Essex County Welfare Bd. v. Department of Institutions and Agencies

Decision Date05 January 1978
PartiesESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES and Sondra Engle, Appellants. ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES and Irene Stowers, Appellants. ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES and Ann Grieco, Appellants. In the Matter of the ESSEX COUNTY WELFARE BOARD (Louise Brown). CAMDEN COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Respondent, v. Linda PERAZZELLI and Department of Institutions and Agencies, Appellants. CAMDEN COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES and Arlene Gibson, Appellants.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Richard M. Hluchan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant Dept. of Institutions and Agencies (William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen attorney; Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel).

Allen Zaks of Rutgers Legal Aid Clinic, Newark, for appellants Irene Stowers and Sondra Engle (Allen Zaks and Larry K. Lesnik, Montclair, attorneys).

Frank A. De Monsi, Camden, for respondent Camden County Welfare Bd.

Susan J. Barone, Newark, and Joseph P. Brennan, Jr., West Orange, for respondent Essex County Welfare Bd. (William J. Tamburri, East Orange, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SULLIVAN, J.

The single issue in the six cases before us is whether county welfare boards whose rulings have been modified or reversed by fair hearing decisions of the New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies, Division of Public Welfare, rendered in favor of welfare applicants or recipients, have a right to judicial review of such decisions. For reasons hereinafter set forth, we hold that county welfare boards may not have such judicial review.

Four of the cases involve the Essex County Welfare Board. The other two are Camden County Welfare Board matters. In each case the Welfare Board in administering the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.; N.J.S.A. 44:10-1 et seq., rendered a decision adverse to the welfare applicant or recipient. The welfare client then exercised the right to a fair hearing before the Division of Public Welfare as to eligibility or grant entitlement. Following such hearing, the Director of the Division of Public Welfare rendered a final decision finding in favor of the welfare client and reversing or modifying the county welfare board's determination.

The county welfare boards filed separate notices of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking judicial review of the fair hearing decisions. 1 One of the appeals was dismissed by the Appellate Division for lack of prosecution. The local board then moved to vacate the dismissal and to reinstate the appeal. At the same time the Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Institutions and Agencies, Division of Public Welfare, moved to dismiss the other five appeals on the ground that a local welfare board did not have the right to appeal a fair hearing decision of the Division. 2 The Attorney General also opposed the motion to reinstate the appeal basically for the same reasons set forth in the motions to dismiss.

The Appellate Division, after hearing oral argument on the motions, held that a county welfare board had standing to prosecute an appeal from a fair hearing decision of the Division. Its opinion denying the motions to dismiss and granting the motion to reinstate is reported at 147 N.J.Super. 546, 371 A.2d 771 (App.Div.1977). This Court granted the Attorney General's motions to appeal the Appellate Division ruling. We also granted motions by welfare clients Stowers and Engle to appeal in their cases. 74 N.J. 256, 377 A.2d 652 (1977). We reverse.

The AFDC program was established by the Congress of the United States. 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq. No state is required to participate in AFDC but those which elect to do so, and which seek to share in federal funding, must comply fully with federal law and regulations. New Jersey has elected to participate in the program, N.J.S.A. 44:10-1 et seq., and receives a substantial share of administrative expenses and 50% Of the amount of AFDC grants from the federal government. Thirty-seven point five per cent of the grant money is provided by the State with the balance of 12.5% Being required to be raised by the particular county. N.J.S.A. 44:10-5.

The federal AFDC law requires that a State plan provide for the establishment or designation of "a single State agency" to administer the program. 42 U.S.C.A. § 602(a)(3). Although subordinate local agencies may be created or designated to carry out the AFDC program, such agencies "must not have authority to review, change or disapprove any administrative decision of the single State agency, or otherwise substitute their judgment for that of the agency as to the application of policies, rules and regulations promulgated by the State agency." 45 C.F.R. § 205.100(b).

In New Jersey the single State agency designated to administer the AFDC program is the Department of Institutions and Agencies (now Department of Human Services), Division of Public Welfare. N.J.S.A. 44:10-2; 44:10-3. County welfare boards, by statutory provision, actually administer the program at the local level subject to the supervision of the Department which has adopted general policies, rules and regulations for carrying out the purposes of the program. See N.J.A.C. 10:81-1.1 et seq.; Redding v. Burlington Cty. Welf. Bd., 65 N.J. 439, 442, 323 A.2d 477 (1974).

The Appellate Division held that the right of a county welfare board to appeal a fair hearing decision by its superior in the AFDC hierarchy existed for two reasons. First, it found in the New Jersey Constitution (1947), Art. VI, § V, par. 4 as implemented by R. 2:2-3(a)(2), review as of right of final decisions of state agencies by an action in lieu of prerogative writs. Second, it held that since counties must provide 12.5% Of AFDC grant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Dover Tp. v. Board of Adjustment of Dover Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 10, 1978
    ...v. Tp. Berkeley Hgts. Tp. Bd. of Adj., 144 N.J.Super. 291, 365 A.2d 237 (Law Div.1976). And compare Essex Cty. Welfare Bd. v. Dept. of Inst. & Agencies, 75 N.J. 232, 381 A.2d 349 (1978).3 There the court held that a ten-acre tract in a single-family zone could have been made available for g......
  • Town of Marshall v. New York State Dept. of Social Services, Oneida County
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 14, 1978
    ...to and agents of the State Commissioner and ordinarily bound by his rulings is fully recognized (Essex County Welfare Bd. v. Department of Institutions & Agencies, 75 N.J. 232, 381 A.2d 349 (New Jersey)). On balance, however, these considerations are outweighed by the necessity to provide a......
  • Dolberry v. Dolberry
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • December 10, 1982
    ...Participation, however, is premised upon full compliance with federal law and regulations. Essex Cty. Welfare Bd. v. Institutions & Agencies Dep't, 75 N.J. 232, 235, 381 A.2d 349 (1938), cert. den. 437 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3103, 57 L.Ed.2d 1141 New Jersey has chosen to participate. N.J.S.A. 4......
  • Cass County Welfare Dept. v. Wittner, 51447.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 21, 1981
    ...Reed v. New York State Department of Social Services, 78 Misc.2d 266, 354 N.Y.S.2d 389 (1974); Essex County Welfare Board v. Department of Institutions and Agencies, 75 N.J. 232, 381 A.2d 349, cert. denied, 437 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3103, 57 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1978); and Beaudoin v. Toia, 45 N.Y.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT