Carter v. Morrow, C-C-81-486.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. C-C-81-486.,C-C-81-486. |
| Citation | 526 F. Supp. 1225 |
| Parties | Paulette CARTER, Betty G. Erwin, Priscilla Dalrymple, and Ella Graham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Sarah MORROW, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources; John Syria, in his official capacity as Director of the North Carolina Division of Social Services; and Susan Jeffries, in her official capacity as Section Chief of the North Carolina Child Support Enforcement Agency, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
D. Lark Hayes and Jane Porter, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, Inc., Charlotte, N. C., Travis Payne, East Central Community Legal Services, Smithfield, N.C., and Carol Spruill, East Central Community Legal Services, Raleigh, N. C., for plaintiffs.
William F. Briley, Henry H. Burgwyn, and Clifton H. Duke, Asst. Attys. Gen., Child Support Enforcement, Raleigh, N. C., for defendants.
A hearing was held before the undersigned Judge on November 23, 1981 to consider plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The plaintiffs were present and represented by counsel of record. Defendants were represented by the Attorney General of North Carolina.
Based on the verified pleadings, the affidavits of record and the oral testimony taken at the hearing, the Court makes the following findings of fact:
(1) Each of the plaintiffs, none of whom currently receives Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), is in immediate need of child support payments from absent fathers in order to provide for their minor children;
(2) Plaintiffs have been unable to secure adequate support through their own efforts and have sought support enforcement assistance from Child Support Enforcement (hereinafter IV-D) offices in their respective counties;
(3) Despite plaintiffs' requests for child support enforcement assistance, the defendants have failed to accept applications or provide assistance;
(4) According to policy set forth in the Child Support Enforcement Manual in Section III F., defendants have denied assistance to plaintiffs solely because they are not current recipients of AFDC;
(5) The Manual expressly provides that the local IV-D agencies shall not provide in-court legal services to non-recipients, although such services are provided to AFDC recipients;
(6) Non-recipients in need of legal assistance are routinely referred to the District Attorney's office or to private attorneys without further coordination or follow-up by the IV-D programs;
(7) The services provided by defendants to AFDC recipients are substantially different in nature,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Pageau
-
Monzon v. Martinez, Civ. A. No. 92-4947.
...matters and the right to have all legal expenses incurred paid by OCSE. To support this proposition, plaintiff cites Carter v. Morrow, 526 F.Supp. 1225 (W.D.N.C. 1981), and, a motion filed and order entered by the Family Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, in Booth v. McKay, ......
-
Morris v. Cohen
...not cited and we have not found authority interpreting section 11475.1 on this point. The district attorney relies on Carter v. Morrow, 526 F.Supp. 1225 (W.D.N.Car.1981) to support his position that the district attorney's office is required, under federal law, to represent Doris. The case ......
-
State v. Wagner, 85-2259
...parent must first prove financial inability to retain private counsel. Both Wagner and the trial court relied upon Carter v. Morrow, 526 F.Supp. 1225 (W.D.N.C.1981), to conclude that persons such as Holtz were required to demonstrate that they were either AFDC recipients or that they were "......