Mitchell v. Swoap

Decision Date10 December 1973
Citation35 Cal.App.3d 879,113 Cal.Rptr. 75
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPatricia MITCHELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. David W. SWOAP, as Director, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 32835.

Marjorie Gelb, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, Oakland, Mark N. Aaronson, Berkeley, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., David J. Bowie, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

BRAY, Associate Justice. *

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from judgment of the Alameda County Superior Court denying motion for permanent injunction.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. The regulation of the State Department of Social Welfare defining a 'family unit budget' under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (hereafter AFDC) program does not violate the Social Security Act.

2. The regulation does not violate equal protection of the laws.

RECORD

Plaintiffs are young, unmarried women, aged at the time of filing the complaint herein, 16 and 17 years, respectively, each the unwed mother of an infant, and each sharing a house with their respective mothers, brothers and sisters, who are also AFDC recipients. Effective November 1, 1971, plaintiffs' AFDC grants were terminated and they and their children were included as additional 'children' on the welfare budgets of their mothers, pursuant to California Department of Social Welfare Eligibility and Assistance Standard (EAS) Regulation section 44--213.31, hereinafter discussed. Plaintiffs then filed this class action to enjoin implementation of those standards. The court denied the relief sought and dismissed the action.

1. No violation of the Social Security Act.

Appellants contend that to include the child-mother and her child residing in her mother's home in such mother's family budget is violative of the Social Security Act. 1 EAS 44--213.31 has been interpreted by the Department of Social Welfare to maintain as one family budget unit the AFDC family in which one of the unmarried, minor, eligible children becomes pregnant and/or in fact has a child herself, and has made such application as in the instant case.

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children is one of the public assistance programs established by the Social Security Act of 1935 (42 U.S.C., § 601 et seq.). The state administers the program, but most of its costs are paid by the federal grant. No state is obliged to participate but those which do are bound by the standards established by Congress and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

A state regulation which conflicts with the Social Security Act eligibility standard is void (King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128,20 L.Ed.2d 1118; Townsend v. Swank (1971) 404 U.S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448). On the other hand, a state regulation which does not conflict with a specific provision of the Social Security Act is valid (Jefferson v. Hackney (1972) 406 U.S. 535, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 32 L.Ed.2d 285; New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino (1973) 413 U.S. 405, 93 S.Ct. 2507, 37 L.Ed.2d 688).

The AFDC program is an exercise in 'cooperative federalism' wherein the state establishes its own assistance programs within the broad guidelines established by the Social Security Act. Subject to the qualification that the state may not impose eligibility requirements which would exclude persons eligible under the act, the state has virtually complete autonomy to set the standard of needs for welfare recipients and to determine the level of benefits actually paid.

The inquiry then is whether there are any specific provisions of the Social Security Act which require that under the circumstances here, plaintiffs and others in their class be given a fully independent AFDC grant. Plaintiffs have pointed out no such specific provision. They rely principally on the following three sections. Section 606(a) of the act (42 U.S.C.) defines a 'dependent child' as one who (among other things) '. . . is living with his father, mother, grandfather, grandmother (or other designated relatives), In a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their own home.' (Emphasis added.) Section 606(b) states: 'The term 'aid to families with dependent children' means money payments with respect to . . . a dependent child or dependent children, and includes (1) money payments . . . To meet the needs of the relative with whom any dependent child is living.' (Emphasis added.) Section 606(c) defines the term 'relative with whom any dependent child is living' as 'the individual who is one of the relatives specified in subsection (a) of this section and with whom such child is living . . . In a place of residence maintained by such individual (himself or together with any one or more of the other relatives so specified) as his (or their) own home.' (Emphasis added.)

Interpreting the above sections as applying to plaintiffs' babies, it is clear that the children are entitled to receive AFDC support and that the relative with whom they are living, in the sense of the act, are their grandmothers and not their mothers, who are also living with the grandmothers (plaintiffs' mothers) and for whom the grandmothers are also receiving support.

In the instant case, plaintiff Patricia Mitchell's mother receives $465 per month welfare payment for herself, Patricia's child, and Patricia's six brothers and sisters, and Patricia. If a separate grant were made, as plaintiffs claim should be made, to Patricia and her child, they would receive a welfare payment of $190 per month, and Patricia's mother would receive only $395, $120 less than the sum of the two independent grants. Thus, it appears that where the needy child is living in a home with relatives already receiving AFDC payments, an allowance for that child is less than if the child and his or her mother were living independently.

There is no express provision in the Social Security Act that states that a state may not, in providing AFDC to a needy child, taken into consideration in fixing the amount to be awarded such child the fact that the relative or relatives with whom the child is living is already receiving AFDC awards. That a minor child becomes an unwed mother does not in any way change her status as a minor or her inclusion as a dependent child nor the inclusion of her child in the award to the person with whom both the mother and the child are living. The amount of the grant for both is a matter entirely within the competence of the state to determine (Rosado v. Wyman (1970) 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442).

Appellants concede that the Social Security Act does not explicitly state which of the several relatives with whom a dependent child may reside shall be considered the 'relative with who many dependent child is living' for purposes of determining AFDC eligibility. They contend that the mother of the child, when present, is necessarily that relative. However, the act itself does not reveal any distinction between parents and other relatives.

'The very title of the program, the repeated references to families added in 1962, Pub.L. 87--543, § 104(a)(3), 76 Stat. 185, and the words of the preamble . . . show that Congress wished to help children through the family structure. . . . From its inception the Act has defined 'dependent child' in part by reference to The relatives with whom the child lives.' (Emphasis added; Dandridge v. Williams (1970) 397 U.S. 471, 479, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1158, 25 L.Ed.2d 491.) The preamble to the AFDC program (42 U.S.C. § 601) referred to in the above case provides 'For the purpose of encouraging the care of dependent children in their own homes or In the homes of relatives by enabling each State to furnish financial assistance and rehabilitation and other services, so far as practical under the conditions in such State, to needy dependent children and the parents Or relatives with whom they are living. . . .' (Emphasis added.) Apparently, no distinction is drawn in the act between relatives and parents in the determination of which relative will be considered the 'relative with whom any dependent child is living.'

As hereinbefore stated, a reasonable interpretation of section 606(a), (b) and (c) of 42 U.S.C. is that the person in whose house the dependent child is living and who herself is receiving AFDC for all in the household, is the 'person with whom such child is living' and is the one to whom the support payments should be made. At the very least, there is no inhibitation in the act against such interpretation by the state.

In Arizona St. Dept. of Pub. W. v. Department of Health, E. & W. (9 Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 456 (cert. den. 405 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 945, 30 L.Ed.2d 789), the court held, among other matters, that the state rule that payments for AFDC for a needy child will be made only to a relative who had legal custody of the child violated the federal act. In discussing the provisions of the act, the court pointed out that a needy child is 'just as much a 'dependent child' within the meaning of the Act when he lives with a relative as when he lives with a parent. . . . And a relative qualifies as a 'relative with whom any dependent child is living' within the meaning of the Act whenever his or her relationship to the child is one of those specified and the child is actually living with him or her' (Id. at 476).

In HEW's Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, section 5212 of the AFDC portion of the handbook states 'If one or both parents are in the home, it would be extremely rare that another relative could be the 'relative with whom any dependent child is living" (IV Handbook, § 5212). This section does no more than establish a guideline for the ordinary case and is not a binding interpretation of the act on this court (see Wheat v. Hall (1973) 32...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Essex County Div. of Welfare v. O.J.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1992
    ...initiatives are valid in the absence of a clear statement of congressional disapproval." Id. at 1084; accord Mitchell v. Swoap, 35 Cal.App.3d 879, 113 Cal.Rptr. 75, 77 (1973) ("a state regulation [that] does not conflict with a specific provision of the Social Security Act is valid"). Absen......
  • County of San Mateo v. Dell J.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1988
    ...134 Cal.Rptr. 137.) The program has been characterized as an exercise in " 'cooperative federalism....' " (Mitchell v. Swoap (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 879, 883, 113 Cal.Rptr. 75.) Under the AFDC program "federal funds [are made] available to those states which have submitted and had approved by ......
  • Sheyko v. Saenz
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 2003
    ...pregnancies]; (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." (42 U.S.C. § 601; see Mitchell v. Swoap (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 879, 884, 113 Cal.Rptr. 75 [construing prior analogous statutory language; "`The very title of the program, the [references to families ... and the......
  • County of San Diego v. Brown
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 1993
    ...2335-2336, 120 L.Ed.2d 1; County of L.A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 392, 196 P.2d 773; Mitchell v. Swoap (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 879, 888, 113 Cal.Rptr. 75.)basis," it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety ......
  • 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