Saddler v. Winstead, No. EC 70-20-S.
Decision Date | 23 August 1971 |
Docket Number | No. EC 70-20-S. |
Parties | Mrs. Ora Lee SADDLER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arthur WINSTEAD et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Thomas R. Mayfield, John C. Brittain, Jr., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiffs.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., James E. Rankin, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Miss., Jackson, Miss., for the defendants.
This action has been instituted by Mrs. Ora Lee Saddler (plaintiff), in her own behalf and on behalf of her dependent grandchildren, Tommy Lee Davis, age fifteen years, and Sammy Lee Davis, age thirteen years, (children), the children of Mrs. Saddler's daughter and her husband. The action is filed as a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Plaintiff has had the custody of the children, off and on, for most of the time since they were born. The children's parents do not contribute to their support, and plaintiff has assumed that burden.
On May 26, 1969, plaintiff signed a Declaration of Eligibility with reference to the children and the adopted minor daughter of plaintiff who lived with plaintiff, seeking assistance and aid from the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare under the Aid to Dependent Children program (ADC), adopted and in force within the state.
The declaration or form contained the following provision:
Plaintiff, in answering the provision, indicated that she would not agree to sign forms which reported the parents of the children who had deserted them. One of the forms which plaintiff would have been required to sign had she agreed to this provision would have furnished the law-enforcement officials of the state with information regarding the name, occupation, and address of each deserting parent, as well as other information regarding the marriage of the parents, birth of the children, and desertion of the children by the parents. The form contained a provision obligating anyone signing the form to render state law-enforcement officials assistance in the prosecution of an absent and deserting parent.
The county welfare agent notified plaintiff by letter dated July 7, 1969
Plaintiff appealed from the decision of the county welfare agent to the State Board of Public Welfare and was afforded a hearing by appeal hearing officials and the medical reviewing team. This hearing was held on September 4, 1969, at West Point, Mississippi, the county seat of the county in which plaintiff resides. Plaintiff was represented at the hearing by an attorney and the issues involved were fully developed before the hearing officials. The hearing officials explained to plaintiff that if she signed the form she would actually be reporting the father and mother of the children to the Court in order that the Court might obtain child support from the parents for the children.
Plaintiff did not agree to sign the form or to assist the state law-enforcement officials in pursuing legal remedies to compel the parents of the children to contribute to their support.
After reviewing the report and recommendations of the appeal hearing officials the Commissioner of Public Welfare notified plaintiff that her claim for Aid to Dependent Children was denied.1
The demand by the State Department of Public Welfare that plaintiff report the absent parents to law-enforcement officials and assist in their prosecution is authorized by a regulation adopted by the Mississippi State Welfare Department.2
Plaintiff filed this action March 17, 1970, against the State Board of the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, its chairman and members, the Commissioner of the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, and the County Welfare Agent for Clay County, Mississippi, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the regulation aforesaid. Plaintiff contends that the regulation is invalid because it conflicts with and is violative of the Social Security Act of 1935, Sub-Chapter IV, Part A, §§ 401-410, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 601-610 (Act), pursuant to which Mississippi affords public assistance to needy and dependent children. Plaintiff further contends that the Mississippi regulation is inconsistent with regulations properly promulgated under the Act by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Additionally, plaintiff contends that the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, by virtue of the regulation aforesaid, has imposed an eligibility requirement upon ADC applicants not contemplated by the Act.
The complaint also raises constitutional objections to the regulation and its enforcement. It is contended that the practice required by this regulation arbitrarily creates artificial and unreasonable classes of needy, dependent children —one class consisting of children whose custodian complies with an invalid regulation and another class whose custodian refuses to comply—thus denying equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Because the regulation which plaintiff seeks to enjoin has state-wide application, plaintiff requested the formation of a court of three judges to determine the issue. Pursuant to the request the three-judge court was properly constituted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2281 and 2284. Subsequent to the formation of the court plaintiff moved the remand of the action to a one-judge court for the disposition of plaintiff's statutory claim. The three-judge court heard and considered the motion and determined that it was proper for the statutory claim to be adjudicated before giving consideration to the constitutional issue. Accordingly, the motion was sustained and the action remanded to a one-judge court for the determination of the statutory claim. The action was stayed in the three-judge court pending the decision of the one-judge court.3
The action is now before the one-judge District Court on the statutory claim and has been submitted for decision on the merits, on stipulation of facts, the record, and briefs of the parties. The single question before the Court for decision is whether the Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare is authorized by the Act and the regulations of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to require that the applicant or other grantee relative, before aid under the ADC program adopted by the state is granted or continued, report the name of the absent parent to law-enforcement officials and agree to render assistance in any legal proceedings brought against the absent parent.
It is provided in 42 U.S.C.A. § 602(a) that "A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must * * * (10) provide, effective July 1, 1951, that all individuals wishing to make application for aid to families with dependent children shall have opportunity to do so, and that aid to families with dependent children shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals; (11) effective July 1, 1952, provide for prompt notice to appropriate law-enforcement officials of the furnishing of aid to families with dependent children in respect of a child who has been deserted or abandoned by a parent; * * * (17) provide—(A) for the development and implementation of a program under which the State agency will undertake— * * * (ii) in the case of any child receiving such aid who has been deserted or abandoned by his parent, to secure support for such child from such parent (or from any other person legally liable for such support), utilizing any reciprocal arrangements adopted with other States to obtain or enforce court orders for support, and * * *." (Emphasis added).
The Handbook of Public Assistance Administration issued by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in Volume IV, § 8120, provides in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Lavine
...Lewis v. Martin, supra; King v. Smith, supra; Doe v. Ellis, 350 F.Supp. 375 (D.S.C. 1972) (three-judge court); Saddler v. Winstead, 332 F.Supp. 130 (N.D.Miss. 1971); Doe v. Schmidt, 330 F.Supp. 159 (E.D.Wis.1971) (three-judge court); Doe v. Shapiro, 302 F.Supp. 761 (D. Conn.1969) (three-jud......
-
Doe v. Norton
...483 (N.D.Iowa 1972); Doe v. Lavine, 347 F. Supp. 357 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Saiz v. Hernandez, 340 F.Supp. 165 (D.N.M.1972); Saddler v. Winstead, 332 F.Supp. 130 (N.D.Miss. 1971); Doe v. Swank, 332 F.Supp. 61 (N. D.Ill.), aff'd summarily sub nom. Weaver v. Doe, 404 U.S. 987, 92 S.Ct. 537, 30 L.Ed.......
-
Simpson v. Miller
...v. Smith, 392 U.S. at 329, 88 S.Ct. at 2139; Doe v. Ellis, 350 F.Supp. 375, 379 (D.S.C. 1972) (three-judge court); Saddler v. Winstead, 332 F.Supp. 130, 135 (N.D.Miss.1971); Taylor v. Martin, 330 F.Supp. 85, 88-89 (N.D.Cal.) (three-judge court), aff'd sub nom., Carleson v. Taylor, 404 U.S. ......
-
Doe v. Lavine
...the statutory claim." Saddler v. Winstead, 327 F.Supp. 568, 569 (N.D.Miss.1971), three-judge court remanding to single judge, 332 F.Supp. 130 (N.D.Miss.1971). I am, therefore, denying plaintiffs' request to convene a three-judge I am prepared to rule as a single judge and have indicated how......