forth in section 11450, which establishes certain 'maximum aid'

Page 156

[520 P.2d 972] payments, depending upon the number of eligible needy persons in the same home. Under section 11450, the size of the grant is reduced by any nonexempt 'income' of the aid recipient.

The instant case concerns the validity of a regulation promulgated by the Department which purports to determine the existence of, and measure the extent of, an AFDC recipient's 'income' to be deducted from his grant under section 11450. The regulation before us attempts to assess the value to an unborn child of the comforts he receives in his mother's womb. We think that, in the absence of express federal or state provisions on the subject, the instant regulation stretches the existing statutory concept of 'income' or 'resources' beyond the probable intent underlying those terms.

Initially, the parties do not dispute that AFDC assistance properly may be paid to pregnant mothers on behalf of their unborn children. Although the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) is silent on the question, providing for aid to dependent or needy 'children' deprived of parental support, or to the relatives who care for them (see Id., § 606), regulations promulgated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) seem to permit (but not require) the states to provide for AFDC aid, with federal participation, to or on behalf of unborn children. HEW's regulations provide that 'federal financial participation is available in . . . (p)ayments with respect to an unborn child when the fact of pregnancy has been determined by medical diagnosis . . ..' (45 C.F.R. § 233.90, subd. (c), subsec. (2)(ii).) As this language is contained in...