County of San Mateo v. Boss

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SULLIVAN; WRIGHT
• Citation: County of San Mateo v. Boss, 92 Cal.Rptr. 294, 3 Cal.3d 962, 479 P.2d 654 (Cal. 1971)
• Decision Date: 27 January 1971
• Docket Number: S.F. 22769
• Parties: , 479 P.2d 654 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence BOSS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 294

92 Cal.Rptr. 294

3 Cal.3d 962, 479 P.2d 654

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lawrence BOSS, Defendant and Appellant.

S.F. 22769.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Jan. 27, 1971.

Dinkelspiel & Dinkelspiel, San Francisco, and Alan A. Dougherty, Redwood City, for defendant and appellant.

Barbara B. Rintala, Alan F. Charles, Barry A. Herzog, Terry J. Hatter, Jr., and Paul L. McKaskle, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty., and Carolee Houser, Deputy Dist. Atty., for plaintiff and respondent.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Palmer and Jay S. Linderman, Deputy Attys. Gen., as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

In this case we are called upon to determine whether an adult child of a recipient of aid to the aged under the Old Age Security Law (Welf. & Inst.Code, div. 9, pt. 1, ch. 3, § 12000 et seq.) ¹ may constitutionally be required to reimburse the state.

Plaintiff County of San Mateo (County) brought this action pursuant to sections 12100 and 12101 to collect from defendant accrued but unpaid monthly contributions of $20 each toward the support of his mother and to obtain an order requiring defendant to make such monthly contributions in the future. The case was tried without a jury upon a written stipulation of facts and without the introduction of any oral or documentary evidence. Judgment was rendered in favor of the County, and defendant appeals.

Defendant is the adult son of Johanna Boss who since February 1965 has received $116.90 per month from the County under provisions of the Old Age Security Law. Mrs. Boss is 66 years old and unable to work; she has no income except the payments of aid to the aged and monthly payments of social security in the sum of $64.60. She owns her own home, which is valued at $31,800, but no other real or personal property of substantial value.

On February 25, 1965 the San Mateo County Department of Public Health and Welfare determined pursuant to section 12101 that defendant was able to and should contribute $20 per month to the support of his mother. At that time defendant was earning $755 per month as a tool room mechanic supervisor; at the time of trial he was earning $800.80 per month as a leadingman tool room mechanic. No other person was dependent on his income.

Defendant refused to contribute to his mother's support in the amount determined by the department of public health and welfare. The County thereupon commenced the instant action.

The trial court found that the facts contained in the written stipulation of the parties were true and adopted the stipulation as its findings of fact. The court concluded that defendant was legally obligated to support his mother under sections 12100 and 12101 and that the County was entitled to judgment in the sum of $820 plus costs of suit. Judgment was entered awarding the County this sum and ordering defendant to make future monthly contributions of $20 or such other sum as should be determined by the County pursuant to section 12101.

The Old Age Security Law provides for the extension of public assistance to needy aged persons. The program is voluntary and is pursued with the stated intent 'that employment and self-maintenance of aged persons shall be encouraged whenever feasible.' (§ 12001.) Under said law assistance is given to those persons who have attained the age of 65 years and meet certain other statutory requirements. (See § 12050.) One such requirement is that the recipient of aid 'is not receiving adequate support from a husband or wife, or child able and responsible under the laws of this state to furnish such support; * * *' (§ 12050, subd. (d).)

The Old Age Security Law also provides that the adult children of a recipient of aid to the aged shall be required to contribute to the recipient's support to the extent of the child's ability. Section 12101 provides: 'The ability of an adult child to contribute to the support of a parent shall be determined in accordance with this section. (Par.) The maximum monthly amount an adult child shall be required to contribute toward the support of a parent in receipt of aid under this chapter shall not exceed the amount specified by the Relatives' Contribution Scale (which is set forth later in the section). ² Regulations of the department shall prescribe the criteria, methods of investigation and test check procedures relating to the determination of the maximum amount any adult child may be held liable to contribute toward the support of a parent to the end that the required contribution does not impose an undue hardship upon the adult child and administrative time and effort are not expended on nonproductive investigative activities. * * *'

Section 12100 which provides for enforcement of the duty of support created by section 12101, states: 'If an adult child living within this state fails to contribute to the support of his parent as required by Section 12101, the county granting aid under this chapter may proceed against such child. Upon request to do so, the district attorney or other civil legal officer of the county may maintain an action in the superior court of the county granting such aid, to recover that portion of the aid granted as it is determined that the child is liable to pay, and to secure an order requiring payment of any sums which may become due in the future. (Par.) The granting of or continued receipt of aid shall not be held to be contingent upon any court action or order or the child's compliance with provisions of Section 12101. * * *'

The provisions which are now contained in sections 12100 and 12101 ³ have been enforced against the adult children of recipients of old age security aid. (County of Los Angeles v. La Fuente (1942) 20 Cal.2d 870, 129 P.2d 378, cert. den. (1942) 317 U.S. 698, 63 S.Ct. 441, 87 L.Ed. 558, petitions for rehearing denied (1943) 318 U.S. 798, 800, 802, 63 S.Ct. 558, 87 L.Ed. 1162; 319 U.S. 779, 783, 63 S.Ct. 1026, 87 L.Ed. 1924; County of Alameda v. Aberle (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 424, 73 Cal.Rptr. 926; County of Los Angeles v. Kasparian (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 537, 336 P.2d 34; County of Los Angeles v. Lane (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 476, 248 P.2d 479; Kelley v. State Board of Social Welfare (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 627, 186 P.2d 429; Garcia v. Superior Court (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 31, 113 P.2d 470; County of Los Angeles v. Hurlbut (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 88, 111 P.2d 963; County of Lake v. Forbes (1941) 42 Cal.App.2d 744, 109 P.2d 972.)

Defendant, however, contends that under the principles announced in Dept. of Mental Hygiene v. Kirchner (1964) 60 Cal.2d 716, 36 Cal.Rptr. 488, 388 P.2d 720, certiorari granted (1964) 379 U.S. 811, 85 S.Ct. 39, 13 L.Ed.2d 26, remanded for further proceedings (1965) 380 U.S. 194, 85 S.Ct. 871, 13 L.Ed.2d 753, and reiterated solely on state grounds (1965) 62 Cal.2d 586, 43 Cal.Rptr. 329, 400 P.2d 321, the imposition of liability upon him pursuant to sections 12100 and 12101 is unconstitutional.

In Kirchner we held it to be a denial of equal protection of the laws to require an adult child to reimburse the state for the care, support and maintenance of his mentally ill parent in a state institution. We declared that "providing for sequestration and treatment of persons in appropriate state institutions--subject of course, to the constitutional guaranties--who would endanger themselves or others if at large is a proper state function; being so, it follows that the expense of providing, operating and maintaining such institutions should (subject to reasonable exceptions Against the inmate or his estate) be borne by the state.' * * * (T)he cost of maintaining the state institution, including provision of adequate care for its inmates, cannot be arbitrarily charged to one class in society; such assessment violates the equal protection clause.' (Original italics.) (60 Cal.2d at pp. 719--720, 36 Cal.Rptr. at p. 490, 388 P.2d at p. 722.) We further noted that neither family relationship nor presence or absence of wealth were adequate or rational bases for sustaining a classification. (Id. at p. 721, 36 Cal.Rptr. 488, 388 P.2d 720.)

However, we did recognize in Kirchner that the costs of such care could, consistently with equal protection, be charged to those persons who had a pre-existing duty to support the recipient of the care. (Id. at p. 719, 36 Cal.Rptr. 488, 388 P.2d 720.) In a line of decisions since Kirchner imposition of liability upon the estate of the recipient of welfare, ⁴ upon the recipient's spouse, ⁵ and, where the recipient was a minor, upon his parents, ⁶ has been upheld as constitutional. In each of these cases, it was found that the person upon whom liability was imposed owed a preexisting duty of support to the recipient of the public assistance. Since the state discharges that duty of support to the extent it provides welfare assistance, it may reasonably seek reimbursement from those whose duty it discharges. Such a preexisting duty of support provides a rational ground for classification of those who must bear a disproportionate amount of the costs of the welfare program.

In the case at bench we deal with provisions of the Old Age Security Law rather than with the particular statute involved in the Kirchner case which purported to impose liability upon specified relatives for the care and maintenance of patients in state hospitals. (Former § 6650, now § 7275.) Nevertheless, we think, the principles enunciated in Kirchner clearly apply to the instant case. (tenBroek, California's Dual System of Family Law: Its Origin, Development, and Present Status, Part III, (1965), 17 Stan.L.Rev. 614, 638--639.) As in Kirchner the granting of aid to the aged serves a public purpose and is a proper state function. In County of Los Angeles v. La Fuente, Supra, 20 Cal.2d 870, 876--878, 129 P.2d 378, we upheld the Old Age Security Law against the...