Case Title: Meagher v. Hennepin County Welfare Board

Citation: 221 N.W.2d 140

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1974-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
221 N.W.2d 140 (1974) Sandra MEAGHER, Respondent, v. HENNEPIN COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, Appellant, State of Minnesota, Department of Public Welfare, Appellant. No. 44704. Supreme Court of Minnesota. July 26, 1974. *141 Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Judy L. Oakes, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for State, Dept. of Pub. Welfare. Gary Flakne, County Atty., James Bares, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for Henn. County Welfare Bd., for appellants. Marino, Becker & Granquist and Stephen H. Parsons, Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before PETERSON, KELLY, and KNUTSON, JJ. KNUTSON, Justice.[*] This is an appeal by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare and the Hennepin County Welfare Board from an order of the Hennepin County District Court which reversed an order of the commissioner of public welfare. The order of the commissioner had affirmed action taken by the Hennepin County Welfare Board to reduce an Aid to Families with Dependent Children grant (hereinafter AFDC) which allotted to plaintiff, Sandra Meagher, benefits which took into consideration her needs as well as the needs of her two children. Mrs. Meagher appealed the commissioner's ruling to the district court. By agreement of the parties, the order of the commissioner constituted the entire record considered by the court. After hearing the contentions of the parties, the trial judge declared the decision of the commissioner arbitrary and unreasonable. The facts are not in dispute. They are derived from the briefs of the parties and the findings of the commissioner. Prior to February 1973, Mrs. Meagher lived in Hennepin County with her two children and received AFDC in amounts based upon the needs of the mother and the two children. In February 1973, Mrs. Meagher remarried. She was thereafter notified by the Hennepin County Welfare Board that her grant would be reduced, effective April 1, 1973, by eliminating that portion attributable to her individual needs. Thereafter the AFDC grant was to be based solely on the needs of the two children. Mrs. Meagher and her husband are both full-time college students. Her tuition is paid by the Minnesota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Her husband's tuition is free for reasons not specified by the parties. Appealing the welfare board's action, Mrs. Meagher testified before the commissioner of public welfare that her husband's income was not sufficient to meet both his and her needs. His income is $146 per month, also received through the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the commissioner could legally determine that Mrs. Meagher's needs could be automatically disregarded after her marriage. The policy of the commissioner to disregard the needs of the mother after her remarriage is codified in Department of Public Welfare, IncomeMaintenance Manual, IV-2224.04, which reads in part: The Department of Public Welfare and the commissioner take the position that the policy declared in the above manual is reasonable and therefore the commissioner's order is not arbitrary or unreasonable, as was found by the court. Mrs. Meagher, on the other hand, contends that the regulation as applied by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and interpreted by the commissioner is arbitrary and unreasonable in that it is not in conformity with the Federal AFDC policy set out in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq. More specifically, Mrs. Meagher alleges that the DPW and the commissioner, by interpreting the regulation as a blanket exclusion of married caretakers from AFDC eligibility regardless of their actual needs, have frustrated the Federal purpose of AFDC, that is of "maintain[ing] and strengthen[ing] family life and [helping] 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 * * *." 42 U.S.C.A. § 601. At the outset, it is clear that a class of persons eligible for assistance must be determined by reference to Federal standards. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 92 S. Ct. 1724, 32 L. Ed. 2d 285 (1972). In the case of Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 291, 92 S. Ct. 502, 508, 30 L.Ed.2d *143 448, 456 (1971), the Supreme Court of the United States said: In Townsend, the court also discussed the decision of King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968), and said: Thus, it seems clear that while the state may properly attempt its own method of determining the needs of individuals who qualify as caretakers under the Federal statutes, it may not restrict the class of caretaker relatives made eligible by Federal statute.[1] The trial court relied heavily upon Lopez v. Vowell, 471 F.2d 690 (5 Cir. 1973), certiorari denied, 411 U.S. 939, 93 S. Ct. 1903, 36 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1973). In that case the Texas State Department of Public Welfare denied AFDC caretaker benefits to the dependent children's married grandmother on the basis of a state welfare regulation which excluded married relatives from caretaker eligibility.[2] In holding that the Texas welfare regulation was "clearly in conflict" with the Social Security Act, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated (471 F.2d 693): Appellants seek to minimize the weight to be given to the Lopez decision by arguing that the Lopez case involved a grandmother rather than a mother and that her husband's total income was $152 per month. We see no difference in that situation and the facts involved here as far as eligibility is concerned. Next, appellants argue that the decision is one from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and as such is not controlling in Minnesota. To be sure, the decision is not binding on us in the same sense as our own decisions are, but it is a persuasive interpretation of the applicable Federal law, inasmuch as eligibility is determined by Federal law. While we may not be bound by the Lopez decision, we are inclined to consider it as clearly stating the interpretation that is to be given to the Federal law involved. Originally, appellants also contended that there is no indication in the opinion that under Texas law a husband is obligated to support his wife as he is in Minnesota. Apparently, this position has now been abandoned, and, in any event, it has been answered by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in Rylee v. Rylee, 244 S.W.2d 717 (1951). Under Minnesota law, a husband is legally responsible for the support of his wife while they are married. Minn.St. 519.05. A stepfather is not legally bound to support the children of his *145 wife by a former husband. In re Besondy, 32 Minn. 385, 20 N.W. 366 (1884); 14 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 7302. The trial court in its memorandum correctly stated: There is nothing in either Federal statutes or Federal decisions that will prevent the commissioner from attempting to induce or even compel a husband to assume his legal obligation to support his wife if he is able to do so, but the mere fact that a mother, otherwise eligible to receive AFDC, is married does not automatically destroy her eligibility, but instead must be taken into consideration in determining the amount necessary to maintain her and her children according to AFDC standards. Eligibility and need are not synonymous. Even under DPW's own rules, the mother's needs for assistance after marriage must be evaluated. In this case, the commissioner never reached this point because she simply adopted the position that upon remarriage the mother was ineligible for any consideration. This, the commissioner may not do under a proper construction of applicable law by Federal standards. Thus, it follows that the trial court was correct in holding that the case should be remanded to the state agency for a consideration of the needs of the children and their caretaker mother. In this consideration, the commissioner has a right to consider all relevant evidence in determining what is available for support not only of the mother but of the children after her marriage. It may well be that the commissioner will determine that in the long run it might be better to permit both husband and wife to complete their college education so that they will eventually be able to take care of the children without any AFDC support. These are all matters that should be taken into consideration, but in any event the trial court was correct in holding that the needs of the mother could not be simply disregarded solely because she remarried without considering what support would be available from her husband. Affirmed. [*] Retired Chief Justice acting pursuant to Minn.St. 2.724. [1] See, Comment, 118 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 1219, 1241. [2] In pertinent part, § 3411 of the Financial Services Handbook of the Texas State Department of Public Welfare provided: "Caretaker (AFDC) * * * * * * "(4) Must be a single relative (either a legal parent or another single relative) within the specified degree of relationship. However, no caretaker will be certified (and only the needs of the children) may be budgeted if the relatives are a married couple and each spouse is present, unless incapacity or receipt of categorical assistance is involved."