Ramos v. Montgomery

NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LJO~ARY

IN 'rilE !

SUPREME COURT OF TilE UNI1'ED STA~'ES

Oetob.,' Term, 1970

;

KI\'.PHLEEN RAMOS, a minor, by her mother MARCELLA MASON, as next friend; MARCEI,I,A MASON, indi vidua11y, and on behalf of three other minor children rc.idin~ with her; and DELLA MORALES, indl vi.dually ,

I Appellants,

Vs.

JOHN c. MONTCOr~ERY, individually, and as Director of the Department of Social Welfare of the State of California; and H: E. DETRICH, individually, and as Director of the Department of Social Helfare' for the County of San Diego, California;

Appellees.

On appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

September 21, 1970

GF:ORGE F. DUKE DAVID H. GETClfES Callfornia Indian Legal Services 252"1 DwJ.f(ht Way Dcrksley, California 9-704

DANIEL M. ROSENFELT ROBERT S. PELCYGER California Indian Legal Services 1080 W. Washin~ton Escondido, California 92025

Counsel for Appellants

, /

j

OpinIon BelOl< ,Turi:;d Ie tlon OIlC:, tion ppPG~nted Statutes Involved Statement of the Case

I N"D E X

The Questions Arc Substantial A. The Importance of This Case

/ ,

B. The PrJ.mary Purpose of Federal AFDC Statutes Is to Maintain Children in Their OVIn Homes

C. Inadequate AFDC Grants for Care of Children in fl1heiT' Own Homes Leads to Foster Care Placements

D. California \;elfare and Institutions Code §11~50 Iu Repusnant to the Purposes of the SocIal Security Aet and Is 'fherefore Invalid

Conclusion /

. , CITATIONS

Cases / Bryant v. Martin, Civil No. 51907-AFZ

(N. J) • Cal. )

Page 2 2 ~ 3 3 6 6

8

12

111. 15.

6 DandrldR" v. Williams, U.S. , 25 L.Ed. ---;>iCl!91 -- 6,8"";T0,15, 21, 22, 25 Goldberr, v. Kelly, __ U.S. (March 23, 1970) 22 King v. SmIth, 392 U.S. 309(1968) 6,7,111, 22, 23 Leli.l:; v. I·Iartin, U.S. , 25 L.Ed. 2d 561 6,22 Lind~;ley v. Nat~ur~CarbonTc Gas Co., 20 U.S.

Gl) 'fa McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 M.etroDol.i..~ 'l'he.).tcr Co. v. City of Chlcago, -nBlCS-.-i)i";b9-70 '.

25 25

Rosado v. Wyman, __ U.3. __ , 25 L.Ed.2d 1142 25 .

6,7,9" 14,22

1970) 22 I'lheeler v. Montr;omery) U.S • __ (March

Statutes and Regulations

Federal

28 U.S.C.§1253 2 28 U.S.C. §1331 2 28 U.S.C. §13 113 2 28 U.S.C. §2281 ·2 28 U.S.C. §2284 2 112 U.S.C. §G01 2,3,8,11,14, 22,30 112 U.S.C. §602 ·23 I) ;: u.s.c. §603 23 112 u.s.c. §Gall 211 1!2 U.S.C. §607 8 112 U.S.C. §608 9,10,211, 25,26

Social Security Act. §402 9 Social Security Act. §408 9

1

/ ,

!

PUblic Law 87-31 (75 Stat. 75) 9 Department of Heo.lth, Education and

11cl1.'aro Hanctboo){ of Public Assistance Admlnistration, 53 1101, 31152(1) 3,11,32

Ca1:l.forn1a

California State Department of Social Welfare Manual, Issue 217, §§221, 271 10

\,olfare and Institutions Code §1l450 3 ,lj,5 ,14, 15,19,20,211,

26,31 Welfare and Institutions Code 1600,601,726 12 /

/ Leeislativo History /

!l.Rep. No. 615) 711th Congo (1935) 11 H.Rep. No. 628, 74th Congo (19,5) 3,10,23 H.Rep. No. 165, 87th Cone· (1961) H.Rep. No. 5114, 90th ·Cong. (1967)

1967 U.S.Code Congo & Ad News 3001

107 Congo Ree. 6385-90 117 Congo Rec. 23055

Miscellaneous

Paths to Child Placement: Family SituatIons Prior to F'oster Case (Community Counoil

11 ,32 9

211

9 9

of Great New York, 1966) 13 Garret, "Meetine the Crisis in Foster Family

Care," 13 Children, No.1) 14

11

.,' "

IN 'l'lIE

SUPRE11E COURT or·' THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1970

No.

KATHLEEN RAMOS, a minor, by her mother 11ARCELLA MASON, as next friend; 11ARCEI.LA MASON, individually, and on behalf, of three other minor Children residing with her; and DELLA MORALES, individually,

Appellants,

vs.

JOHN C. MONTGOMERY, individually and as Director of the Department' of Social Welfare of the State of California; and H. E. DETRICH, individually, and aB Director of the Department of Social Welfare for the County of San Diego, California,

, Appellees.

On appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Appellants appeal' from the judgement of the

United States District Court for,the Southern District

of California, entered June 23, 1970, dismissing

appellants' suit and submit tllis statement to demonstrate

that the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction of

this appeal and that a substanti'al question is presented.

"

Opinlon Below

'rhe opInIon of the three Judr;e Dintrict Court for

the Southern DiGtrlet of Callfornia han not yet been re-

ported. Copies of the court's opinion and the judgment of

disminsal are included in Appendix A to this statement.

Jurisdiction

This suit was brought under 28 U.3.c.I§1331, 1343,

and 112 U. S. C. §198 3 seekinrs to declare invalid and enj oin

enforcement of California Welfare and Institutions Code

§111150 and the rules, rcr;ulations, poliCies, and schedules

promulgated under it as contrary to federal IaN and the

United States Constitution. A three judge district court

was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§2281 and 2284. On

June 211,' 1970, a judgment of dismissal was entered by the

Dintr:Lct Court, and a notice. of appeal was filed in that

court on July 23, 1970. The jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court to review this deciSion by direct appeal. is conferred

by 28 U.3.C.§1253.

Question Presented

Is section 11~50 of the California Welfare and

Institutions Code invalid as being inconsistant with the

federal. Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.§1601 et seq.), the

purpose of which is to "encourage the care of dependent

children in their own homes or in the homes of relativcs I

by cnablln~ each State to furnish financial assistance .... I ! /

to such children, insofar as it provides considerably

highcr payments under the Aid to Families with Dependent

!

Children progrnm for children living in the homes of strnngers ,

as fonter children than the payments made for children living

with their natural parents or relatives?

\ \/

\ \ 2.

Statuten Involved

Sect10n 601 of Title ~2, United Staten Cod~and

Scctio!] 11~50 of the California Welfare and InDtitutions

addition, sections 3~01 and 3~52(1) of the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare Handbook of Public As.istanee

AdminiDtration, Part IV, arc included in Appendix B.

Statement of the Case

Appellant Kathleen Ramos, a 15 year old member

of the Rincon Band of Mission Indians, was made a ward of

the Juvenile court for San Diego County, California in

1969 because of poor school attendance. The court placed

her in the custody of her grandmother, appellant Della·

Morales. The uncontroverted eVidence in this case indicates

that Kathleen's poor attendance at school was the result

of her family'. financial inability to provide adequate

tranoportation to and from school for her. The family

received all of its income from Aid to Families with Dependent , Childrcn (AFDC).

Becausc of Kathleen's truancy, the Juvenile pro-

hat ion department petitioned to have her removed to a foster

home where she could receive higher AFDC payments than her

mother or Erandmother could receive for her care. In her

OHn home or the home of her grandmother AFDC payments on

behalf of Kathleen amounted to __ 0 a month; ~he foster care

rate of AFDC for Kathleen's care under California Welfare

and Institutions Code Section 11~50 is $105 a month.

After this action was filed the County Probation

Department agreed that t.he petition to remove Kathleen from her

3.

i

/ home "auld be dropped if the officers of that department,

tlwn dcfcndnntn in this action, were dlsmiDccd from the cuue.

I\ccordinr.;ly, Kathleen was spared immediate removal from her

f"m:ily and rclativ"s. The threat that she or one or more

of her four brothers and sisters "ill be removed from the

f"roIly home to foster homes continues. Like>lise, all AFDC

families "ill be threatened by loss of their children to

foster homes by reason of the families' poverty so long as

Call.fornia Iml provides more than twice the amount of AFDC

to foster homes for the care of such children than parents

or relatives may receive.

This case was brought by appellants in the Federal

District Court for the Southern District of California

seeking to have the eourt declare invalid and enjoin enforce­

ment of Section 11450 of the California Welfare and Institu-

tions Code and the rules,. r,egulations·, policies, and

schedules promulgated under that section insofar as it

provides for inadequate AFDC payments for children in the.

homes of their families or relatives while paying more for

tho foster care of such children in the homes of strangers.

Appellants contended that the California scheme was repug­

nant to the purposes of the Social Security Act and thus

must fall, due to the Supremacy Clause of the United States

Constitution. Based upon the content of federal statutes,

rec;ulations, nnd Conc;rensional history, zupported by several

decisIons of this Court, ap\,ellants argued that funds provided

to states under the Social Security Act are primarily for

the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the famUy.

That a system such as California's, which provides inadequate

4.

" '

AI"DC payments to children living with their parents or

rclut:l.vce, while provldlne much h:lgher payments under AI'DC

:l.f ouch ch:l1drcn nrc placed in foster homes, leads to the

de.tructlon of the family unlt is demonstrated by appellants'

O\;n sItuation. AddItional expert opinion and evidence con­

cerning; the effcct~G of (0.) low welfare payments, and

(b) foster home placement of children on the family structure

wnn provIded. Appellants nlso argued that extonding higher

benefits to the class of children in foster home. than the

class of children in the homes of parents or relatives

receive is a denial 'of equal protection of the laws con-

trary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United'States

Constitution, Appellants asserted that the discrimination

in this case, when tcoted by either the traditional (rational

basis in lieht of statutory purpose) or the "compelling

state interent" test for equal protection, is' constitu­

tionally impermissible. Appellants alleged that the right

to maintain the family as an integral unit and the right

to pur.sue a baslc education were at stake and that such

fundamental rl.c;hts demanded sp'ecial scrutiny of the state's

system. In Gny event, insisted appellants, the scheme was

irrational,c;iven the purposes of " the Social Security Act.

The District Court heard appellants motion for a

prelirnlnCLry injunct:i.on and appellee's motion to dismiss on

the e;rouncl that no claim upon which relief could be granted

was stnted. Finding that there"was no genuine issue of

matcr:lal fact, the court held that California Welfare and

In.tltutlons Code Section 11_50 is neither contrary to

fCl1cr,,1 1;", nor docs it result in discrimination contrary to

the Fourtc"nt;h Am,'n(lment. Appellants' motion for a preliminary

inJunction wn;:; dented and appellee's motion to dismiss for

f;tllurc to ctntc n cJ.aim wa:~ granted.

5.

rrhc QUf!otionG nrc Subtltantial

ControvernlcD involving the compatibility of'

otate welfrtre law" with tho Federal Social Security Act of

1935 have been before thiD court Govo.r."l timos recently.

Dnn(lrj(l~Q v. WLlllnms,

HO!5QQO v. ltfvmnn, u.s.

u.s. ~5 L. E~.,2d 561 (197a)~

, 25 L. Ed,' 2d 1191 (197-0);

25 L. Ed. 2d 11~2 (1970);

Kinl; v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968). It was stated in Rosado

peculiarly part of the duty of

this tribunal, no less in the welfarc field than in other

areas of the law, to resolve disputes as to whether federal

funds allocated to the State are being expended in consonance

with the conditions that Congress has attached to their use."

25 L. Ed. 2d at 461.

A. The Importance of this Case

The substantiality of the questions here are

certainly no less because, as the District Court found,

making the adjustment sought by appellants with no further

appropriations by the state would result in "no more than a

nominal increase in aid. 1I In the first place the court's

calculation that recipients would get only about $2.16 per"

child per month iG misleading. To a non-recipient of welfare

$2.16 may Geem insignificant; but to one dependent on AFDC

.,ho must support a 15 year old child on $48 a month, as is

the case with Appellant Mason, a $2.16 increase in aid is

very important. It would represent a II 1/2% irlCrease in

present benefits for Appellant Ramos. A similar increase for

all AFDC recipients would be the only increase in California 1

JlFDC benefits in over thirteen years.

1. In [,l'anting p:lrtial Gummary judgment to plaintiff reCipients of California AFl)C payments who allcc;cd that Cn.lifornla had fa.lled to updn.t~ welfare maximums as requlrcd by federa.l law, Judr:c Zirpoll found on Scptc'!nber 1:1) 1970 that umaximums which were cntnbllsl1C~ 1n 1957 were not nnd to thin date have not been :l.ncrert:wd an rCflu:lred e ('fcc t:l ve July 1, 1969, cle:;pitc the fact that thel.'c is clear evidence in the rcco'rd tl1at the COGt of Ijvln~ hnn Incrc:lscd at len.t 301 between 1957 and July 1, 1969 •.• " !!2.:Ynnt v. ~1artl.n, CIvil No. 51g07-AJ7. (N.D. Cul.) •

.. G ...... .

Of cournc it would rcquire no additional approprIation of

fund,; hy the CalIfornia Lcc;islature :- only rcadjuntment of , , scilNlulen to conform with federal law.

It is undi.putcd in this' case that AFDC payments

to appellants are inadequate to meet the most basic needs of,

the children which depend on them for subsistence. Every

slic;ht rise in cost of living,is damaglng to appellants

who must exist on f:txcd, paltry welfare payments. Every

fe\'! centz which are misallocated so as to be paid to other

rec ipients are deducted' from the fund other,wise available

to all recl.pients. 2 Thus payment of higher benefits to

children in foster homes is done at the expense of children

livIng with their families and relatives. This expense is

not de minimus when, it can be translated into food for

hunr;ry children. \

2. f.JlisalJocating funds, even slightly, is improper. 'rhis Court in !.3osado, supra, discussed the propriety of declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of invalid provisions of a state's welfare laws, uaying:

"We see no justification in' principle ·for drawing a distinction between invalidatin~ a single nonconforming provision or an entire program. In both cirCUmstances federal funds are being allocated and paid in a manner contrary to that intended by Conr;ress. In King [v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968)] the withholding of benefits based on the invalid state regulation resulted in OVer­payments to some reCipients, assuming a constant state welfare budget, and a corresponding misal­location of matching federal re­sources. In the case before us, noncompliance ... may result in limi t:lng the welfare rolls unduly and thus channeling the matching federal grants in a way not intended by Congress."

25 L. Ed. at 480. " "

',' ! .;. '

, I ,

13. T_~~J:'.rJ2"nrY-L1l2:J'()r.0 of lo'co0ral Alo'DC ~tuLut(?t; 1.:1 t(> Mrllntnln Ctlll(~cn rn--Cil'011' own Homen.

Many m.Uliono of dollars arc appropriated by

of the Alo'DC program. Congress leaves no doubt that the funds

arc to be used in a manner which promotes the integrity of

the family. This purpose could not be made clearer than it

is in ~2 U.S.C.§601. The court in Dandridr;e v. Williams, supra,

said of §601:

"The very title of the Act, the repented references to familes added in 1962 •.• and the words of the preamble quoted above, show that Congress wished to help children through the family structure. The operation of the statute itself has this effect •• :. Congress has been so desirous of keep:ln[l dependent children within a family that it amended the law in 1967 to provide that aid could [10 to children whose need arose merely from their parents' unemployment) under federally determined standards, althoueh the parent was not inca­pacitated. ~2 U.S.c.§607 (196~ cd., Supp. IV). The States must respond to this federal statutory concern for preserving children in faml.1y environment." 25]:,. Ed. 2d at 1198-99.

. .

The reliance by the c'ourt belOl< upon an excerpt

from certain legislative history relating to 1961 amend­

ments of the Social Security Act is misplaced. This single

bit of legislative history'relatin[l to the addition of

foster children to the Alo'DC proeram must be seen in the

greater context of other le[liGlative history on the same

,suilject as \1ell as subsequent interpretations of the \

legislation by the Department of Health, Education and \

Welfaro. \

Prior to inclusion of foster chiJdren under AFDC, \ ,

\ 8.

Gtal;c and loca.l ~overnmentlJ had to shoulder the entire burden

of fo:;l;cr care COGtu. In 1961) Congress cnacted Public Law

87-31 (75 stat. 75). amending 1_08 of Title IV of the Social

Security Act (~2 U.s.C.1608) to include in the covcrage of

federally assisted state AFDC programs ch:lldren who had been

removcd from theIr homes by court order on a findirw; that for

them to remain would be contrary to the welfare of the child.

Sce 107 Conr,. Hec. 6385-90 (April 20. 1961) for debate on

Senate floor. This was done in recognition of the fact that

there are some extreme home situations which are contrary to

a child's best interest and that removal of a child from

such a situation should not be deterred by lack'of funds.

Hather than approving higher payments for foster children.

'Congress merely wanted to "facilitate plans being developed

for children based on the need of the child rather than the

fiscal condition of the local government." H. Rep. No. 511_.

goth Congo (1st Sess.) August 7. 1967 (House Ways and Means

Committee Report on 1205 of H.R. 12080. amending 1§1102(a)

and 408(a) of the Social Security Act).

Congressional awareness that care of children out­

slde the home ,is umore costly than care' in the child I s home,,1

docs not lead to the conclusion that Congress has approved

a disparity in payments to such children based upon whether

they live with their own parents or relatives, or with foster

parents. rather than being based on the children's needs. 3

3. 'j'l1e amendments to the Social Security Act did not explicitly or implicitly authorize the states to base foster cnrc rnyment:::: on any other criterion than tIle child's need. Nor (llct ttlC amendments authorize the states to apply different stan­dard!: for dctcrtnin:1.ne; the needs of i1 child in £l fo~;tcp home from the ntandapcb for determinin~ the needa of a chtld in his natllr:\l homo. On the contrary, the statement of Rep. Mills, ChnLrm;'ln of the Honno "'nyu and Menns Committoe, concernlnr.; the 1961 3m~)lrlm~ntn l'cco~nlzcd wit), reopcct to another part of the a!llC'ndrncnt that !!there if> a re'1ulremcnt :In tlH~ law tlli"lt requires e'1u~tJ treatment of rcc:lpJcnto and uniform admlniGtration of a pro~ram within n State." ]17 Cone Hec. 23055 (AuGunt 17. 1967). 1I1thou[~h n ~;tate r.Cl.n .pay l:'c'c:tpicntn leGS than neeu It may not ohGcurc t;he actual s tandnl'cl of need. --rrDsndo v. Wyman, nupra.

9.

, '~"

CO!JJ':'Pt..'t;;; mCH'C'ly may have been rccoeniv.lng that in~ltitutlonal care

(~2 U.~.C. 5GOB) or cpeclal caro geared to a child'. peculiar

nccd~, for health cat'e, apcc:tul fo.c111 ties, etc., \'lhc!'c ncccanary

for tl,e well bein(~ of the child, requires greater expenditures.

Conr;re". al.o may have had In mind costs added by providon"

in "tate plann'which allow additional benefits to children in

foster homes to pay for services "which would lead to the re-

establishment of the child's family or assint the child in

returninc; to his family." California State Department of Social,

Welfare Manual, Issue 217, §§22l, 271. There has been no

showing that a child in normal foster home care has any greater

financial needs than he does in his own home. 4

The ovcrall policy of the Social Security Act of

1935 an expressed at the time it was originally enacted

underscores the intent to keep children in their own homes.

IIThrough cash grants adjusted to the needs of the family it is possible to keep young children with their mother in their own home ••• This is recognized by everyone to be the least expensive and altogether most desirable method for meeting the needs of these families that has yet been devised." (S. Rep. No. 628, 711th Congo (1935)).

II. The appellee state has contended, without pro­c1uclnfj any supportlvc evidence, that greater payments for the ~arc of AFDC foster children are necessary to compensate foctcr parents for their \'1ork" and w:tthout such payments the system would be jeopardized. Even if the state had shown that sHch Itcompcnsnt:ton" was necessary such a use of federal funds would be at odds with the Social Security Act. Noting that payments are made to a responsible adult or institution rather' than directly to a child, the court in Williams v. Dandridge, F. Supp. /15, 1155 n. 9, rev'd sub nom, Dandriclf\e v. \'Hlliam~~, ~urrn, stated: "other provisions of the act make clear, however, that a benefit so paid is treated strictly as a benefit for the cllild nnd not to the recipient." '

A strong indication 'that the state did not intend fo"ter parents to profit is that no part of the foster care payment:.:; (!}Upposcclly for labor or "care and superviGion") is Y'l~por'l;cd by the state or c·ounty for income tux purposes accopdl!l~ to cvJ,Jcnco 1n tll19 eaoc. N~only io no income tax paid on Duell I.lmountn J if a fanter parent \'lanted to take the In:l.tiutlve :1nd pay tax on some part of the total, he could not a~,ccrtaJn from the county or state what port:ton of the foster care rate :ts his "profit" since appellees have admitted there is no off:lcial breakdown of the foster care rate.

I \ 10. I \

"It hno long been recognizcd in thiu country that the ,hest provinion thnt cun be made for fnmilicG ... io public a:l.<1 w:lth reGpeet to dependent children In the:l.r own homeD." (n. Rep. No. 615 '(11th Con~. (1935)) .. . ,

~1110 in&ent WUH u18urly reflected in '1~ U.S.C.§601 Rnrt

emphasized in interpretations of the Act by the Department

of Health, Education and Welfare. The first purpose

noted by the HEW interpretive regulation is to assure

children an opportunity to "grow up in a settine: of their

Own family relationships." U.S. Department of Health,

Education and Welfare, Handbook of Public Assistance

Administration, Part IV, §3401. The full text of the

interpretive ree;ulation is in Appendix B.

When the Social Security Act was amended to extend

coverage to foster children Congress was mindful of the

overall purposes of the Act.

"The foster care provisions in your committee's bill have been designed, insofar as poss:l.ble, to safeguard the rights of the child and his parents or relatives. No one takes lightly the severance, even for a'brief period, of the ties between a child and parent, or somebody closely related to him.11 (S. Rep. No. 165, 87th Congo (1st Sess.), 1961 U.s. Code Congo and Admin. News, p. 1722).

In explaIning the pu'rposes of providing AF'DC

to chUdren in foster homes, the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare has emphasized the seriousness of!

removing a child from his natural home, noting that the

8cnate Report quoted above' "stressed the primary objective "

of muintninine; needy Children in their own homes .... "

U. S. Dep,,-rtment or' IIealth, Education and Welfare Handbook ,

of PublIc A.si.tance Admini.iration, Part IV, 131152(1), p.l.

that there is no intent to 'l'hin rcc;ulatil?n rr:alws it clear '; / .

/ ,11.,

,/ , , \

, , ,

I I

I

J.ncluce wldcGprcad usc of foster care, but ruther "to roach

a "elat:Lvely small group of child recipients who arc found

to be living in hazardous circumstances." Id. at p. 2.

C. .rnn(l'2!:Ju,~te AFllC Grants for Care of Cil LJUl't.!ft jofl 'j:ill.:oiol' 0WII ;:0,,, ....... Lend:.:. to POt~tcr Care Placements.

Plaintiffs have ar~ued that payment of AFDC

inadequate to meet a child's needs while paying more generous

AJlDC to foster children tends to break up families by in-

ducin~ foster home placement. Many poverty-related con­

ditions can result in the removal of a child from his home

and placement in a foster home. A child can be placed in

a foster home by order of the juvenile court in California

upon a finding that the parent Is "incapable of providing

or has failed or neglected to provide proper maintenance,

trainine, and education" or "that the welfare of the minor

requires that his custody be taken from the parent •... "

Cal. Wel. and Insts. Code 1726. In this case affidavits

were introduced to show that poverty is very often the cause

of the conditions which lead a juvenile court to assume

jurisdiction over a child. Indeed, one of the grounds for

jurisdiction in California is "destitution."5

5. A child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in California if he is one who is:

"destitute, or who is not provided with the necessities of life, or who is not provided with a home or suitable place of abode, or whose home is an unfit place for him by reason of neglect .... '1 Cal. Wel. and Insts. Code §6oo •

. Juvcn:Llc court jurisdiction also covers children who are beyond the control of their parents, truant, or in daneer of loadine; linn idle, diGsolute', lewd, or immoral life. II Cell. Ifd. nnd Insts. Code §601. There is no requirement 1'01' :J. r:tndinf~ that the deficiencies .in the home arc beyond correction if ille natural parents had more. money available to care for their own children. .j

/

12.1 I j. ,

/ /

/ l

I ·1

I i

I

/

/

A pubJ.:I.cation of ' the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare stutes:

"'I'he extent of neglect of AI'DC ch:lldren j.n relatlvely unknown. Findings from ~pcclnl OtUdtC8 nnd survcyc in Gcveral

..... t.fJ.L.e,j wuu.Lti .LJlt!.i...;<.l.~o..: L.1ial; tile pcrccntar;c of ncr-Icc ted children in low. However, m.:1ny children served by this program are deprived and many live in r..;reat hardstdp t)ccause the a~G15tance grants are inade­quate. ThIs diminishes tho capacity of parent. to look after their childrcn sntlsractorlly anr! often leads to family breakdown," Pamphlet, U.S. Department of Health, Education and "lelfare Adminis­tration, "Children in Neglect •.. Hazardous Ilome Conditions" (1963, reprinted 196n.

One study of foster children has concluded ,that

"inadequate financial resources comprise an underlying

factor which is present to one degree or another in almost

all cases in Vlhich children are in foster care at the

public charge." Jenkins and Sauber, Paths to Child Plac'e­

ment: Family Situations Prior to Foster Case (Community

Council of Greater NeVI York, 1966),'p. 7.

There is no question that once the family unit

is split by having children'removed from it and the

integrity of the family lost, the family unit is in danger

of being permanently destroyed.

"Once a family'is dissolved and parents and

children are separated, there is alViays the danger that

the connection .lill be lost. Parents Vlill drift al1ay

from their children and homes Vlill be broken ,forever."

Pamphlet, supra, at pO. 13.

An article in a journal published by the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare lends support to the con-

elusion that r0Tnovul of children tends to be permanent and

:lnd:lcaton that the children might have returned to their

homeD or may not have been removed In the firnt place if

appropriate financial Bnsistance and services had been

13.

- .. ',

available to tbe parents. Garrett, "Meeting the Crlub in

J--o"t"r l-'amlly C"re," 13 ChIldren No. l, p. il.

Tho substantially greater AFDG payment to fo~ter

famILleu places the natural parents' in an agoni7.ing dilemma.

When, in the instant ease, the probation officer filed a , petition to place appellant Kathleen Ramos in a foster

home, her mother, appellant Marcella Mason, was torn between

her love for her dauc;.hter and her overwhelming desire to

keep horfamily intact on the one hand, and her knowledge

that the J\FDC allowance to the prospective foster parents

would enable them to provide Kathleen a more adequate

material standard of living on the other. 14rs. Mason has

opted to keep her daughter within the family, but she had

to overcome the temptation to consent to the disintegration

of her family. Others in similar circumstances might decide

to give in. Still others might actively encourage the

placement of their children in foster homes, not out of

a desire to destroy their family, but out of a rational

calculation that the prospective foster parents would be

given more money to provide the necessities of life to

their children. Thus the family unit is destroyed in

order to obtain the modicum of financial security the state

is unwilling to afford to the child in his own home.

D. California Welfare and Institutions Corle §11'150 1s RCDul~Ilant to the Purpon~s of the Social Security Act and :1..3 I.l'hcrefore Invalid.

It is well established that where the effect of

an aspect of n state's AFDe plan subverts the purposes of

the SOCial Security Act, the offending features of the

ntutc plan must be eliminated. §.££,~, Rosado v. v-lyman!

nupl:'it, o.n(l lUne v. Sm:1..th, oupra.

IJ.1his Court recently had oc·casion to cons true the

purpo.cs of the Social Security Act, as Bet out in 42 u.9,0.1601,

.--... ,~- ..

..• ,

1n narlf.lr:1.(lf~0 v. Wll.lalmn, nupru. In that caGe r~arylnnc1'o

llHlx'\.umm fnmily (~r::tnt rule waa challeneed no lcnc11ne to

fam.tly brcalc-up0 because many luree famIlies "farmed-out"

ch:lldren to relatives in order tb get more AFDC. I1ecop;ni­

zInc; "the strong policy of the statute in favor of preserving

family unIts," the Court found ; ,

that'the maxImum grant !

system docs not necessarily lead to "dissolution of family

bonds. For even if a parent should be inclined to increase i

hI" per c"pHa family income by· sending a child away, the

r"d"l'al l~\w roqul t'OS that l;he. ch:lld, to be el:i.g:lble for'

, I

AJi'DC payments, must live with one of the enumerated relatives.

The kinship tie may be attenuated but it cannot be destroyed."

25 L. Ed. 2d at 1199. [Emphasis added]

Appellanmprenent.a situation where receipt of

Ercater AFDC payments can only·be achieved by placement of

chlldren with non-relatives in foster homes. Appellant

KQthlcen Ramos was not eligible forthe $105 foster care rate

when living '"ith her mother, Appellant Mason, or her grand­

mother, Appellant Morales in whose homes only $~8 a month

can be paid for her care. Only by the sacrifice of her

famIly relationship - dissolution of family bonds - can she

achieve thc financial advantage of a foster child. Under

these circumstances, sect·ion 11~50 of the California Welfare

and InstItutions Code, and the rules, regulations, pOlicies,

and schedules promule;ated under it are invalid as inconsistant

with federal law, and, thus, violative of the Supremacy Clause.

Conclusion

This appeal should be accorded plenary consideration

by th:lo Court. A nl.c;nlficant question concerning the limits

plrtced upon a .strtte's JlFDC program by federal law is raised.

Put'l;her, several hundred thousand impoverished California

i " 15.

child>'cn >'eceive fll,'DC benefit". '1'he holding in thin caae

will huvc a G1[:n:lficnnt i>carine; on their livcs and the

futurc cohcolvcncso of their families.

In view of the fact that ttfe court below has

determ:Lned that no material iss·ues of fact exist, this case

prcsents an appropriatc"situation for summary reversal.

GEORGE F. DUKE DflVID H. GETCHES California Indian Legal Services 2527 Dwight Way Berkeley, California 94704

DANIEL M. ROSENFELT ROBERT S. PELCYGER California Indian Legal Services 1080 W. Washington Escondido, California 92025

Counsel for flppellants

16.

I I

I I

/ ,

()

". "

1 n.1.VID tr. CE'i'C:lI::S 1

,I

::! II

3 11

.:, ',I 5 Ii G

7

8

10

C~:.l.1.::0rr.iC1 .i.ndi~~n L ..... \J,:~l :;c:,vice~ lOCO \'1. \'1.J.shir"(.J'"'.,:on l\vcnuc Escondidd, California 92025 Telepi1ol1G (711\) 71,6-8941

A~~orncys for Plaintiffs 'UI n" '19m ,J ..' J lJ

UNIT2D STATES DISTRICT COURT .:.

SOUTU2fu'l DISTRICT OF Chl.IFORNIA

KA(.raLEE~-l R.'I\I~10S I et al. I

Plail1tiffs,

v.

KEN~E~H F. Fl\RE, et al. ,

Defendants.

) ) ) )

, ) ) ) ) ) )

I ! '

No. 69-259-1<

NOTICE OF APPE.i\L TO THE' SUPREt1E COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

• i

NOTICE IS llEREDY GIVEN, that KATHLEEN j\fu\\OS, 'a mil1or, by

her mot-her t·iARCBLLA }",.ASON f • as next friend; gARCBLLA MASON,

individually II and on behalf of three other minor children rC.5idi~g

\· .. it.l'l. 1101:' i ~nc1 DELL~ N~MLES, individually I plaintiffs I hereby

appeal "'':0 the Supreme Court of the United States from the order-

of the Three-Judge District court 4ismissing. this action,

entered on June 24, 1970.

':'i1is appeal is 'taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

Dated: July 23, 1970

D1\VID H. G!:':?CHBS ROBERT S. 2~~:'':YGZR California Indian Legal Serv.icc5

) "

Dy il. ,'\ ,\- \'" v.: ,...-Robert s-:-Fc"lcyqcr " Attorneys for Pluintfffs

17

I' "

Ii

\ I

1 r 11

.~ il

:) II 1\

"

I 5 , , I

3 ,I

'I 7

Ii s· II D II

" . n' " 10 Ii II .il

1: 'I I· ,~ Ii -~

~3 il . l~ il

15

13

17

}.3 i , 10 I 20

\ 21 I 22 Ii

II ,,---~

2."", II :'

~5 II Ii ,I

2~ !I

It '27 i!

!I :.JB " I'

:1 "

~~'J Ii ,I i ~

~o 'I

3l II :, "

~3 I'

" II

C .... J.:\.~i)::-~1.:..'1 :tnt1:i.'Ul :'c(Jal SCl:'vicc'n 10 :~o hI. \'l.:\;:>hinl"!t.on lwcnnc: . j~'~C():"I.<:i(10, C,"\l:i.fo).~nL'\ 92025 ?clcphonc (71~) 'l~G-B9~1

l\?i?ID;\vI':~ OF SERVICE llY Ml\IL

:.:-;':N;:~ cr'-. CJI.LIy,'O;1N:'.:l\ ) )' Gc,.

COU~T': O}";t !'"';J\N DX:::C::O )

being first duly S\Olorn,

I D .. il\ a ci~..:.izcn of the Ul1itcd States, over 10 years of

f.l.<jO, <l~i.e ;;".ot. Gl. po.rty t.o the wi t.hin causei' my business address is

:080 h'~ ~\'c...s:1.':;'r'.<;~,:,Oi.. Avc:t"~';.c, Escondido, Californi.a 92025j

I served n copy of the attached NO?ICE OF l\PPEl\L TO

'I';;'S . 'sD!?TI::m COURT 0::' THE UNI'fED STATES

____________________________________________________ ~ on the

follovli'1.<J, by',placi.ng same in ~n envelope addressed as follows:

BC~Jc:::-um BeLces I Jr., County Counsel ;..1 loyd pi. Harraon, Jr~', Deputy S.::.n Diego county" 302 Coun-ty j\dministration Center Snn Diego, California 92101

Tho;n.:\s C. Lynch, l\.ttorney General \'Jillio.m L. Zessar, Deputy Attorney Gcnaral Si:..:-.'!:.e of California 1350 ):~ront Street, Suite 5022 San Diego, California 92101

, .

. Belch s;J.,id envelope was then, on Julv 23, 1970

se:':"lc('! nnd deposited in the United S.tate.s mail at Escondido, , .

C2..1i~:orr'.i[" in tho county in \'lhich I am ert1ploycd, ''lith the

;:505-::.::.g0 thc:;:-con' fully prepaid.

Exccu ted on July 23, 1970 , at Escondido,

/ ~, ,',

A{ffllj/~ C.:1.1ifornia .. \

\

\ \ '

Suhscribcd <::.nd 6\>lO:Ch before· mc

.' . '.

...... ,

", . . '

\

JUN'1 1970 vL:.., .. ,u.tJ. t)1-.lll,1lilliUVhl

~UTilElli lD13imc r Of C,lllm::i: (A DEPI'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

., .

KATHLEEN RAMOS, a minor, et a;1.,· : ':) . )

; .'

. Plaintiffs ) NO. ·69-259-K . ".

) . vs, ) OPINION

) JOHN C. MONTGOMERY, et a1., ... )

BEFORE:

POI"IELL,

) Defendants )

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge, and CUARLES L. POWELL and EDWARD J. SCHWARTZ, District Judges

Dis·trict Judge ,

This action seeks to ~ompel an adjustment upward

of welfare payments •. Plaintiffs move for art. injunction to

' .....

compel' the California Department.of Welfare to make payments

to nutural parents in the srume amount as is paid for the care y'

, of children in foster homes. De·fondants. have moved to dismiss

the complaint. 'Since the):e is ho gcnui;"e issue of fact in:..

volved we consider both motions together.

Y Puymcnt::; <lrc made under Culifornia Welfare and Institutions. Code §11450 .l.nc1 the rules, regulation!), .. policies and .Gchcc1u lC!:i promu l'].:ttcd t11cl;'eunder.

19

'.

'. '"

, .

'.', . . '

n

Plaintiff,. Kathleen Ramos, is a minor child present':

ly residing with her motheT., Marcella Mason. Under California's •

Aid to Pamilies with Dependent Children (hPDC) Marcella Mason'

receives monthly paymc)lts for the carc, of. three of hcr child-. '

rent' Kathleen 'Ramos, Lester Mason and Theresa Mas·on. 'Plain- ,:

tiff Della Morales is the maternal grandmother of Kathleen

Ramos and until recently. provided a home ,for .. Kathleen while. she '-,'

was a ward of the Juvenile Court.

Under Code §11450 if Kathleen Ramos were placed in a

foster home that home would be eligible to ,receive $105 per

month for her c<;,re. As a natural parent Marcella Mason receiv-

es $48 per month for Kathleen's care. If all three of Mrs.

Nason;s children lived in a :foster home it would be eligible'

to receive $308 a month. Mrs. Mason presently receives $144

a month for the care of her three minor children. Plaintiffs .'

claim th"t this disparity in payments is contrary to federal

law and void under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Plaintiffs further maintain that it constitutes arbitrary, un--~;·.

reasonable and invidious discrimination in violation of the

Pourtccnt11 Amendmcnt~

The defendants are respectively directors of the

Dcp"rtrnent of SociCll WelfClre of the, state of 'CCllifornia and of

the Coun'ty of San Diego. They h~ve moved to dismiss this action

on the ground thut plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

," , 20' i,

I

-

Plaintiff~' allege they will 'mffer irreparable

illjury if they do not receive compenohtion for benefits that

have been wrongly denied to them. Plaintiff Mason's affidavit

says: "If I could have the money which the county would pay "

to strangers to take care of my,kids, I know I could do a

much better job." She asks us to order the State of California

to pay to hor tho same rate of AFDC assistance per child that

foster parents nOV1 receive ..

A State participating in ,the AFDC program must dis- --

-'perse its funds in a fair and reasonable manner and i'n accord-.

aneo with the applicable federal statutes, but it cannot be

ordered to give forth more funds than are'available.

"Thus the starting point of the statutory an211ysis must be a recognition that the federal law gives each ,State great latitude in dispensing its avail'able funds." {Emphasis Dancll:idgc v. Williams,- __ U .• S., __ " _ (April 6, 1970).

.. ".

added).

If We wcre inclined to declare the disparity of pay-:

ments as constitutionally impermissible and order that all

available fUllds be distributed equally to natural parents and,'

foster parents' alike, plaintiffs would receive no more thun· a

nom,innl increase in aid .. (sec fn. 3). This would not prevent,

tho irreparable injury complained of here and wouId create, ... '-"'~ .. ~.

pr.oblcms within tho California Wel£are System 'of: a crit:i:cal.' '

nature. \. /, i

/ I. '\ i

"

Docs thc'paymcnt of a different rate of AFDC [or children in fo!;tcr homen ('mel those in their own homes contravene the pnrposco o'f the Social sccnri ty 1\.ct .:md therefore violilJ;c "the Supremacy C1L.1u!}o? .. ' .,

"" .. . C.L.

" , "

,; .'

. ' \

The Dumber of:, recent Supreme Court decisions test.:..

ing state vl"lfare plans against' the Social Security Act mako

it abundantly c,lear that ,,* * * participating states must

comply with the terms of l:;h<> federal legislature, * * *."

ROS::ldo v. Nyman, _ U.S. __ , '_'_ (April 6, 1970); Lewis v.

Nartin, ' __ U.S. __ (Ap~il20, 1970); Dandridge v. NillJ.ams, ,

__ ' u.S: __ (April 6" 1970); King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309

.... . . l (1968); cf. Gol.dberg v. Kelly, _,,_ U.S. __ (March 23, 1970).:

Wheeler v. Montgom<>ry, __ U.S. _'_ '(Narch 23, 1970) •. ' . ,

!

Plaintiffs do not argue that 'granting aid to ehi,ld- : ,:'

ren in foster homes is contrary to the federal purpose behind ,:

the Social Security, Act; They maintain that the higher' aid

paymen"t.s to foster families frustrates the" express congression-

al purpose of "* * * encouraging the care of 'dependent children'

in their 'own homes or in the homes of relatives,' * * *JI. 42

U.S.C.A. §601. They reason that a system'of aid grants which

allm1s more money for foster care than for care of a child liv-

ing with its natural parents tends to induce the placement of

children in foster homes and to break up families.

Plaintiffs are correct 'in stating that maintenance

of the family structure is a paramount purpose behind the

federal program of grpnting aid for the care of children. The '. ','

farl1ily structure has been and remains the cornerstone of our

society. More important even is the overall interest of tho

public in the protection of the child. Sec. King v. Smith,

392 u.s. 309, 325 (1961) _.; '.::

'.22

'" .... ..

.'~ "

It in cvidcn-t that some children must live in fonter

homes.. congrcs's recognized ,the need to aid foster p~rcnts· in

the care of children through the'MDC program. see. ".g.. ,",'

42 U.S.C.~. §G02 et seq •

. IIThus, under the 19G1 nnd'1962 amendments to the Social security 1\.c1::, the states aro . , permitted to remove a "child from a home 'that: is judicially determined to be so-unsuitable as to 'be contrary to the ,welfare of such child.' 42 U.s.c. Section 608 (a) (1). The

... States .tir.c .. also permitted ·to· terminate AFDC assistance to a child living in an unsuit­able home, if they provide other adequate ,

. care and assistance for the child undeF" a: general welfare program. 42 U. S.C. saction" G04 (b) ." King' v. Smith, supra at p; 324.

. ,'.

.:: ;', ~.. , .

" , " ,.

:'" ',' ." ..

.-:'

.... ;:

.:.,

-,'-" .•.. , ,

In 1935 Congress recognized that i't costs more money· '

to maintain a foster child than a child residing at home~ .....

\

"Through cash grants adjusted to the needs of the family it is possible to keep young child­ren with their mother in their·own home * * * ... rl'his is recognized by everyone to be the least expensive and altogether most desirable method for meeting the needs of these fa~ilies that' has yet bccm devised ... , (Emphasis added) (S.Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong. '(1935)).

.. Recently Congres's broadened the' scope of the APDC

......

foster care provisions, contained in 42 ,U.S.C.~.· §603(a) (1)

11 (B) effective July 1, 1969.

11 <12 u.s.c.~. §G03(a) (1) (n) II.t.he Federal pcrcentoge of ·the amount by which such expendi-. tures exceed. thci maximum 'which .'mily 'be counted under cl'ause :., (1\.), not counting so ml:ilch of an expenditure with respect . to any month as exceeds (i) the product of $32 multiplied by the total number of recipients of (lid tp ftimilics with dependent children. (other than such nid in the form of foster car.e) for such month, plus (ii) the product of $100 multiplied by the total number of recipients of aid to families "<Jith d"cpendent children in the form of foster care for such month; and * * * II "

23

",

~', "

"Under the : committee l;ill, Pcdcrill fund!; \'Jil1 be ilvnilnblc on a more libcl:al bn:::;i::; than for, the ba::;ic progr<lm out of: n rcco0.!l:i:t;.ion th:1t .--.,'

.f:or.ter. f<1mily citro i;. more c:o:.l ... ly th0n cure' ~::ll':' r.l,1 :If.l GJ',_)1-'?I"I~<?.. 'k * * 1"cocr.:\l ~h<lring

. will be po::;siblc in payments up to $100 a n,onth (on un average basis) 'for children in foster' care. " (Emphasis' uddcd). 2 u.s. Code Congo & hd. News, p. 3001 (1~67).

Thus Congress has found that thq foster home program

furnishes the best available substitute for the actual family

'structurc by granting A.l?DC relief ,in, furtherance of its under-

lying pllrpose of aiding less fortunate', children. In answer

,to plaintiffs' first claim, it is also clear that Congress"

recognizes that it costs more to support a ,child in a foster'

I,

/

'" ." .... allocated additional funds to compensate for the added cost. '\

(Sec fn., 2). /. ,I . It is our judgment that ~alifornia Welfare and In-

stitution Code §11450 is not contrary to Federal law and void

under the Supremacy Clattse of the Constitution.' In reaching "

this conclusion We note 'that the' disparity in aid complained

of here has not resulted in any increase in the number of

children receiving aid for foster care as compared to the y , overall number of children receiving AFDC benefits. Any

\

y The uncontroverted, affidavits of defendants show the, following:

Childr.en receiving l\FDC benefits Y.J?~ Childr.en at home Foster Children 1967-68 572,250 24,304 1968-69 657,644 25,848 If during fiscal 19G8~G9 the foster care at $105 per

month per child and the $48 paid to natural parents per month per child under APDC were averaged and all, received the some amount it wotlld be :;; 50 .16 J?e.r child or (1 reduction per. child in foster' homes of $54.94. The increaso for child-. ;ccn in their fnmily'homes wo\.\ld 'be only $2.16 per month.. .

:" .

\1.·.;!;umpt.LOl\ th..J.t t.:11..i:.; will hdPPC11 in the lutu.ro J.U J..)iJ.:;t.:u va'

':..;p~ .. ;ulat.i0n. J:'urt.1\(:!r, ConC]roGfJ hilG required th;:d.:. once a ,

child i!:> 1:.akcn from hiD .. rt;!ccivinCj 1\l';:)C thilt all

family tlnu I rc Ll Gonnb 10

placed in a foote);: horne

D tepa be tnken in .. aonur-

in\j that he doeo not remain there once hiD family' oituation ':1/

II.

, .. ' , :".

,'. '. ,,'.

Doc:.; the dispar.ity in APDC pnyment!J conntitutc .. ' .• nrbitrilry I \\nre<lGonoble und invidious dincrl.mi- ,./':: .

. "",ation 'in" via la·tion 'of '"the 'Pourte'enth lIrnenclrnent? .' .. , . ,.

In DZlndric1qc v. "lil1iarns, .supra at p. '_" ;tho,

. court said:

, .... . . ,',

, , . " ' ..

!"'::', ,,' . '. • ,.:>: :" ': .- I.

.' .

'.

uIn the area of economics and social welfare,' a·:'·:,:-;···:.<·:.\\'.i: .> . State docs not violate the Equal Protection· "':': ;:;':: ,.' .'. Clause merely beci:'luse the classifications made.' "', ,:: '::-,,', '. by its laws are imperfect. If the classifica-., ,.... ,-... ' tion has some I reasonable. basis 1 I it does not ' .. :'.' , . .':.:.,'::<. ' ' ·offend the constitution simply because the ,'.

. \ '.

.\

clnssification r is not made with mathematical .. f:":· ' .. '.

nicety or hecause in practice it results in some" )::\.::;~:; ,,~;': inequality. 1 Lindsley v. Natural C<J.rbonic Gas Qg,., 220 U.S. 61, 78.. 'The problems of govern- '. . ment are practical ones and may justify, if they···· .... ·· do not require, rough accommodntions--illogical,

, .' '

; ....

it may be, and unscientific. I Metropolis Theatre .': .... Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70. 'A !3tatutory discr{minu.tion will not be' 'set aside if ". any stnte of facts reasonably may, be conceived to' . '. justify it. ,: McGowan v. Maryland;' 366 U.S. 420, ... :': ...... . 426. 11 ~:-" • '" . '. ';', ",

'. ;

In this case there exists a, "reasonable basis'JI for • I""

p"ying more money per Child for foster home' care. A fo;'ter

home is more than a ·normal neighborhood ,residence. It is an .. " . . '. '. " '. . ' ....

The StGtc plun must: "(0 include [sJ provision for (1) development of a .plan for cZlch such child (including' periodic review 0,£ the nccc~:i,sity for the child' s be'ing in a foster family home or c1iild.-c0.rc inst:itution) to l'I.Gsure that he receives proper cZtrc and t:hut se}:-vices' urn provided which arc designed to improve t11e 'condi tionc in' the home from which he Was re­moved or to otherWi.sc m<.1kc ponniblc ·his being placed in the home of u .relutivc specified in section G06(a). oJ: this

. title', 'k 'k * H 42 U.S:P d\. §608 (fl. ,:' ...•. , .' . ........ • • '.J. '. . ''':' .. . .. /

! I •

• •• ' i I

".,'.' ,25/ ..

" ' . .!

,.' ','.

.' ./ " !

.' "

'.'. ' .

'. '

. . - , ' I n ··0 .. j~ .• , .....

" . ",' "

' .. ~: "

.'

institution that is licensed to operate'and is fully regulated'

by the State. Indeed a State could not obtain feder-al funds ,. ..

for foster home care if this' were not so. " '42 U.S.C.A. §60B.·

.. Compliance with regulations. requires expenditures of t:i,ine" mid

I ... "expcns.c:_

'.

Foster parents perform mnny {ntangible services

for their ·foster- children. ""Natural"-parents have""a"'-moral, . if·

not a legal obligation to perform those services. The. labors

'" ,

", '

, '

of cooking, wash:lng, ironiI}g .clothes" cleaning house, etc..,. ,', , " ...

" ' .... not to mention tl1c time and patie'nce' needed ~o aid in the

development of .the child's character are all necessary aspects" ..

, .....

of his support. To provide "these services" foster parents must "".

give up much of their privacy in daily a;Efairs; ....

Some children must of necessity be placed in foster

homes due to the financial inability of the parents to provide ',,"

a suitable home. If" such parents were to receive the s'ame .aid·

per child as foster parents receive there is no doubt that

they could do a better job in" supporting their. children. Never-· (.

thclcss, to give them that additional aid from appropriated ": ./ ....• ;

funds would result in an overall reduction in money availabl!J·. .

i / for foster home care. A reduction in "foster home care aid

. '. I would threaten 'the contiI\ued existence,'of the entire 'program

and jcop'ardize the welfare of thousands of children. (See .fn. 3)

We conclude that the disparity in AFDC pa~ncnts as

provided under 'Code §11450 docs not constitute arbitrary, ' .. / . '. i

I

' .... -. , ,I)

" , i.

i .; /

/ " j

'/ , I I

! , .

r" ,( . ). ,

.. unrcn.sonub'lc and invidious discrimination in violation of'·

the Fourteenth hmendment. The state of California has a

reasonable basis ,to support its action in establishing the . " .

two rates of payment unde,r APDC~··

j I

I

~. . '/

..

'The motion for injunction will be denied. Defendants'

motion to dismiss will be granted. Defendants I' counse;L may.

prepare and submit the appropriate order. : ,,'

\

\ \

....

, '.' :

Circuit Judge ~ ~.

~~ geJ L~dgge Un~ted States D~str~ct Judge

.. " "

. ",.'

< .. :

..... ,'.

, .': .',' '"<'.

"

, "

.\; ,

CI r C~ !L~?~,~ United ,jOtate s -nistric,t

, , "

" .

", .

" .' ', .. , ,. ' ......

r. .t'

.,'.;"

,.: .... ,." .. '

, . . ~ ':.: ".';

;-.. '

', .

, . ....

.. " ",;:' .. ,.', , ., , .

", ' ,'. : : .. : ','.

" ':

.. '

\.,< ~. ,', ,

:','",

'; ..

JliPgc. --, ." .. '~"",'

. .'

.. ',

-. ,

. ,

. ,

... '.:

II I

1

2

3

,!

5

6

7

8

0

10

11

12

13

11

15

15

17

18

10

20

21

22

23

2-1

25

·26

27

2&

20

30

31

32

3,~

, JUN 2'1 19/0

"" '" ','"'' , , ,,', ,r.,"~!l(, u,s, 1;I:'1111\:; cllU!<r ' ' 1."'1, 111M! HelL .. " J[l" Connl,y CoPOUrfll';:I UI:;,':ICJ .1)/~1I1 onHIA","\ 1~ iT ]'., 1D :;,y LLOYD M, llAmION, Ji\., Deputy -, / -";ri~a,<u."."...Ji.l JL 11...1 ,12., ; :;':111 JJ1('[~o County . OV ... . A!-u{{.,4..· - 4 .. 302 COllnl;y Aclmj,ni,r.t)'ation Center 1(,00 l'ac:lf:lc lli.[~I\H'W' JU;'i 2:1 1970 [;;m D:;,e[,;o, COli,['0l'n1a 92101

239-1'(11, Ext. 1151

At corneys for'Defendants.

cum<, II,;'. OISTwr:r r:nUiW S~UlN n~y~~r ~ l',l.Irtmt'l;\ B'Y?~ ~DCPUTY

UNITED STA1'ES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTIIERN DISTRICT OF CJlLIFOmrIII

KATHLEEN RMIOS, et a1., )

Plaintiff, No. 69-259-K

VS. JUDGMENT' OF DISIHSSAL '

IillNNETH F. FAnE, et al.,

Defendants.

The above entitled action having come on regularly for hearing

before the Honorable James Carter, Ci.rcuit Judge, the Honorable

ChDrles L'. Povlell, District Judge and the Honorable EdHard J.

SchHartz District Judge on Jlpril 16, 1970 at 2:00 p.m.,; David H.

Getches, attorncy appearing for plaintiffs and the 'Honorable Thomas

C. Lynch for State of California by l'Ii11ium Zesser, deputy appearing'

for defendant John C. Montc;omory and Bertram 1,lcLocs, Jr., County

Counsel" County of San Diego by Lloyd H. Harmon, Jr., appearing

for defendnnt Homer E. Detrich.

Pursuant to the opinion rendered by this ,court in the above

entitled case on,June 4, 1970, the motion of defendants John C.

It.ontgomery and Homer E. Detrich to dismiss the complaint 'is

IT IS CONSlDE:tED, ORDBIillD AND ADJUDGED that the obove entitled

Dction be and it hereby is dismissed und thnt defendants recover

of plaintiffs their costG of

DNl'ED: June 10, 1970.

DNfED: June 19, 1970.

l]1,\'r"','11 • ,-Tnnc 221 1,970

II

1

2

3

4

5

G

'I

B

D

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

. 0" ." 26

27

28

20

30

i 31

. 1~

\ \

\ \ I. , I I

\

I.) I'

" .. CEH1'H'ICNl'J;; 0Ji' ATTOHNlIT

01" SERVICE BY HAIL

I .'. I, ,ccrtlfy that I hove sC"vcd a copy of Juclc;mcnt of Dismissal·

by tleponitlnc; a copy in the United States Hnil, pos'tac;e prepaid

in enveloper, addressed to the follN/inc; persons:

, '.

1. David t. Getches Attorney a I'. Low California Indion Lec;ol Serviced 33~ Sout.h Juniper Street Escondido, California 92025

2 •.. ·ThomAs C. Lynch Attorney General of the State of California. Anthony H. Summers, Deputy 217 Hcst First Street· . "l Los Angeles, cali~orni~ '.

""'''''/cc(1 )~' ~ 7(, ::Ie:, i\ .Id~ -rJD~Y~q~M-.-nlffi·'~l~MO~N~r-,-J~·R~,L~~,-D~·e~p~u~t~y~.~~

Attorney for Defendants

.. _-

, ; . /

!

. ,,: \.

\. "

, . , \ .

\

\ \ , "\.

:/ < / .

/ ' , .

! I-

,', .

/ ./

. ;/

.... , ,. .

i." '

", .

. i '.

. .. '.,:. " .'

. "

\.

'.

,\

I

APPENDIX B

Title 42 United StateD Code, 1601

For the purpose of encoux'a(;ing the care of

dependent children in their own homes or in the

homes of relatives by enabllne each State to fur-'

nish financial assistance and rehabilitation and

other services) as far as practicable under the

conditions in such State, 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 relatives

to attain or retain capability for the maximum

self-support and personal independence consistent

with the maintenance of continuing parental care

and protection, there is authorized to be

appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient

to carry out the purposes of this part. The sums

made available under this section shall be used

for making payments to States which have submitted"

and had approved by the Secret~ry) State plans for !

aid and services to needy 'families with children.

\

\ \ \

'\ \

/ /

\ I

\ \

,

/ /

'/ /

.I !

I

30

" ,

I I

J

j I

WELF AnE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE

/ !

~ [HSO. Amounts p3yable; fOlter <::llre (:1) ror ('!'It'll 1JC<'dy r[lmlly ,tll!ch includes one or mOr<! needy cll!1tlren qllnlWt'd

for alII under (hill ('h!lpU!r, CXt'(.'pt n!l pro\'ldt'(] In Section 1110:1, there shnll be! paid the ~lIms !-T)('cifieu In tile following tublc, or So mucb thcrt'Ot as Is ncccssnri tor!" (be nil~lllntc care o{ the ncedy fl.mUy:

•... I,' .' NUfllbt'r or nct'ily

clllldrcn In Uli! .! Mnxhllum 's::nnc home aId

1 child ................................................... ; •••••••• $,141l35 :! children •••••••••••••••••••• ' ••••• 0 ••••••••••••• to ••••••••• , ••• '0'

J clli1!\rcn ........................................... '.0 ............ 215 ·1 child~n .................... : ...................................... 250 5 chilr}ren ......................................................... 201 G children .......................................................... 320 7 dlildr('n •••••••••••••••• u ••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••• 3-13 S clJlltlr~n ........................................................ 2GO f) c1111<lrcn ........................................................ 371 Plw, tire dolla.rs ($5) per chil~ for eneh additional child.

If, wh~n arll! dlJrillr,' fil1ch tl:ncS' a.~ the rJnltcd Stntcs JjO\'ernment lnerCnSl!i'1 ot' '!(·l'n'~"·:1 Itt; ('<)lllribul1ons In :l.~~i~I:1nCC or n~fJy children· In Ihl!! st3.t~ nbovc ot.'" hel(\\\' the nlllou1l1 paid on JnnuarY.l, 10tH. lllC nmount!i f'pcdfl(>(} In thc nbovC" tn1>le !>h:11I 11e InCTl'n<:c!\ or de('rcn!>.cd by nn fllnount equal to suc-h lnc-rcasc Qr rle­crt.'n!>.t.' hS the United SInteR go .... crnment.

(h) For children rcC('ivlng fo:;tl.'r {'nrc who an! qllnHficf\ (or nld under Ole pro­vb;iolls o( this dlnpter, ex('{'pt ns prO\'Jocd 1n Sl.'Ction 1].103. there shall be paid tll(! sum llcC('!>~:lrr for the adcquate cnrc or ('ach chlld. but not to (!l":cc('r) In nny month the Ilroc]uct 0( cib"llly (lollnrs ($$0) mnltipllcd by the number of children In enell ('{lUllt)' rC('P.i\·inr, foster ('nrl):. The stnte shall pny G7.5 lX'rccnt and tllC county shnll paS a:Uj percent o( the aid !urll]slled for the adel]uate care ot such chiltlrcn. '

The max[ml1ln nmonnt ot flirt paynl)]c unu('r the l)rc\'JO\l~ pnrar,rnpb stui.n be In-­

crt'a~l',l liP to on>'! lHlIHJrC'!1 dollars (SHlO) PCI' month In as.·:d;lnf'CC In tho~c cases nlld {Iurl!ll~ l'llch tlmcs as the Uni/ed SInteR gon'rnlllPnt cont-ribulen.

(e) As used In tbls cllnptcr, "fosler cnrc" mennlt cnte: In n oo.qrdlng bomo or 1n-stltut1on. .• .. L.: ; _.t •

i !

l..

"

. ~:.-

; /

'l'h.:! u,,'lt.:ic objective of tIlo l"ro[l;l."l1.:n of aid tlntl ocrvic'CG to nCt~ily 1'cun:UicG vlth chila.rcn in to tn.."l.1ntu.1n dependent children in their own homeo and tq nooiat :pnrcnto to :provide ('I\r·?, for their children CflGCnt1JJ.l. to their hco.l.thy p;rovt.h

... _---

0:": dcv<lJ.opment. Thc' 1956 nrncndr.:ento to title rv oj>CcJ.fi=Uy \iCl i.nc(l lltrengthoning fn..mily life nil the 1Jr1lr~ puryonc of the n.ld to fllmilicfl vith dCl)Cndcnt children ;program. The ut!JCrulm.:m-t on :footer Cilrc :furthor cIr\PhaoizcG tho :priority ilT\POl°t.a.nce of the child I a own home in ):J.o.nnin,g tor fiia con­tinued cure. Tho SCl'l..<tto ne:port gj lJtroDocd tho prirrarJ 0'1 ~"r.tive of' IrJ.'lintnin1ng needY children in th~ir ovn homea und o.t the o(\.t:1c time toolt. cop;.ni'l.o.ncc of IIGOtne env'lron- . ~cnto tlmt nrc clearly contrnry to the bent intcrcota of thcGc children • 10 • The footer care :proviGiono • • • hnvc been dCGigncd, inoofnr llS ~onGible, to snfccunrd tl'.e rie;htG of the child and hiG parento and relatives. No onc to.kcn liehtly the 'severance, even for n brie! . y.eriod, of the tics between a child and parent, or oomebody cloaely rclo.ted to hi.m. II

The report nlGO l)olntcd ou·~ that the 'Provisions nrc intendeel· "to fitimulo.te und o.sriot the Stntcf) in the l'::;otcction and carc of childn:n. 1I The S·tatc, thcreforo,· io given the option of brineing fOGter cnre for the child-recipient into the GCOpC of it6 'Progrnm of aid nml GC1'ViCCG to needy :familic:) 'With Children, under opecified conditlonG. The lC6inlntlon io dcaigned to reach n relatively Gll)3ll grOU)? of child-r<.':cipicnta 'Who nrc i'ound to be liv~lne. in m'l.o.rdoUB circUlI1£to.nccO •

V.:my other children nrc in need of footer co.re, often under volunto.l~~plnn9 of the parents and some bccnuec of court fictione baaed on rCUGonc other thnn neglect, Guch no dependency. In Gomo inGtnncec where ncelect and M7..o.rdo to chihlrcn exist, l,)O.rento roy mo.kc other )?lano foX' their chihlrcn or cnter into 0. VOluntary plan vith o.n agency for pln.ccmcnt of the children, thUG mnldng court action unnCCCGoo.ry. other rcoourcCG 01' the State nruot be looked for to lllCet the necdo of ouch chilclrcn in the StnteD ",ho rcq1l1rc foetcr fo.mily c~rc. Among theoo rcoourceo nrc the Child Welfare ServiceD pro/Jl-a.m, financed in part :from :(\melo uvo.11ablo under pn.rt 3 0:(' title V ·of' tho SocioJ. Security Ac'b, M(l the w1untnry agonei". :providing Dorvieeo to children. . _. .

... _--

g-;i;;;:;-;;;i';';;,::.ii-:;('fcc:t;"iWf?" CXPOndit~~ tor tho j>Criod 10/1/62-6/30/67, o.~ !:lI;~~nd("d by l' .L. &3-041.· ,

?J \:~l'",·t of :;.nntc Cor.ml1ttco on Finonec, No. 165, <l7th Conucoo, 1st S'''r.t;lMI \ .

• "

Hor.:lbook of Public Moiotnnco Adminiotration

:' .3401~'---' T't,,..,-,ooo of Aid to Dmxmdont ChIldron

j.j.n. to dopnnrlMt childron io lin oooont..io..l pnrt of n bl"OOO DOOiAl plG ... ·1. of public oorvico.3, including ooucnt.ion, noult.h, ·tlvli'.J.'.\v, !'.I".d tho nociaJ. in:.JUrancoo, thnt tho Nntion io prOrrrODDivo~ dovolopinc to MOuro ita childron opportunity tOt . ~

1. Gr"" up in 0' DottinZ of thoir arm !ruui~ l"olation!lhip31

2. , ll:lVO tho oconomio 5Upport ,and "OmOM thoy need J:or hoo.l.th and devolopment;

3. Recoivo Gl1 educl'tion that will holp thom to roo.l.izo thc.!.l.· cajXUli tinD J and

4. =-0 in'1:.';o li£o oJ: noigbborhood.m. community •

• To livo in' tho J:ami~ to which hc bolon~5 in tho foundation of " child's ,'oc\U'ity. 'fhe public h"" o.n intoroot nnd on obliga­tio .. in suotllninr; tho cont.ribution v .. tdch paronts <l..'1d i..nr.:;Odillto ':r,"r.i~ lO.1lC) to tho dovolopmnnt of n child. Finanoial inr.bility 'to r,\Oot. II cw..ld.' a nooda, thoro.torc, ohould not '00 o.l.lcTwod to fo~co A paron~ tel surronder rosponsibility tor brineinG up tho child.

':Lh.o Mou:!1.ption und~rlyinG tho nid to dopcr.dunt childNn pro(9:"run i:J thnt ";hcn n fJ.Jili~ eire-Ii! io· broken .or incoraploto, or parcn"tD

,DO:'C ru-u"idlcapp.od trJ phyoico.l. or mental disnbility, tho moo.ouro ~ost eonducivu to the child1a ~ulf~re is tho atrcnetnoninG ot tho homo o.Z0.i.n5t t.ho fina.."lcial impact of thc:Jo 1.n.cks or 10:3:900 cr.d to giva hio po.rent., or othor rolativo, a chanco to ellin or .. oo~t!lblieh contJ:Ol ovor hin nf£aira.

Rccogr.i zi.nz tho i"Ul"..dn:nont<.ll noed of the child for :.>ocu.ri ty . t..1;....'"'Qu!1>'1. rocoiv-,lr,z core, r;uidn.llCC, nnd ol'fcction trom h.in C/'Ptl

£2.r..i~' tho aid to uopcmlont childron proernLl in diroctcd,toward c::1.Col:L-1g tho poront, or in hin c.b::1Cnco 0. clan a rolo.~vc, to Cl1!:ic;:'O continuity in .fc.m.il:y rolntio:'l..3hip:J nnd to m.'linto..in 'full l-""I'0i1Gibility for· 11 V{o.y of liv,Lng in which 'oho child nD:l-u,ro.l.~· belongs. III <:ddi tion, tho progr:i.tn includo. in i tn, pu::poco .pro­v~ciin3 sorvlco, or o.CCODD to other r030urccD in tho c~~unity, throu[.'.h '>ihich tho fcr.rl..ly m~ roo..1.i~,o thoir plann and hOp06 tol."" tho:ir childNn and IllOY :L"TLprovo thoir circumnt...'1.ncos uct!ol"(linl! to t.hou" noco.:JDity and dO!3iro. Thu..::; tho purpose of ilid to COPOl::iC:lt chHdrcn 10 t"o-foldl (1) to mako it poooiblo fo);' tbo child to romain in or roturn to tho CIL"tody and caro of hin parcntlJ or of roliltivo!] Y-Iho h.:i.YO a n..1..turaJ. bond of affoction er.d CO:lcom tor hiD ""'ll~boing; and (2) to cnnblo tho child'~ ~ot nood to bo Duppliod.

Thio purpooo of tho pr<>[;t'LllU mu..,t bo undorotood and accopted by ~..d.."7..i.n.tstr.1.tivo o.rficial~ and mado 1000wn to npplicantD, if p:trc:rw c..ro to bo in n pODi.tion to mako dociaionn ' ..... lth full. IJlcr.rlodgo of \';~l.nt "tho procrrun hn...'J to offor tho)'l. Throuch can­t;.~"'ibutinG to or ouw1y1nJ; tho flllitl.1y1a cconcm.i.c Dupport, aid to do!)c:1da..'1t childron ::;ho\l.ld, . .for CXlU'i1.plo, mtJco it pODtliblo for 0. L ..... o~hOl'" to choo::;o botwoon nU1.ying at hOlil.O to caro fot" her chil­d.1.."'cn ~ t...1.1cinr. a. job o.VWY from homo. 3ho hM little Ol~ no choico, howover, unlO!J3 t.he n.id avnilablo to hor ia c.nouz.h to moot tho .fr.mily'o maint.enanco noOO:l lU'ld unl.O::i:l thAt D.id 1.0 ru(.:u.lnr .a.n::l conUnuou..'J no th~'lt oho con roly upon it.

l ... d.~-,qU.f.~ C::"'I."\) of tho htllllth of both pnrontn .o .. nil childl."ull in .r:.:..i , I,_.~ ". ' .. r ~""""" ",,/", +"",, ... 'I"'~r.-r •. """.

I I

?u:.·po~o of Aia. to DCi1cndont Chilor'.!l1 (continued)

S':'I1CO illr.c~!.l 'Prcci~i'uil.t.'(~5 or nCi;ravntc::; firLllnci:).l ar.d other d:i.fiicul tic::;, M opport.un::' t:.~p t.o obt.nin nCI)dcd mc1ic:u :::':11"0 ;:.a:/ cr.:..blc a .f':i,;ni.l:f tc ru~J.in ccono.:lic independenco. C.U'C of a di::;nblcd j)itr·.mt .<It ho.:IC I;\n)' J.VCl.'t 5cpt1.l'<\tion OJ.' ::lcmbcr::; of 1...00' fc:.u-l.:r. '!'ho pl·o;.:-;ra .. :\, t.ilOl·cforo, mu::;t 't.:.U<.o COPL1.7.a..'1.CO o~ the he.uth fae Lors ncccn:::n.ry t.o j)l"o:)crvo tho chi ld I n hO!!\Il. Tho!lo fJ..ctOl':; includo both preventive nnd cariltivc ,ncdical service!) for the chil<, ,md the p"rcnt. Opport-unity to 0 btaDl filcdieaJ. care a..'"Id needed ,3upplcr:i.cntnry nur:.>in[:, housckccpine or other servico::; m..1.y be mndo .:1.vaila )19 throuGh t.he li\Oli~y payment and throu;3h aGency services db~Jctcd toward. helpint: tho fruilily to U!30 cor.ununity rOGources.

Tho purpo::; 0 of aid to do·pendent. children in scrved in providil1e opportlmity for children to devolop individual'capaeit.y, with zone r..cusurc of security il~<l:in5t i'uturc economic hat.ards. To o':1.ablc children roccivina aid to dcpcncicmt children to shazoo in the opportunitic[I in their com.r.tunity for education and fo:::" phycical and.social development requires provin1on ror their npccinl individual roquirc.-acnts as' well as for basic m..."lintl'3nnnco needs Vii thin the lints of the resourCeS a.vailablo. The· dcvoJ,-._. op:7lont cf individual ca.pacity is iroport.nnt not only ·for the i.''1dividu..:Q 1:1 <lchlcvin;.J a. unoful anti. satisfyi..nrr cxporicnco for ~el.r, but it is sicnificant D.:J v[oll for onriching the lito

--. of the community. The proGram is one means o~ fulfilling a. fundamental purpose of all ;UCasur05 for Gocial flocurity-to .: i'ootor a.."1d pre-nervo basic hurn.m rcso\U"ccs and.· 1'amily We.

/ ,

I !