Meredith v. Ray

• Decision Date: 04 December 1942
• Citation: 292 Ky. 326,166 S.W.2d 437
• Parties: MEREDITH, Atty. Gen., et al. v. RAY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

166 S.W.2d 437

292 Ky. 326

MEREDITH, Atty. Gen., et al. v. RAY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

December 4, 1942

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; William B. Ardery Judge.

Action under the Declaratory Judgment Act by Mamie Ray, an infant suing by her next friend, Viola Ray, against Hubert Meredith Attorney General, and others for determination of plaintiff's right to aid as a dependent child and declaration of the parties' rights. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Hubert Meredith, Atty. Gen., and M. B. Holifield, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellant.

Anna H. Settle and Richard P. Dietzman, both of Louisville, and Smith & Leary, of Frankfort, for appellee.

REES Justice.

On this appeal the validity of Chapter 158 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1940, now KRS 200.010 et seq., is questioned. If the act is held valid the validity of subsection (b) of section 17, Part One of Chapter 1 of the Acts of 1942 is incidentally involved. Chapter 158 of the Acts of 1940 provides that aid shall be granted to any dependent child who meets certain requirements as to age, residence, etc., prescribed by the act. In section 1 of the act "dependent child" is defined as "a needy child under the age of sixteen (16), or under the age of eighteen (18) if found by the State Department to be regularly attending school, who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with his father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, or aunt in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their home."

The appellee, Mamie Ray, an infant 14 years of age, resides with her mother in Franklin county. Her father was adjudged a person of unsound mind by the Franklin circuit court in 1937, and was committed to the Eastern State Hospital for the Insane. He is now an inmate of the Central State Hospital for the Insane at Lakeland, Kentucky. Her mother, because of physical infirmities, is unable to support herself and daughter. Application was made to the Department of Welfare of Kentucky for aid under the act providing for aid to dependent children, and the Commissioner of Welfare refused to approve the application because the Attorney General of Kentucky had advised him that there was serious doubt as to the constitutionality of Chapter 158 of the Acts of 1940. Thereupon Mamie Ray, suing by her next friend, Viola Ray, brought an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act to have the questions in controversy determined and the rights of the parties declared. The Attorney General, Commissioner of Finance, Commissioner of Welfare, and Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky were made defendants. The circuit court overruled a demurrer to the petition, and adjudged that Chapter 158 of the Acts of 1940 and subsection (b), section 17, of Part One of Chapter 1, of the Acts of 1942 are valid and constitutional, and directed the Commissioner of Welfare to take the necessary steps to put the Aid to Dependent Children Act into operation. The defendants have appealed.

In appellants' brief there is a lengthy discussion of the Legislature's power to authorize cash payments to dependent children in view of section 3 of the Constitution which provides that no grant of exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges shall be made to any man or set of men, except in consideration of public services. In Bowman v. Frost, 289 Ky. 826, 158 S.W.2d 945, the question before the court was the constitutionality of Chapter 157 of the Acts of 1940 entitled "An Act to promote the public welfare by providing aid to the needy blind," and it was held that the act was not in violation of section 3 of the Constitution. Counsel for appellants concede that the opinion in the Bowman case is controlling in this respect in the present case, and they do not seek to have it overruled or modified. Their attack on Chapter 158 of the Acts of 1940 is based on the claim that the definition therein of "dependent child" creates an invalid classification. It is argued that aid is not granted to all dependent children, but only to the class of dependents specified in the act; that is, needy children who live with relatives within a certain degree of kinship, and therefore the grants are unreasonable and arbitrary discriminations between children who are equal in their dependency. It is conceded that under the opinion in Bowman v. Frost the Legislature may grant to every dependent child the aid that is adequate to meet its necessities, but it is said that to grant aid only to the dependent child who lives in the home of some certain designated relative and to deny it to an equally dependent child because he does not live in the home of such a designated relative is to grant to the former a special or exclusive privilege. We think it boils down to a question of proper classification, and if the classification is proper there is no violation of section 3 of the Constitution. Subsection 29 of section 59 of the Constitution prohibits special laws in all cases where a general law can be made applicable. The power of the Legislature to classify subjects for the purpose of legislation is limited only by the requirement that there must be a reasonable basis for the classification. Commonwealth v. Griffen, 268 Ky. 830, 105 S.W.2d...