Montgomery v. Iowa Dept. of Social Services, 55653

• Decision Date: 03 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 55653,55653
• Citation: 209 N.W.2d 30
• Parties: Effie MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 30

209 N.W.2d 30

Effie MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 55653.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 3, 1973.

Canning, Correll & Sheerer, Waterloo, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Lorna Lawhead Williams, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. and Thomas R. Hronek, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, and McCORMICK, JJ.

UHLENHOPP, Justice.

The problem in this case relates to consideration of restricted funds in connection with aid to dependent children (ADC).

During the period in question, Mrs. Effie Montgomery lived with her six minor children. She received ADC. Her own earnings amounted to $305.25 per month (all figures are monthly). Her son Anthony was entitled to $126.40 social security benefits based on earnings of his deceased father. Mrs. Montgomery received those social security benefits as Anthony's representative payee. Anthony's basic needs were $62.

A hearing was held by the Iowa Department of Social Services (the Department) regarding the effect of Anthony's social security benefits on the amount of ADC for the family. Mrs. Montgomery claimed that she had a right to have both Anthony and his social security benefits disregarded in connection with ADC. The Department ruled that Mrs. Montgomery did have a right to have Anthony excluded for ADC purposes, but that the amount of Anthony's social security benefits in excess of his basic needs would be deducted from the ADC ($126.40 social security benefits less $62 basic needs of Anthony or $64.40 deducted from ADC). See Iowa Dept. of Soc. Serv. Employees Manual, V--5--32, 10 (1071). Mrs. Montgomery appealed the Department's order to district court, which affirmed. She then appealed to this court.

Mrs. Montgomery's claim has two facets: first, whether she is entitled to have Anthony disregarded in connection with ADC, and second, whether, if Anthony is thus disregarded, she is entitled to have his social security benefits also disregarded.

As to the first facet, we think that under the interpretations of the United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare (HEW), Mrs. Montgomery has an undoubted right to receive no payment of ADC on account of Anthony and yet to receive ADC for the rest of the family. To that extent Mrs. Montgomery is right that Anthony may be disregarded for ADC purposes. HEW Social & Rehabilitation Service State Letter No. 1088 (Sept. 25, 1970). See Collins v. White, No. C 69--830 (3--judge U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. Ohio, unreported). But Mrs. Montgomery's right in this respect is not to be confused with a different matter--consideration of Anthony's actual presence in the family in the arithmetical computation of the ADC grant. As to that matter, a distinction must be taken between (a) counting a person in the family in computing an ADC family grant and (b) ascertaining the amount of the grant actually to be paid. The Department's charts show that person amounts of basic needs vary with family size. Hence the Department may include the actual family membership when arithmetically computing the grant, although one or more members' portions are deducted in making actual payment of ADC--as where, like Anthony, they have available resources of their own in excess of their basic needs. See 45 CFR § 232.20(a)(3)(ii)(c).

We hold on the first facet of Mrs. Montgomery's claim that she has a right to receive no ADC for Anthony although she receives ADC for the rest of the family. We do not decide the reverse question--whether she does not a right to ADC for Anthony notwithstanding his entitlement to social security benefits or how the social security benefits would be treated in that situation. With regard to that, see 42 U.S.C.A. § 606(a); Code 1973, § 239.2; Gilliard v. Craig, 331 F.Supp. 587 (3--judge court, W.D.N.C.), aff'd, 409 U.S. 807, 93 S.Ct. 39, 34 L.Ed.2d 66.

As to the second facet of Mrs. Montgomery's claim--whether Anthony's social security benefits are to be disregarded if no ADC is paid for him--social security benefits for children of deceased wage earners are granted by 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(d). Under that statute the United States Social Security Administration (the Administration) promulgated regulations authorizing social security benefits to be paid to a representative payee of a beneficiary in cases like the present one. 20 CFR § 404.1601. Section 404.1603 of the regulations provides:

A relative or other person to whom certification of payment is made on behalf of a beneficiary as representative payee shall, subject to review by the Administration and to such requirements as it may from time to...