Smith v. Welfare Com'r, CV

• Court: Connecticut Court of Common Pleas
• Writing for the Court: HAMILL
• Citation: Smith v. Welfare Com'r, 314 A.2d 166, 30 Conn.Supp. 587 (Conn. Ct. Com. Pl. 1973)
• Decision Date: 01 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. CV,CV
• Parties: Nancy A. SMITH v. WELFARE COMMISSIONER. 1-722-34562.

Page 166

314 A.2d 166

30 Conn.Supp. 587

Nancy A. SMITH v. WELFARE COMMISSIONER.

No. CV 1-722-34562.

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut.

Argued May 1, 1973.

Decided Nov. 1, 1973.

Roger E. Koontz, Stamford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and Edmund C. Walsh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).

HAMILL, Judge.

On September 27, 1971, the plaintiff applied for public assistance under the aid to families with dependent children (AFDC). She sought additional funds for child care service in order to retain her employment. Her application was denied on October 12, 1971, owing to excessive income. She was granted a 'fair hearing,' as required by § 17-2a of the General Statutes, on December 14, 1971. Upon notification of a final decision by the hearing officer, the plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court and her appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff lives alone with her five children, ages two and one-half through fifteen, in a two and one-half bedroom apartment in Darien, Connecticut renting for $240 per month. Her food, clothing, personal and household supplies expenditures total $226.55 per month, and she is in debt for over $956 for hospital bills, child treatment, surgery, and medical insurance. The plaintiff had maintained child care service in the past at a cost of $86.67 per month, but discontinued it owing to a lack of necessary funds. Her gross income is $123 per week or $533 per month.

If an applicant's total need exceeds her net income (gross income minus expenses of employment) she is considered eligible for AFDC. 1 Welfare Manual, c. III, index No. 332.32 (rev. Nov. 8, 1971; effective Oct. 1, 1971).

The plaintiff's total need was determined to be $451.55 based on the sum of $225 for rental allowance and the $226.55 expense allowance previously mentioned. Necessary expenses of child care were not added to this total need figure because the plaintiff was not actually incurring this expense when she applied. Subsequent to this computation of the plaintiff's total need, her net income was computed to be approximately $473, as per the welfare regulations, which was arrived at by deducting a flat amount for work expenses of $60 per month from the gross income of $533 per month. Since this net income of $473 exceeded the plaintiff's total need of $451.55, she was denied AFDC assistance.

The plaintiff concededly needed $86.67 per month to pay for child care for her youngest child in order to maintain her employment. The decision of the fair hearing officer appealed from held that for child care to be considered part of the plaintiff's total need, thereby qualifying her for AFDC, she must actually spend the funds necessary to maintain this child care.

The plaintiff has assigned two errors, only one of which is pursued here. The issue was must decide, therefore, is whether the commissioner acted arbitrarily, illegally, or unreasonably so as to abuse his discretion in deciding that it was proper not to consider necessary expenses of child care in qualifying people for the AFDC program. General Statutes § 17-2b(b); Dempsey v. Tynan, 143 Conn. 202, 206, 120 A.2d 700; Hunt v. Shapiro, 5 Conn.Cir. 505, 506, 258 A.2d 100.

The transcript of the fair hearing, together with the finding and conclusions of the fair hearing officer and of the trial court, and other documents relating to the matter, was filed with the pleadings and made a part of the record.

The fifth paragraph of the finding of the fair hearing officer reads, in part, as follows: 'Had the appellant continued to maintain day care service at $200.00 per week ($86.67 per month) she would have been eligible, as total need would then be $553.22 . . ..'

Section 17-82d of the General Statutes establishes the basis for granting assistance and states, in part: 'The commissioner shall grant aid only if he finds the applicant eligible therefor, in which case he shall grant aid in such amount, determined in accordance with levels of payments established by the commissioner, as is needed in order to enable the applicant to support himself, or, in the case of aid to dependent children, to enable the relative to support such dependent child or children and himself, in health and decency, including the costs of such medical care as he deems necessary and reasonable . . ..'

The applicable federal statute provides for an appropriation of federal funds '(f)or the purpose of encouraging the care of dependent children in their own homes . . . by enabling each State to furnish financial assistance and rehabilitation . . . to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living to help maintain and strengthen family life and to help such parents or...