McCoy v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 22120

• Citation: 271 S.W.2d 788
• Decision Date: 04 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 22120,22120
• Parties: Louis McCOY, Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Page 788

271 S.W.2d 788

Louis McCOY, Appellant, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondent.

No. 22120.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 4, 1954.

Clyde O. Bowles, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Paul McGhee, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BROADDUS, Judge.

Appellant, Louis McCoy, on November 24, 1952, applied to the Jackson County Welfare Office for aid to dependent children. His application was based upon Section 208.040 RSMo 1949, as amended, Laws of 1951, p. 756, V.A.M.S. Said section provides in part that aid to dependent children benefits shall be granted with respect to any child who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, 'and financial aid for such child is necessary to save him from neglect and to secure for him proper care in such home'.

Applicant's application was approved on December 9, 1952, but on January 23, 1953, appellant was removed from the aid to dependent children rolls. At his request a hearing was conducted by a referee for the State Department of Public Health and Welfare (respondent.) The evidence presented at said hearing was transcribed and was thereafter reviewed by the Director of said Department. On June 24, 1953, he rendered a decision affirming the action of the Jackson County Welfare Office in removing appellant from the rolls. Appellant duly appealed from the Director's decision to the Circuit Court of Jackson County and that Court, reviewing the aforesaid record, affirmed the Director's order. From said judgment the appellant appealed to this Court.

Based upon 'the entire record and evidence' in the case the Director made the following 'Findings of Fact':

'Claimant, 50 years of age, lives at 3311 East 19th Street, Kansas City, Missouri. Claimant's wife died in March, 1951. Claimant was erroneously placed on the aid to dependent children rolls in December 1952, and his case was closed when the case was checked and it was found there was a child 16 years of age or older who could care for the children. Claimant is the father of ten children, ranging in age from 3 years to 20 years. Only seven of the children are living at home with him. The oldest child at home is a girl seventeen years of age, and the youngest child at home is eleven years of age. One son is in the armed services. The two youngest children are being kept by relatives in the Carolinas. For the past two years claimant has been sub-renting the upper story of his house for $40.00. The total rent for the house is $90.00 per month, which claimant pays by adding $50.00 to the rental he receives for the upper story. Two women live in the rented part of the house, one of whom is always at home. The evidence showed that the cooking and housework is being done by claimant and his 17 year old daughter with the additional help of the other children. Only two meals are prepared each day. Sometimes the daughter prepares the meal, sometimes the claimant, and sometimes both work together. Claimant's daughter stated that she had been caring for the other children when her father was not there. Claimant receives a government pension of $180.00 per month. He also does odd jobs, from which he receives $35.00 to $40.00 per month. The son who is in the armed services sends home a $50.00 bond each month. Claimant estimates that since he has been in the service he has sent home twenty-four bonds. Claimant states that every now and then he cashes a bond and uses the money. His contention is that he is unable to secure and hold a regular job because it is necessary for him to stay at home and care for the children. He stated that five of his children attend a grade school on what they referred to as a split shift basis--going to school early in the morning and returning home at half past twelve, but the evidence showed this to be true for only part of the last school year and will not be true at all during the coming school year. The welfare worker testified that from the interview with claimant the welfare office secured no information showing that claimant had ever done any work other than odd jobs since his discharge from the Army in 1946. Claimant named several jobs he is supposed to have had, but they were of such short duration that they could be considered nothing but odd jobs. It is found c...