Rebman v. Welfare Com'r, CV
| Decision Date | 24 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. CV,CV |
| Citation | 31 Conn.Supp. 515,324 A.2d 273 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut. Connecticut Court of Common Pleas, Appellate Division |
| Parties | Paula REBMAN v. WELFARE COMMISSIONER. 10-7112-16105. |
Elliot Taubman, Norwich, for appellant (plaintiff).
Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and James M. Higgins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, in August of 1971, while receiving state aid under the aid to families with dependent children program (AFDC), was notified that her AFDC award would be terminated effective September 30, 1971, owing to excessive family assets. She requested a fair hearing pursuant to § 17-2a of the General Statutes. She and her authorized representative were fully heard. She has here appealed the decision of the Circuit Court sustaining the action of the fair hearing officer.
Evidence was presented at the hearing that during a review of the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits it was discovered that her family assets exceeded the program limit of $250. An agency worker had determined that a life insurance policy owned by the plaintiff had a cash value of $404 and that the plaintiff had reduced the cash value to $180.48 by prepaying premiums for 1971, 1972 and 1973, all without notice to the welfare department; also that one of the plaintiff's children had a savings account of $100 which had been expended to purchase school clothing for the child and graduation expenses, also without notice to the department.
The plaintiff testified that her daughter had accumulated the $100 over a three-year period by baby sitting and that the child had saved the money to purchase needed clothing when she entered high school. The plaintiff contended that the $100 ought not to be included in a determination of family assets.
The fair hearing officer cited the department policy as contained in index 204 of volume 1, chapter II, of the Connecticut State Welfare Manual, under the title 'Eligibility Requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children': The fair hearing officer also cited the following policy contained in index 386(1) of volume 1, chapter III, of the manual:
The fair hearing officer found that the agency worker acted correctly in reflecting the savings of the plaintiff's daughter as a family asset and that the $100, when added to the $404 cash surrender value of the life policy, represented total family assets of $504. Since there was also a sum of $2 in Christmas clubs, it was determined that the plaintiff's family assets exceeded the permissible limit by a total of $256. The officer further ruled that since it had been determined that it would be in the best interests of the welfare department that the life policy be kept active and since the plaintiff had reimbursed the department to the extent of $58 and additionally had agreed to pay summer camp expenses in the amount of $198 for four of her children as soon as she recovered the amount of the prepaid premiums from the insurance company, the plaintiff's AFDC benefits should not be suspended.
Section 17-2b(b) of the General Statutes provides in part: 'The court, upon such appeal (from a decision of the fair hearing officer), shall determine whether the commissioner has acted illegally or so arbitrarily and unreasonably as to abuse his discretion, and said court (Circuit Court), in accordance with such determination, . . . may modify or revise the decision appealed from.' Since this is an appeal from the Circuit Court, which considered the administrative decision, we are likewise bound by the standard of whether the commissioner acted illegally or so arbitrarily as to abuse his discretion. Adamczyk v. Shapiro, 4 Conn.Cir.Ct. 338, 339, 231 A.2d 549.
Other federal and state laws pertinent to the resolution of the plaintiff's first claim, that the child's accumulated earnings of $100 ought not to be included in determining the total family assets, appear in the footnote. 1
The defendant has argued that index 204(C)(1), supra, allows the welfare commissioner to consider a child's accumulated earnings as part of a family's total assets. He states that current income is not taken into account but that federal public welfare regulations provide that '(R)eserves accumulated from earnings are given no different treatment than reserves accumulated from any other sources.' 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a)(6)(viii). It is the plaintiff's argument that this must be interpreted in the light of the federal and state provisions disregarding the earnings of full-time students. 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(8)(A)(i) (1970); 1 Conn. State Welfare Manual, c. III, index 332.33(A)(1)(a). The purpose of the income-disregard provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 602 is to increase payments to AFDC recipients because of the rise in the cost of living and to encourage individuals who had been receiving public assistance to seek employment. X v. McCorkle, 333 F.Supp. 1109, aff'd as modified, 404 U.S. 23, 92 S.Ct. 181, 30 L.Ed.2d 143. The plaintiff contends that the provisions she cites govern the disposition of this case, even though the 'disregard provisions' of the state regulations, while they exempt earned income, do not specifically exempt accumulated earnings. We believe the plaintiff's interpretation is the only reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercado v. Commissioner of Income Maintenance
...recoupment action." The plaintiff took a timely appeal to the Superior Court. 2 The trial court, relying upon Rebman v. Welfare Commissioner, 31 Conn.Sup. 515, 324 A.2d 273 (1973), a decision of the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas, concluded "[t]hat earned income and accumul......