Mushero v. Ives
| Decision Date | 06 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1347,91-1347 |
| Citation | 949 F.2d 513 |
| Parties | -5925 Adam MUSHERO, etc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. H. Rollin IVES, Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services, Defendant, Appellee. . Heard |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Mary T. Henderson, Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., for plaintiff, appellant.
Mary B. Najarian, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Michael E. Carpenter, Atty. Gen., and Christopher C. Leighton and Thomas D. Warren, Deputy Attys. Gen., were on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before CAMPBELL, TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges.
Adam Mushero, representing plaintiff class, 1 appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maine denying his request for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Maine Department of Human Services ("DHS"). Mushero claimed that DHS violated federal law when it intercepted his federal tax refund in order to satisfy his alleged indebtedness for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments previously made for his children. The district court held that DHS had properly imposed an AFDC debt which it was entitled to enforce by intercepting Mushero's federal tax refund. We affirm.
Mushero and Dawn Frasier are the parents of two children born out of wedlock. In 1988, Frasier--living with the children and apart from Mushero--applied for AFDC. As a condition for AFDC eligibility, Frasier assigned her rights to child support to DHS. Between April 1988 and April 1989 Frasier received $5,246 in AFDC payments for the benefit of her and Mushero's children. During this time, although no court or administrative order required him to do so, Mushero paid Frasier $25 per week per child for the support of their children.
In February 1989 DHS notified Mushero of a hearing scheduled in April 1989 to determine the amount of his AFDC debt and to determine "whether a current child support obligation should be established." A hearing was held, and DHS issued a decision establishing, as to Mushero, an AFDC indebtedness of $2,696, and setting Mushero's current support obligation at $42 per week per child. The administrative hearing officer denied Mushero's appeal from the decision.
On August 5, 1989 Mushero and Dawn Frasier were married and the AFDC grant was closed. In September 1989 Mushero received notice that DHS would seek to offset past due child support from his federal income tax refund. Relief from this proposed action was denied on administrative review. DHS then intercepted the entire amount of Mushero's federal tax refund for 1989 (2,293.09), and applied this toward his AFDC debt.
Mushero filed simultaneous actions in the United States district court and in Maine state court. In the latter action he sought review of DHS' final agency decision on state law grounds. The state law action has since been stayed by agreement. In the district court, before a magistrate judge, the parties filed cross motions for judgment on the stipulated record. Mushero also filed a motion for class certification. Mushero sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Maine's practice of imposing AFDC debts on plaintiff class and intercepting federal tax refunds to satisfy these debts, claiming that this practice contravenes federal law and, therefore, deprives him of his federal rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge recommended class certification and the district court affirmed. The magistrate judge also recommended that the court grant appellee's summary judgment motion and deny appellant's like motion. The district court followed the recommendation; it also denied appellant's requests for oral argument and certification of supposedly doubtful issues of state law to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. This appeal followed.
Both parties agree that, under federal law, any right DHS has to impose an AFDC debt on Mushero is derived from the support rights the custodial parent assigned to DHS as a condition for receiving AFDC. Both parties also agree that Maine law determines what support rights a custodial parent has and what rights the parent can assign to DHS. DHS' rights are the same child support rights that the custodial parent has in Maine.
The issue, then, is whether the AFDC debt charged to Mushero and offset from his federal income tax refund was encompassed within the support rights that Dawn Frasier, the custodial parent, assigned to DHS. Mushero makes three arguments in support of his contention that DHS did not have the authority to impose an AFDC debt on him. First, Mushero argues that under Maine law, when paternity is not an issue, a custodial parent has no right to be reimbursed by a non-custodial parent for child support expenses accruing prior to a court order or administrative procedure establishing a child support obligation. Alternatively, he contends that Maine law is unclear on this issue, and asks this court to certify it to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Second, Mushero argues that even if this court finds that under Maine law retroactive child support rights are recognized and hence assignable by the recipient of an AFDC grant, Maine's AFDC statutes would still violate federal law because they provide an administrative means for collecting retroactive child support debts for AFDC recipients while not providing the same service for non-AFDC recipients. Finally, Mushero argues that the federal AFDC program did not contemplate the collection of retroactive child support from non-custodial parents and thus does not authorize Maine to use AFDC to enforce such an obligation. We affirm the district court and hold that DHS was authorized to impose on Mushero an AFDC debt reflecting a retroactive child support obligation. Before addressing each of Mushero's arguments, we first examine the federal and state statutory scheme underlying the AFDC program.
The AFDC program is a cooperative federal and state program. It was established under the Social Security Act to provide financial assistance to families with dependent children. As a condition of AFDC eligibility, custodial parents must "assign the State any rights to support ... which have accrued at the time such assignment is executed." 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(26). 2 The support rights assigned "constitute an obligation owed to such State by the individual responsible for providing such support." 42 U.S.C. § 656(a)(1). 3 The amount of the obligation owed to the state is the "amount specified in a court order which covers the assigned support rights, or if there is no court order, an amount determined by the State in accordance with a formula approved by the Secretary...." 42 U.S.C. § 656(a)(2). To enforce this obligation, Congress authorizes state agencies to withhold federal tax refunds in "an amount equal to the pastdue support" owed to the state. 42 U.S.C. § 664(a). 4 "Pastdue support" is defined as "the amount of a delinquency, determined under a court order, or an order of an administrative process established by State law, for support and maintenance of a child...." 42 U.S.C. § 664(c).
In compliance with federal law, Maine requires AFDC recipients to assign their support rights to the state. 19 M.R.S.A. § 512. 5 As contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 656(a)(1), the payment of AFDC creates a debt due the state by the non-custodial parent that should be equal to the support rights assigned. If a court order for support exists, then "the debt due the department ... shall be the amount established under that order." 19 M.R.S.A. § 495(1)(B). Where no court order for support exists, a non-custodial parent's debt to the state is determined in one of two ways. First, the debt due to the state may simply be declared equal to "the amount of public assistance paid." 19 M.R.S.A. § 495(1)(A). 6 Second, the state can hold a hearing to establish a periodic payment to satisfy the responsible parent's current support obligation under sections 442 and 443 and to determine the parent's debt accrued under section 495. 19 M.R.S.A. § 498. 7 In such a case the debt owed to the department under section 495 is limited to the amount determined in the hearing held pursuant to section 498. 19 M.R.S.A. § 495(1)(A).
In this case DHS determined Mushero's debt pursuant to section 498. Section 498 directs the state to hold a hearing to establish both a current support obligation and "the responsible parent's [AFDC] debt accrued under section 495." At the hearing, a non-custodial parent is given the opportunity to show that the parent's AFDC debt--representing benefits expended on behalf of the children--should be reduced in accordance with that parent's gross income. See Maine Department of Human Services, Division of Support Enforcement, Notice of Hearing and Debt, Case No. 73164201P. The decision after Mushero's hearing indicates reliance upon the Maine Child Support Enforcement Manual in calculating his AFDC debt. The non-custodial parent's financial circumstances are thus considered in establishing the AFDC debt under section 498. Because section 498 takes these circumstances into account as well as the child's needs, an AFDC debt established under section 498 resembles the child support obligation that the custodial parent would have had a right to enforce prior to that parent's assignment of this right to the state. 8
Mushero argues that the AFDC debt established under section 498 nonetheless imposes an obligation on him that is greater than the obligation the custodial parent had a right to enforce and could have assigned. According to Mushero, the debt imposed pursuant to section 498 amounts to a debt for retroactive child support--that is, child support for periods prior to the formal establishment of a child support obligation. Mushero contends that under Maine law, a custodial parent does not have a right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re R.C.T.
...order of child support, thus creating a delinquency for purposes of the federal statute.3 The Attorney General relies on Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513 (1st Cir.1991), as support for the claim that retroactive support may be considered a delinquency. We do not find Mushero persuasive. In tha......
-
Department of Human Services v. Hafford
...seek child support from father for the six years prior to notice of paternity). See also, the First Circuit holding in Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513, 519 (1st Cir.1991) ("[T]he language of the statute [19 M.R.S.A. § 272 (now 19-A § 1553)] as well as the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's interp......
-
In the Interest of R.C.T., No. 14-07-00642-CV (Tex. App. 4/7/2009)
...order of child support, thus creating a delinquency for purposes of the federal statute.2 The Attorney General relies on Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1991), as support for the claim that retroactive support may be considered a delinquency. We do not find Mushero persuasive. In th......
-
White v. Allen, 7457
...Act to project the amount of child support it might have awarded had the matter been presented earlier. White argues that Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513 (1st Cir.1991) provides persuasive authority for the retroactive application of these White is correct in her contention that Mushero suppo......