Lavigne v. Department of Social Welfare, 306-79

• Decision Date: 05 November 1980
• Docket Number: No. 306-79,306-79
• Parties: Norma LAVIGNE v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 842

423 A.2d 842

139 Vt. 114

Norma LAVIGNE v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

No. 306-79.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Nov. 5, 1980.

John H. Hasen, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff.

M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., Montpelier, and Andrew M. Eschen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Waterbury, for defendant.

Before DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ., and SMITH, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

HILL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Vermont Human Services Board (Board) denying retroactive payments in Aid to Needy Families with Children (ANFC) benefits. We reverse.

The ANFC program is designed to assist families with needy dependent children "to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection ...." 42 U.S.C. § 601. The program "is based on a scheme of cooperative federalism," King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2133, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968), financed chiefly by the federal government. States choosing to participate in ANFC administer the program and are given broad latitude in determining the applicable standard of need and level of benefits. Id. at 318-19, 88 S.Ct. at 2133-34. The Commissioner of Social Welfare, pursuant to 33 V.S.A. §§ 2505(c)(1) and (2), has authority to establish necessary standards and regulations. The state must, however, comport with the federal laws, statutes and regulations controlling the program. Borkman v. Commissioner of Social Welfare, 128 Vt. 561, 564, 268 A.2d 790, 792 (1970); King, supra, 392 U.S. at 317, 88 S.Ct. at 2133; In re Fowler, 130 Vt. 176, 178, 288 A.2d 463, 465 (1972).

42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(7) provides that in determining need, the state welfare agency "shall ... take into consideration ... any expenses reasonably attributable" to the earned income of the ANFC recipient. A myriad of work-related expenses ranging from taxes and social security payments to more "nebulous" ones such as snacks and personal grooming are deductible from gross income. Welfare Assistance Manual (WAM) § 2253.3. Expenses claimed must be verified by the welfare recipient. See WAM §§ 2253.3, 2122.3.

To implement the program, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare promulgated 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(2), which provides:

(i) Applicants and all individuals who inquire about the program shall be informed about the eligibility requirements and their rights and obligations under the program. Under this requirement individuals are given information in written form, and orally as appropriate, about coverage, conditions and eligibility, scope of the program, and related services available, and the rights and responsibilities of applicants for and recipients of assistance....

(ii) Procedures shall be adopted which are designed to assure that recipients make timely and accurate reports of any change of circumstances which may affect their eligibility or the amount of assistance.

In applying for ANFC benefits, an applicant is asked to complete a form which inquires whether he is employed. The applicant is specifically asked the amount he spends for child care and transportation. A catch-all question inquires as to all other employment-related expenses. The specific deductions permitted by WAM § 2253.3 are not listed on the application form nor is a list provided of the allowable expenses. Appellant did not complete that section of the application form dealing with related expenses.

In August, 1978, at the initial interview, a Department caseworker advised appellant she could deduct travelling expenses from gross income. When asked by the caseworker about child care costs, appellant replied that she would have none until after summer vacation ended in September, when her older children would return to school and could no longer babysit for the younger children. The caseworker did not recite the other allowable deductions, but told appellant about the most common ones.

Appellant's next contact with the Department came during the regular six-month review in early 1979. A new caseworker had been assigned. Work-related expenses were discussed generally, but appellant did not mention the interim child care expenses. The caseworker admitted at the Board hearing that she neither inquired into specific expenses other than transportation costs, nor brought up the subject of babysitting despite the fact that the previous caseworker had noted in the files that appellant would be incurring such expenses come September. In fact, the caseworker said it was her custom not to inquire into all work-related expenses. The section of the application regarding work-related expenses remained blank.

Appellant argues that she was prevented from deducting certain available work-related expenses because the Department...