Carroll v. Acting Director of Public Welfare of Cambridge

• Decision Date: 08 January 1969
• Citation: 243 N.E.2d 817,355 Mass. 182
• Parties: Ruth T. CARROLL v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF CAMBRIDGE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 817

243 N.E.2d 817

355 Mass. 182

Ruth T. CARROLL v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF CAMBRIDGE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued Dec. 6, 1968.

Decided Jan. 8, 1969.

A. Van C. Lanckton, Cambridge, for petitioner.

Christopher J. Armstrong, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

Mrs. Carroll, on September 20, 1967, sought review in the Superior Court (G.L. c. 30A, § 14, as amended) of a final decision (August 22, 1967) of the State Department of Public Welfare (the department). On appeal to it (G.L. c. 118, § 8 ¹), the department had sustained a decision (June 28, 1967) of the Cambridge board of public welfare (the city board). Mrs. Carroll had been receiving public assistance (aid to families with dependent children or AFDC) from the city of $48.20 on the first and sixteenth of each month. She received no aid on July 1, 1967, because her son Dennis was working and contributing an amount which caused the income attributable to her to exceed the budget of required income determined for her. A final decree in the Superior Court affirmed the department's decision. Mrs. Carroll appealed to this court.

1. The department referee's condensed findings are somewhat obscure because of blind references to a 'policy manual' which was not introduced in evidence before the referee. ² In substance the referee's decision sustained the city board and adopted essentially its reasons. In a case to be reviewed in the courts, the board should have made subsidiary findings, clearly sufficient to warrant its conclusions and to show that it applied correct principles of law. We are able, however, to piece together the basic facts from the brief transcript of the hearing before the referee. ³ There seems to be no substantial disagreement between the parties concerning the facts or the form of the pertinent regulations or manual. See fn. 4, infra.

Mrs. Carroll is 47, divorced, and widowed. She had two children living with her in July, 1967, Dennis (then sixteen years old but nearly seventeen) and Kathleen (then nearly thirteen). Four other children did not live with her. Until the late summer of 1967, she had received $130 a month from Social Security which was to be cut in half because Dennis had gone to work. She received $15 a week from Dennis's earnings. She rented for $65 a month a five-room apartment, heated only by two stoves. An approved budget of needs of $97 a month became effective on October 1, 1966. Dennis's net earnings (after $6 a week for work related expenses and deductions) were $62.06. He has threatened to move out of his mother's apartment if he has to give her his entire pay. One older son of Mrs. Carroll has moved out. Other sons (presumably adults) are not at home.

The referee's decision gave as reasons for the department's decision: (1) Mrs. Carroll had total monthly income (Social Security, $130.20; Dennis, $135.51) of $265.71. The referee disregarded $50 monthly net income of Dennis, a child under eighteen. ⁴ (2) The department computed her income needs as $227.20 (Group I, family of three, $194.60 plus one child, seven to twelve, $12.30, and one child, thirteen to twenty, $20.30). Because her income computed in accordance with the manual exceeded her budgeted needs thus computed, the referee denied her appeal for reinstatement of AFDC.

Mrs. Carroll's principal contention is that Dennis's monthly net income above the $15 the budgeted (family) needs * * *. in her budget in computing her need for AFDC assistance. The department referee, by his decision, allowed the deductions from gross income required by manual Items 7, 11, and 20 (fn. 4) and converted the weekly net earnings to a monthly figure. He subtracted $50 a month from Dennis's earnings pursuant to Item 20 b (as net income of a child under eighteen to be disregarded). He attributed to the Carroll family income the balance of Dennis's net monthly earnings. The department contends that this action was consistent with the precise requirements of the manual (fn. 4). Mrs. Carroll takes the position that, viewing the manual as a whole, the department's action was improper and inconsistent with the manual in various respects.

(a) She contends that Item 11 (fn. 4) requiring the total net earnings of children to be deducted is inconsistent with Item 15 relieving a brother from responsibility to contribute to a sister's support. The only expressed exception to the flat deduction rule of Item 11 is where Item 20 otherwise provides. Item 20 b in explicit terms tells how much of the earnings of a child under eighteen shall be disregarded. The referee did disregard this amount of Dennis's earnings. Item 11 and Item 15 are consistent if Item 15 is interpreted as applying only to adult brothers and sisters who are not living at home or are not dependent children.

(b) Mrs. Carroll contends that there is discrimination against children under eighteen under Items 20 b and 20 c in favor of persons eighteen or over (1) by permitting those eighteen or over to retain a greater amount of their earnings without attributing it to the family resources, and (2) by failing to disqualify the family from AFDC if the family does not receive the part of the earnings of the person eighteen or over properly required to be attributed under Item 20 c to family resources. The referee's interpretation is consistent with the language of Items 11 and 20. The regulation appears to proceed on the assumption that it is reasonable to treat a child eighteen or over as entitled to retain a greater part of his earnings than one under eighteen. We cannot say that it unreasonable or arbitrary for the regulation to assume (1) that a person eighteen or over is more nearly an adult and is likely to have greater financial needs and ordinarily more desire for independence than a person under eighteen, and (2) that there is need for greater incentive to lead him to remain in the family home than for a child under eighteen, who ordinarily needs and desires family life.

(c) It is argued that Item 20 b and Item 11, as applied to Dennis, are inconsistent with the provision in the introduction to c. IV, § B, of the manual (fn. 4) that 'only income * * * actually being received shall be deducted.' The general introductory language is inconsistent with the explicit provisions of Item 11 and Item 20. It becomes consistent, however, if it is deemed to apply only to the receipt of money due under legally imposed obligations (e.g. alimony, court ordered support payments). See U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Part IV, § 3120, pp. 3--4, as amended April 10, 1967.

We conclude that the referee's decision complied with the manual requirements.

2. Mrs. Carroll also argues that the manual provisions are inconsistent with the underlying State and Federal statutory provisions governing AFDC. These statutes are designed to be harmonious.

The underlying Federal statute is found in 42 U.S.C. § 601 (1964) et seq. The allowance of Federal aid under the AFDC program is dependent upon approval of the Massachusetts plan by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 601, 602(a), 603 (1964). Federal assistance may be withdrawn if an approved State plan fails to comply substantially with any provision required by § 602(a). See § 604(a)(2). The Massachusetts AFDC program is governed by G.L. c. 118. Chapter 118, § 2 (as amended through St.1962, c. 556, § 1, and prior to its amendment by St.1967, c. 658, § 28; see fn. 1), directed each local board of public welfare to 'aid every parent in properly bringing up, in his or her own home, each dependent child (defined in § 1) * * *. The aid furnished * * * shall be in an amount to be determined in accordance with budgetary standards as approved by the department (of Public Welfare) * * *.' Chapter 118, § 5, as it read (as amended through St.1963, c. 432, § 6, prior to the effective date of St.1967, c. 658) permitted the department to promulgate regulations and to take other action 'in conformity with all requirements governing the...