Smock v. Carleson

California Court of Appeal Apr 15, 1975 No. Civ. No. 35191Published

Before: Brown, Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that state regulations excluding unmarried parents from the AFDC grant computation unit violate both state law and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order enjoining the enforcement of these regulations and requiring retroactive payment of withheld benefits.

Issues

Whether state regulations excluding unmarried parents from AFDC grant computation conflict with Welfare and Institutions Code section 11250.
Whether the exclusion of unmarried parents from AFDC grant computation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the retroactive payment of benefits.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To classify the differing living styles involved so that one family receives a lower grant solely because of the marital status of the parents creates a classification which violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Opinion

BROWN (H. C.), J. J.— We are called upon in this case to review an order of the trial court enjoining the Director of the State Department of Social Welfare and the secretary of the Health and Welfare Agency of California “from enforcing EAS [Eligibility and Assistance Standards] section 44-213.4 to the extent that it results in the exclusion of a needy [962]natural parent, residing with his or her eligible children from the AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] budget unit for purposes of AFDC grant computation.” The court by writ of mandate ordered appellants to return money withheld pursuant to this regulation from October 1, 1971, or the date of the application for assistance.

The challenged regulations (MPP section 44-213.42 and MPP section 44-213.413) provide that an unmarried parent of a child eligible for aid under the state’s AFDC program (§§ 11200-11489) may be included in the department’s calculation of financial eligibility but shall not be included for purposes of grant computation.* Other relevant factors being the same, this results in a lower grant where the parents of an eligible child are unmarried than where the parents are married.

We agree with the trial court that this result is in conflict with section 11250 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 11250 states in relevant part that: “Aid, services, or both, shall be granted under the provisions of this chapter ... to families with related children under the age of 18 years ... in need thereof because they have been deprived of parental support or care due to:... (c) The unemployment of a parent or parents.” The term “unemployed parent” is defined in section 11201 as “a natural parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent with whom the child is living.”

It is clear that the family referred to in section 11250 may include unmarried parents and dependent child as well as married parents and [963]dependent child. The use of the plural in the phrase “parent or parents” and the definition of unemployed parent to include a “natural parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent with whom the child is living” (italics added) includes unmarried as well as married parents since no distinction is made upon the basis of the relationship of parents to one another.

Smock v. Carleson

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief