Gilliard v. Kirk, Civ. A. No. 2660.
Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina |
Citation | 633 F. Supp. 1529 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2660. |
Decision Date | 07 May 1986 |
Parties | Beaty Mae GILLIARD; Samuel Odell Davis; Lorraine Gilliard; Loretta Gilliard; Thomas Gilliard; Dana Gilliard; Gregory Gilliard; Reginald Gilliard; and Samuel Davis Jr. Gilliard, minors, by their mother and next friend, Beaty Mae Gilliard, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Phillip J. KIRK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, in his official capacity, and C. Barry McCarty, Chairman, North Carolina Social Services Commission, in his official capacity, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, Third-Party Defendant. |
633 F. Supp. 1529
Beaty Mae GILLIARD; Samuel Odell Davis; Lorraine Gilliard; Loretta Gilliard; Thomas Gilliard; Dana Gilliard; Gregory Gilliard; Reginald Gilliard; and Samuel Davis Jr. Gilliard, minors, by their mother and next friend, Beaty Mae Gilliard, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Phillip J. KIRK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, in his official capacity, and C. Barry McCarty, Chairman, North Carolina Social Services Commission, in his official capacity, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, Third-Party Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 2660.
United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.
May 7, 1986.
Lemuel W. Hinton and Clifton H. Duke, Asst. Attys. Gen., N.C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for defendants and third-party plaintiffs.
Charles R. Brewer, U.S. Atty., Charles E. Lyons, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charlotte, N.C., Bruce R. Granger, Regional Atty., and Edgar M. Swindell, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga., for third-party defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
McMILLAN, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No I. SUMMARY OF DECISION ---------------------------------------------------- 1532 II. CASE HISTORY ----------------------------------------------------------- 1533 III. THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY; THE TEXT OF THE CHALLENGED NEW STATUTE AND REGULATIONS -------------------------------------------- 1533 IV. HOW PLAINTIFFS ARE BEING INJURED BY THE NEW STATUTE AND REGULATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1535 V. THE CONTROLLING FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS NOW REQUIRE THE STATE TO INCLUDE A CHILD RECEIVING ADEQUATE CHILD SUPPORT IN HIS OR HER FAMILY'S AFDC FILING UNIT AND TO COUNT THAT CHILD'S INCOME AS FAMILY INCOME -------------------------- 1543 VI. THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1984 DEFRA AMENDMENT DEMONSTRATE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PREEMPT STATE LAW RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CHILD SUPPORT THAT WOULD PREVENT THE STATE FROM TREATING ONE CHILD'S SUPPORT INCOME AS FAMILY INCOME ---------------------------------------- 1548 A. Plaintiffs Have Standing To Challenge Whether Congress Has Pre-Empted State Domestic Relations Law ---------------------------------------- 1549 B. State Domestic Relations Laws Are Not Pre-Empted Unless Pre-Emption Is Positively Required By A Direct Federal Enactment ---------------- 1549 C. The Language And Legislative History Of DEFRA Demonstrate That Congress Did Intend To Pre-Empt State Law --------------------------- 1550 VII. THE FEDERALLY SANCTIONED STATE REQUIREMENT THAT MOTHERS SEEKING AFDC FOR THEIR UNSUPPORTED CHILDREN MUST ASSIGN TO THE STATE THE CHILD SUPPORT RIGHTS OF AN ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED CHILD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVES THE SUPPORTED CHILD OF PROPERTY. WHEN THE STATE COOPERATES WITH A FEDERAL PLAN TO COMPEL A MOTHER TO SURRENDER ONE CHILD'S INCOME SO THAT THE REMAINING CHILDREN CAN SURVIVE ON AFDC, THE STATE TAKES PROPERTY FROM THE CHILD'S TRUSTEE AND IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX ON THE SUPPORTED CHILD'S MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULAR TYPE OF FAMILY UNIT. THE STATE THUS BECOMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PARTNER IN A TAKING --------------------------------------------------- 1551
633 F. Supp. 1532A. The Child Receiving Adequate Child Support Suffers A Loss Of Property As A Result Of The Enforcement Of The SFU Regulations --------------- 1551 B. By Pre-Empting State Law Restrictions On The Use And Distribution Of Child Support Paid By A Father For The Benefit Of His Child, DEFRA Becomes The Instrument Of A Taking ---------------------------------- 1553 C. A Taking Can Occur When Regulation Reshapes A Property Right -------- 1553 D. Even If Congress Has Failed To Pre-Empt Those Elements Of State Law That Would Deny The State Access To The Child Support Income Of An Adequately Supported Child Living With His Or Her AFDC Dependent Family, The State Has Forced Mothers To Surrender The Child's Property To The State In Violation Of The State's Own Laws ------------------ 1555 VIII. A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY INFLICTS DAMAGE ON A FUNDAMENTAL INTEREST, FAMILY AUTONOMY TRIGGERS SPECIAL JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF GOVERNMENT ACTION CAUSING SUCH INJURIES -------------------------------------------------- 1555 A. Whether Accomplished By Means Of Federal Pre-Emption Or Otherwise, The Expropriation Of The Supported Child's Property In Order To Reduce Governmental Expenditures Punishes The Child For Exercising The Child's Fundamental Right To Live With His Or Her Family -------- 1557 B. The Supported Children Should Not Be Penalized For Their Mother's Alleged Past Breaches Of A Fiduciary Duty --------------------------- 1557 C. The DEFRA Scheme Endangers Family Integrity And Undermines The Well-Being Of Family Members ---------------------------------------- 1558 D. The DEFRA/SFU Plan Contradicts Existing Incentives For Fathers To Recognize And Honor Their Duty To Support Their Children ------------ 1559 E. By Forcing The Realignment Of Parental Duties, The Federal And State Governmental Actions Weaken The Underpinnings Of Family Life -------- 1562 F. Though The Reduction Of Governmental Deficits Is An Important Objective Worthy Of Legislative Attention, The Constitution Should Not Permit Family Duties To Be Destroyed So That Federal Dollars Can Be Saved --------------------------------------------------------------- 1563 IX. THE RELIEF THAT IS DUE --------------------------------------------------- 1563 X. CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------- 1564
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Plaintiffs are children of low income mothers. They bring this suit through their mother and next friend, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons. Not all the children of each mother have the same father. Some of the children are "needy," and have been receiving AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) payments. Some of the children are not "needy" because their absent fathers are making adequate child support payments to the mother.
The state defendants, acting under a rational interpretation of pertinent recent federal statutes and regulations, are "deeming" the support payments from absent fathers to be income available to all the dependent children in the house. Defendants are cutting off or reducing AFDC payments accordingly, with tragic results shown by the evidence.
This is an unlawful "taking" of the child's income from an absent father. It also unlawfully deprives the other children in the family of AFDC benefits by destroying or reducing their entitlement because one of the mother's children who has income of his or her own exercises his or her right to live in the mother's family unit.
Regardless of whether federal pre-emption in a technical sense has occurred, the federal scheme has, in fact, overpowered
Plaintiffs seek an end to the "deeming" practice. They are entitled to relief.
II. CASE HISTORY
This case has been here before. In Gilliard v. Craig, 331 F.Supp. 587 (W.D.N. C.1971) (three judge court), this court enjoined the state defendants from reducing or withholding "the payment of AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits ... because of the presumed availability to an AFDC family of child support payments which belong to one or more but not all members of that family." Id. at 593-94. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and was affirmed. 409 U.S. 807, 93 S.Ct. 39, 34 L.Ed.2d 66 (1972), reh. den., Craig v. Gilliard, 409 U.S. 1119, 93 S.Ct. 892, 34 L.Ed.2d 704 (1973). The 1971 injunction remains in effect because it has not been stayed, vacated, withdrawn or reversed. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 313-14, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 1828, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967); United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 293-14, 67 S.Ct. 677, 695-06, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); Wright v. Jackson, 522 F.2d 955, 958 (4th Cir.1975). Consequently, the state defendants remain subject to the commands of the original injunction pending modification or reversal. Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 439-40, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 2706, 49 L.Ed.2d 599 (1976).
The 1971 class of plaintiffs was
"persons who have been or may be subject to a reduction of AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits based upon unconstitutional or illegal claim of credit by administering agencies for outside income and other resources available to some but not all of a family group."
Gilliard v. Craig, supra, at 588.
The plaintiffs (movants) are members of the same class that was granted relief in 1971. They have filed a motion for further relief, seeking the same sort of relief that was ordered in 1971.
III. THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY; THE TEXT OF THE CHALLENGED NEW STATUTE AND REGULATIONS
On October 10, 1984, the state defendants put into effect a set of new regulations ("Standard Filing Unit" or "SFU" regulations) reading, in pertinent part, as follows:
Standard Filing Unit
A. The parent and all minor children who are brothers and sisters, including half-brothers and sisters, and who are living together must be included in the same assistance unit unless:
1. The parent or child is an SSI recipient, or
2. The parent or child does not meet all eligibility factors with the exception of income and reserve. Do not exclude a parent or child because of the amount of income or reserve he has.
Section 2360 III A, State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gorrie v. Bowen, No. 85-5394
...of a number of published decisions that agree with our view that the regulation is consistent with the statute. See Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F.Supp. 1529, 1544-47 (W.D.N.C.) (but invalidating the regulation on constitutional grounds), prob. juris. noted, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 641, 93 L.Ed.2......
-
Bowen v. Gilliard Flaherty v. Gilliard, Nos. 86-509
...against a finding that the State or Federal Governments unconstitutionally take property through the AFDC program. Pp. 603-609. 633 F.Supp. 1529 (1986), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined.......
-
Rosado v. Bowen, Civ. A. No. 86-1766.
...DEFRA amendment violated the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Takings Clause. Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F.Supp. 1529 (W.D.N. C.1986). On appeal, the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found the DEFRA regulation requiring a child receiving child support to be i......
-
Baldwin v. Ledbetter, Civ. A. No. C85-4340A.
...unit and that the child support income be included in the determination of the AFDC family unit's eligibility. Accord Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F.Supp. 1529, 1548-51 (W.D.N.C.1986); Sherrod v. Hegstrom, 629 F.Supp. 150, 152 (D.Or.1985); Maryland Department of Human Resources v. United States De......
-
Gorrie v. Bowen, No. 85-5394
...of a number of published decisions that agree with our view that the regulation is consistent with the statute. See Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F.Supp. 1529, 1544-47 (W.D.N.C.) (but invalidating the regulation on constitutional grounds), prob. juris. noted, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 641, 93 L.Ed.2......
-
Bowen v. Gilliard Flaherty v. Gilliard, Nos. 86-509
...against a finding that the State or Federal Governments unconstitutionally take property through the AFDC program. Pp. 603-609. 633 F.Supp. 1529 (1986), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined.......
-
Rosado v. Bowen, Civ. A. No. 86-1766.
...DEFRA amendment violated the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Takings Clause. Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F.Supp. 1529 (W.D.N. C.1986). On appeal, the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found the DEFRA regulation requiring a child receiving child support to be i......
-
Baldwin v. Ledbetter, Civ. A. No. C85-4340A.
...unit and that the child support income be included in the determination of the AFDC family unit's eligibility. Accord Gilliard v. Kirk, 633 F.Supp. 1529, 1548-51 (W.D.N.C.1986); Sherrod v. Hegstrom, 629 F.Supp. 150, 152 (D.Or.1985); Maryland Department of Human Resources v. United States De......