Orris v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 01 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 91-15405,91-15485,s. 91-15405 |
| Citation | 974 F.2d 109 |
| Parties | Angela ORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Dr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, v. Winona E. RUBIN, Director, Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee. Angela ORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Dr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee, v. Winona E. RUBIN, Director, Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peter Maier, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for third-party defendant-appellant-cross-appellee.
Charles H. Hite, Legal Aid Soc. of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.
Rosemary McShane, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before: HALL, BRUNETTI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This case, which consolidates two cross-appeals from the district court's rulings on three cross-motions for summary judgment, arises out of a challenge to a determination made by the State of Hawaii's Department of Human Services that, because an AFDC 1 recipient's son and the son's natural father were to be included in the recipient's household for AFDC purposes, the natural father's disability income, which exceeded the Department's "standard of need" level for a family of five, rendered the household ineligible for receipt of further AFDC benefits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In 1979, Angela Orris ("Orris") began receiving AFDC benefits for herself and her two minor daughters. Six years later, Elvin Nicely, Sr. ("Father")--who is neither the step-, natural, nor adoptive father of Orris' two daughters--moved in with Orris, who subsequently gave birth to their son, Elvin Nicely, Jr. ("Son"). Father was later injured at work and, in 1987, began drawing temporary total disability ("TTD") workmen's compensation benefits. The following year, Hawaii's Department of Human Services ("DHS") discontinued Orris' AFDC benefits because Father's TTD benefits income exceeded DHS' "standard of need" maximum for a family of five.
Orris filed an administrative appeal, arguing that neither Father nor Son should be included in the family filing unit (i.e., the household consisting of Orris and her two daughters) because Father's lack of any legal obligation to support Orris or her daughters precluded Father's income from being viewed as support for anyone other than himself and Son. DHS rejected this contention, and Orris unsuccessfully sought further administrative review.
Following the exhaustion of her administrative remedies, Orris filed the instant action in state court against Winona Rubin ("Rubin") in her capacity as the Director of DHS. Orris and Rubin stipulated to a stay of those proceedings pending the outcome of a case then before the Supreme Court of Hawaii that involved issues similar to Orris'. When the Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a decision adverse to DHS in that case, 2 Rubin impleaded Louis Sullivan, M.D. ("Secretary" or "government") in his capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary in turn removed the instant action to federal district court.
All three parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted in part and denied in part each motion, ruling that, while Son should be included in the family filing unit as a blood-related sibling of dependent children who was himself deprived of parental support because of Father's physical incapacity, Father should not be included in the family filing unit merely because of Son's inclusion. Secretary timely appealed, arguing that Father had to be included in the family filing unit as well, while Orris cross-appealed, challenging the district court's inclusion of Son in the family filing unit.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment in a case involving the interpretation and application of AFDC legislation. Rosas v. McMahon, 945 F.2d 1469, 1472 n. 4 (9th Cir.1991).
Established by Congress in 1935, the AFDC program is a cooperative federal-state effort in which federal grants enable states to furnish financial assistance to needy, dependent children of parents or relatives with whom they are living. See 42 U.S.C. § 601. 3 Under AFDC, the federal government provides financial contributions to participating states which in turn administer their respective programs and are required to submit for federal approval state plans in conformity with the federal statute and its implementing regulations. See id.
Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 ("DEFRA"), there was no requirement that all coresident family members receiving AFDC benefits be included in the family filing unit for determining eligibility for those benefits. See Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 592-94, 107 S.Ct. 3008, 3012-13, 97 L.Ed.2d 485 (1987). As explained by the Senate Committee on Finance, however, DEFRA changed all that:
Gilliard, 483 U.S. at 593-94, 107 S.Ct. at 3013 (quoting S.Rep. No. 169, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 1, at 980).
In line with the above, section 2640(a) of DEFRA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(38), provides:
(a) A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must--
....
(38) provide that in making the determination [of eligibility] with respect to a dependent child ... the State agency shall ... include--
(A) any parent of such child, and
(B) any brother or sister of such child ... if such parent, brother, or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child, and any income of or available for such parent, brother, or sister shall be included in making such determination....
See also 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(1)(vii)(A), (B) ().
The gist of Secretary's argument is that Father must be included in the Orris family filing unit if Son is so included, and Son must be included because he is a "deprived" child living in the same household as his parents and blood-related siblings, all but one of whom are receiving AFDC benefits. Orris contends that the district court erred by including Son in her household filing unit in the first place, arguing, inter alia, that he was neither "needy" nor "deprived" because Father's TTD income provided for his welfare. 4
The only case apparently on all fours with the instant appeal is that of Phipps v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 409 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 1987). In that case, Betty Phipps, a mother of three minor children, was receiving AFDC benefits when Roscoe Phipps 5--not the father of her three children--moved in with her and fathered a son by her. Roscoe was subsequently injured at work and began receiving worker's compensation benefits. Betty then applied for an increase in her AFDC benefits on behalf of Roscoe and their son. The request was denied and, because Roscoe's disability income exceeded the statutory AFDC maximum for a family of six, the State discontinued Betty's AFDC benefits. Betty sued in state court and lost at trial.
On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that "[n]owhere is it suggested in Bowen [v. Gilliard, supra,] or in the statutes or regulations involved that a non-dependent child had to be included in the [AFDC family filing unit] calculation." 409 N.W.2d at 178. The court's ruling was based on two determinations: first, the son born to Betty and Roscoe was not a "dependent" child for purposes of AFDC because he continued to receive financial support from his father; and second, the support Roscoe owed and provided his son could not be deemed to extend to the other members of the household because Roscoe was neither married to Betty nor the father of her three other children. Id.
We cannot accept Orris' argument that we should follow the Iowa Supreme Court's analysis in Phipps. As shown above, the express wording of the 1984 DEFRA amendments to Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, DEFRA's legislative history, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, all indicate that Congress intended to include--virtually without qualification--in the definition of an AFDC family filing unit the parents of any child otherwise entitled to AFDC benefits if those parents are residing in the same household as that child. By distinguishing between needy and non-needy siblings living under the same roof in an AFDC household, the Phipps decision harkens back to pre-DEFRA days and flies in the face of Congress' unambiguously expressed intent to include in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buening v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services
...The department argues that the Secretary's interpretation of the DEFRA amendments is " 'a permissible one,' " quoting Orris v. Sullivan, 974 F.2d 109, 113 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.S. 83, 93, 110 S.Ct. 960, 966, 108 L.Ed.2d 72 (1990)). But the department does not r......
-
Lopez v. Ohio Dept. of Human Serv.
...child, pursuant to Section 602(a)(38), Title 42, U.S.Code. We agree with the agency's interpretation of the statute. In Orris v. Sullivan (C.A.9, 1992), 974 F.2d 109, a similar situation was presented to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A woman and her two daughters lived with a man and ......
-
Tigner v. Secretary, Cabinet for Human Resources, 92-CA-1275-S
...from the home ..., or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, ... and (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen.... In Orris v. Sullivan, 974 F.2d 109 (9th Cir.1992), which concerns a factual situation identical to that in the instant case, the court reasoned that the 1984 DEFRA amendment......
-
Monica Lopez v. Ohio Department of Human Services, 93-LW-2334
...to Section 602(a) (38), Title 42, U.S.Code. We agree with the agency's interpretation of the statute on this matter. In Orris v. Sullivan (C.A.9, 1992), 974 F.2d 109, similar situation was presented to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A woman and her two daughters lived with a man and th......