Doe v. Harder, Civ. No. 13093.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 13093. |
| Citation | 310 F. Supp. 302 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Mrs. Jane DOE, Individually and on behalf of her minor dependent child, Scott, and in behalf of all others similarly situated v. John HARDER, Acting Commissioner of Connecticut State Welfare Department. |
Nicholas J. Cimmino, Waterbury Legal Aid & Reference Service, Inc., Waterbury, Conn., and David Lesser, Legal Aid Bureau, New Haven, Conn. (William H. Clendenen, Jr., New Haven Legal Assistance Assn., and Allen Sims, Legal Aid Bureau, New Haven, Conn., of counsel) for plaintiff.
Francis J. MacGregor, Asst.Atty.Gen. of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., for defendant.
Before SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLUMENFELD and CLARIE, District Judges.
Appeal Dismissed June 22, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 2202.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO HOLD IN CONTEMPT
By the decision in Doe v. Shapiro, 302 F.Supp. 761 (D.Conn.1969), appeal dismissed, 396 U.S. 488, 90 S.Ct. 641, 24 L. Ed.2d 677, rehearing denied, 397 U.S. 970, 90 S.Ct. 991, 25 L.Ed.2d 264 (March 2, 1970), this court enjoined the refusal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under a Connecticut State Welfare Department regulation providing termination of payments to an illegitimate child if the mother refused to name the child's father. The regulations were then amended to provide termination of payments to the mother rather than the child in such cases. Three members of the class of plaintiff, having had assistance terminated under the regulation, intervene and seek a contempt judgment against the acting State Welfare Commissioner for violation of the injunction. There appears to be no dispute on the facts. The movants are qualified under the laws and regulations except for the amended regulation of November 3, 1969. Vol. I, Chapter III §§ 3460.22, 3460.23 and P-3460.1. This regulation, while in form directed at the mother rather than the child, has the same vice as the original. It reduces the assistance to the family by creating an additional eligibility requirement identical to that held invalid and not authorized by the federal statute. This is a violation of the injunction. Compare, McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949). This requirement of the regulation is invalid.
Defendant Harder is therefore in contempt of the injunction issued by this court. He may purge himself by restoring within 30 days from the date hereof to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Norton
...in conflict with the criteria established by Congress under the AFDC program. Doe v. Shapiro, supra, 302 F.Supp. 761; Doe v. Harder, 310 F.Supp. 302 (D. Conn.), appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 399 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 2202, 26 L.Ed.2d 557 The plaintiffs advance the same arguments n......
- City of New York v. Wyman
-
Doe v. Lavine
...has been substantially the subject of adjudication by at least five Section 2284 courts. See Doe v. Shapiro, supra, and Doe v. Harder, 310 F.Supp. 302 (D. Conn.), appeal dismissed, 399 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 2202, 26 L.Ed.2d 557 (1970); Woods v. Miller, 318 F.Supp. 510 (W.D. Pa.1970); Meyers v.......
-
Shirley v. Lavine
...6 Three of the children making up the family unit here are not even offspring of the nonsupporting putative father. 7 Doe v. Harder, 310 F.Supp. 302 (D.Conn.), app dis., 399 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 2202, 26 L. Ed.2d 557 (1970); Woods v. Miller, 318 F. Supp. 510 (W.D.Pa.1970); Doe v. Lavine, 347 ......