Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/955/506/448139/
Timestamp: 2019-07-17 20:32:21
Document Index: 621834815

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 602', '§ 232', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 603', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 651', '§ 602', '§ 657', '§ 302', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 233', '§ 233', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 232', '§ 232', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 173', '§ 654', '§ 602', '§ 233', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 602', '§ 233', '§ 233', '§ 305', '§ 602', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 602', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 233']

Jane Zeien, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarlysituated, Appellant, v. Charles M. Palmer, Acting Director of Iowa Department Ofhuman Services, Appellee, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.d., in His Official Capacity Ascommissioner, United States Department of Healthand Human Services, Appellee, 955 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1992 › Jane Zeien, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarlysituated, Appellant, v. Charles M. Palmer,...
Jane Zeien, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarlysituated, Appellant, v. Charles M. Palmer, Acting Director of Iowa Department Ofhuman Services, Appellee, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.d., in His Official Capacity Ascommissioner, United States Department of Healthand Human Services, Appellee, 955 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 955 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992)
Submitted May 16, 1991. Decided Jan. 23, 1992. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc DeniedMarch 10, 1992
Zeien, the divorced mother of four minor children, began receiving AFDC benefits of $490 per month in June 1987. Court orders entered on August 3 and December 1, 1987 required Zeien's ex-husband to pay her child support of $320 per month, increasing to $600 per month in March 1988. As required by the Social Security Act and regulations for AFDC eligibility, Zeien assigned her right to child support to the State of Iowa. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (26) (A) (1988); 45 C.F.R. § 232.11(a) (1) (1990).
Date Amount August 1987 $ 0 September 1987 0 October 1987 750 November 1987 600 December 1987 390 January 1988 80 February 1988 0 March 1988 0 April 1988 1,040 May"November 1988 0
The district court held that HHS regulations require cancellation of AFDC in the second month after receipt of a support payment exceeding the AFDC need standard without a best estimate of the likelihood of support payments continuing. The court found that the regulations were reasonable and were the product of a permissible construction of the Social Security Act by HHS. The court also held, however, that 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (22) requires IDHS to make corrective payments for months of AFDC ineligibility when anticipated child support payments are not received. The court entered a declaratory judgment to this effect and enjoined IDHS from continuing its policy of refusing to make corrective payments. The court certified a class of all Iowa residents whose AFDC benefits were terminated after January 13, 1987 due to a child support payment, or whose AFDC benefits will be terminated in the future due to such payments. The court ordered IDHS to notify class members of their right to corrective payments for months of AFDC ineligibility in which anticipated support payments did not materialize.
The Supreme Court articulated the standard by which we review an agency's interpretation of the statute the agency administers in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984):
Id. at 842-43, 104 S. Ct. at 2781-82 (footnotes omitted). If Congress authorizes an agency to promulgate regulations to fill statutory gaps, such regulations "are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." Id. at 843-44, 104 S. Ct. at 2782.
Congress created the AFDC program "to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives who live with and care for them." Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U.S. 251, 253, 94 S. Ct. 1746, 1750, 40 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1974). The Social Security Act restricts eligibility for AFDC to only the neediest families, excluding any family whose combined assets exceed $1,000 in value. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (7) (B) (1988).3 States choosing to participate in the program receive reimbursement from the federal government for a percentage of the funds they expend. See 42 U.S.C. § 603 (1988); Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184, 189, 105 S. Ct. 1138, 1141, 84 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1985). Participating states, in return, must administer their AFDC programs according to state plans that conform to applicable federal statutes and regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 602 (1988); Turner, 470 U.S. at 189, 105 S. Ct. at 1141.
The Social Security Act requires each state participant in the AFDC program to implement a plan designed to maximize the collection of child support payments from absent parents. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (27) (1988); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669 (1988) (Child Support Enforcement Act). One purpose of this requirement is to reduce welfare costs by increasing child support collections. See S.Rep. No. 1356, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 13-14, reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 8133, 8145-46 ("The problem of welfare in the United States is, to a considerable extent, a problem of the non-support of children by their absent parents."). To this end, each state AFDC plan must require AFDC recipients to assign to the state their rights to child support as a condition of eligibility for aid. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (26) (A) (1988). Child support payments ordinarily are made directly to the state child support collection agency, which distributes them according to a formula set forth in the statute and regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 657 (1988); 45 C.F.R. § 302.51(b) (1990).
The Social Security Act also requires the state AFDC agency to consider all income and resources of all members of a recipient family in determining the need for aid. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (7) (1988). The Act authorizes a monthly income reporting and retrospective budgeting system to determine eligibility and need for aid. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (13) (A) (i) (1988) (the state agency will determine eligibility for aid for a month based on the family's income, composition, resources, and other similar relevant circumstances during that month); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (13) (A) (ii) (1988) (the state agency will determine the amount of aid based on the family's income and other relevant circumstances in the first or second month preceding the month in which the aid is to be paid).
HHS has promulgated additional regulations governing the determination of eligibility and need for AFDC, and prescribing the method by which state AFDC agencies must consider child support payments in making those determinations. The state agency must determine AFDC eligibility prospectively for each payment month based on the agency's "best estimate of income and circumstances which will exist in the month for which the payment is made." 45 C.F.R. § 233.33(a) (1990). The estimate must be based on the agency's "reasonable expectation and knowledge of current, past or future circumstances." 45 C.F.R. § 233.31(b) (1) (1990). Once an individual has been found eligible for AFDC benefits, the state agency must reconsider or redetermine eligibility promptly whenever "a report is obtained which indicates changes in the individual's circumstances that may affect the amount of assistance to which he is entitled or may make him ineligible [.]" 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a) (9) (ii) (1990).
The regulations provide an exception to the best estimate rule for child support collections. When the state child support collection agency reports a collection to the state AFDC agency, the AFDC agency must treat the amount of the collection as a change in circumstances requiring a review of eligibility under 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a) (9) (ii). The agency must consider only that portion of a support collection which represents the support obligation for the current month. If that amount, when treated as if it were income, exceeds the state's standard of need, the AFDC agency must find the family ineligible for aid. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 232.20(b) (1), 302.51 (1990). Because eligibility is determined prospectively, a finding of ineligibility because of a sufficient child support payment will take effect either one or two months after the support collection is reported to the state AFDC agency. If the support collection is insufficient to render the family ineligible for aid, the amount of the collection will have no effect on the amount of the family's AFDC grant. 45 C.F.R. § 232.20(b) (1) (1990).
While we may disagree with HHS' decision to treat child support payments differently from other components of an AFDC recipient's income, we may not invalidate that decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the Social Security Act. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S. Ct. at 2782. Congress has authorized HHS to promulgate regulations governing AFDC and child support enforcement by state agencies. 42 U.S.C. §§ 602(a) (5), 652(a) (1) (1988). Nothing in the Social Security Act prohibits HHS from drawing a distinction between child support payments and other forms of income used to calculate a family's eligibility for AFDC. Similarly, the Act does not preclude HHS from exempting child support from the best estimate rule, which was itself created by regulation rather than by statute. We therefore cannot conclude that the regulation exempting child support from the best estimate rule is manifestly contrary to the Social Security Act.
We are also unable to conclude that the regulations distinguishing child support from other income are arbitrary or capricious. Congress itself drew such a distinction by requiring that AFDC recipients' rights to child support be assigned directly to the state, rather than merely reported to the state as are other forms of income. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (26) (1988). One purpose of giving states the responsibility of enforcing child support obligations was to ensure that child support payments replace AFDC benefits as promptly as possible. See S.Rep. No. 1356, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 13, 20, reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 8145, 8152. While the requirement that AFDC eligibility be redetermined based on each current support payment may not be the means this court would have adopted to effectuate congressional intent, it is sufficiently rational to preclude us from substituting our judgment for that of HHS. See Department of Social Servs. v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir. 1986).4
In 1982, Congress amended the Social Security Act to require the state child support collection agency to use the payment that rendered the family ineligible to reimburse the state for AFDC paid in the month for which the support payment was collected. Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 173(a), 96 Stat. 403 (1982) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 654(5) (1988)) [hereinafter TEFRA]. Congress intended to eliminate double payment to an AFDC family for any single month, and to ensure reimbursement to the state and federal government for AFDC already paid in the month before the support was collected and known to make the family ineligible. S.Rep. No. 494, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 55, reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 781, 831. The Senate Finance Committee estimated that the amendment would save $11 million over the next three fiscal years. Id., reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 831.
Recognizing that the amendment would cause hardship to families whose child support payments did not continue in the first month of AFDC ineligibility, HHS adopted a policy of issuing corrective payments to such families for the month of ineligibility and reinstating their AFDC grants the following month without reapplication. Memorandum from HHS Associate Commissioner for Family Assistance to HHS Regional Administrator, Region VIII (Oct. 19, 1983); see also 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (22) (1988) (requiring state AFDC agencies to promptly correct any underpayment of aid); 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (13) (ii) (1990) (requiring "prompt correction of any underpayments to current recipients and those who would be a current recipient if the error causing the underpayment had not occurred"). The district court found IDHS to be in violation of this policy because it did not issue corrective payments and required a family to reapply for AFDC before reinstating its aid.5
Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 596, 107 S. Ct. 3008, 3014-15, 97 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1987). We question the wisdom of Congress' determination that a potential annual savings of less than $4 million justifies the possible hardship to AFDC families who no longer are guaranteed receipt of at least one child support payment in their first month of ineligibility. Our task, however, is not to pass judgment on the wisdom of congressional policy choices. Unless those choices "run afoul of some constitutional edict, any inequities created by such decisions must be remedied by the democratic processes." Id. at 597, 107 S. Ct. at 3015.6 Because the AFDC regulations at issue comport with the Social Security Act and are neither arbitrary nor capricious, we must uphold them.
I respectfully dissent. At issue is the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) policy which leaves poor families without any source of assistance when they are disqualified from further AFDC based on receipt of one month's child support.1 Upon receipt Iowa presumes that payments will continue. This is true even if nonpayment intervenes between the initial collection and the month of cancellation. Thus, IDHS cancels benefits without any sort of estimate or projection that child support payments will continue. As a result of this presumption, a family may be without any means or benefits for at least three months. By cancelling benefits without any sort of estimate or projection that child support payments will continue, Iowa artificially imputes income that is not actually available to the family. See Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184, 201, 105 S. Ct. 1138, 1147, 84 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1984).2
I respectfully submit that the Secretary's policy cannot be reconciled with the congressional mandate or the plain language of the enabling statute or effecting regulations. Where Congress has not established a specific rule which addresses how or when to treat child support as income, this court is charged with determining whether the agency's policy is "based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron, U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984).3
The authority of an administrative agency to enact rules and regulations is limited by the statutory language under which the rules are enacted. North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 312, 103 S. Ct. 1095, 1102, 75 L. Ed. 2d 77, 85 (1983). No deference should be shown to an agency policy or decision if the agency "in the guise of interpretation, effects a change in statutory intent." Quarles v. St. Clair, 711 F.2d 691, 708 (5th Cir. 1983). This court must strike down regulations that are "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44, 104 S. Ct. at 2782.
To effect those goals, Congress charged the states be circumspect and consider factors other than current income when determining eligibility for assistance: " [t]he State agency (i) will determine a family's eligibility for aid for a month on the basis of the family's income, composition, resources, and other similar relevant circumstances...." 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (13) (A) (1988) (emphasis added). Congress specified that each receiving family is to report the "income and resources it expects to receive, or any changes in circumstances affecting continued eligibility or benefit amount, that it expects to occur, in that month (or in future months), " so that the state may consider those factors when determining need. 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (14) (A) (ii) (1988) (emphasis added). I respectfully submit it is arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the Act to leave a family without AFDC even for a short period of time without considering "other relevant factors" concerning the likelihood of future child support payments. It is totally derelict and capricious to disqualify a family based on child support payments when the agency has easy access to the ex-spouse's sporadic payment history. This is especially true where the agency knows any future payment by the ex-spouse will be used to initially pay the arrearage due the agency.5 Thus, the agency knows that, in a case like Ms. Zeien's, it is quite likely that child support payments, even if they were to continue, would not go to the custodial parent but to the government to pay for prior assistance. Under such circumstances, HHS's presumption is totally irrational.
HHS's presumption that child support will continue in the future even when the ex-spouse has a sporadic payment history must be viewed as attributing "nonexistent resources" to the family. HHS ignores the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184, 105 S. Ct. 1138, 84 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1984), that need be based on income "actually available." The "actually available" principle "has served primarily to prevent the States from conjuring fictional sources of income and resources by imputing financial support from persons who have no obligation to furnish it or by overvaluing assets in a manner that attributes nonexistent resources to recipients." Id. at 200, 105 S. Ct. at 1147.6
In King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968), the Court held that income of a cohabitating male companion of the mother could not be imputed to the family absent evidence that the companion actually contributed to the support of the children. HHS would distinguish King and Turner from the instant case because they involved situations in which the non-family member had no legal obligation to provide support, whereas in this case the ex-spouse is required to pay child support. The Turner decision, however, does not rest on whether someone was legally obligated to provide support to the family. The touchstone of Turner is whether income is in fact available, regardless of whether or not the family is legally entitled to it: " [T]he Court's cases applying the [availability] principle clearly reflect that its purpose is to prevent the States from relying on imputed or unrealizable sources of income artificially to depreciate a recipient's need." Turner, 470 U.S. at 201, 105 S. Ct. at 1147.
HHS attempts to justify its child support policy by conclusorily saying that " [t]he Federal policy in question here provisionally imputes support from persons who not only have an obligation to provide it but have done so in the immediate past!" (Appellee's Brief at 26). HHS never addresses whether its "imputing" income on which to evaluate eligibility for assistance is reasonable.7 Instead, in circular fashion it argues that the "actually available" principle is satisfied by its unreasonable assumption of continued support payments. I fail to see the reasonableness of assuming that an absent parent who likely does not have a history of steady employment and who does have a history of failing to make child support payments will make payment the next month merely because he or she made one last month--perhaps for the first time in years. Certainly no bank or credit issuer would consider such a person a "good risk." The policy is arbitrary and capricious and thus no deference is owed it.
The enabling legislation was also intended to encourage the absent parent to fulfill his or her obligation to support the children. The Supreme Court noted in Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 107 S. Ct. 3008, 97 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1986), that it is possible that some non-custodial parents may object to the assignment of support funds to the government, and may decide to avoid payment for that reason. However, Congress itself has recognized that more often than not government participation in the process increases child support collection. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (17) was added to the legislation by Congress to encourage and facilitate obtaining such support. Shirley v. Lavine, 365 F. Supp. 818 (N.D.N.Y.1973), aff'd, 420 U.S. 730, 95 S. Ct. 1190, 43 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1975). HHS argues that ending AFDC at the earliest possible moment due to receipt of one child support payment may act to motivate absent parents to continue payments, where they would not otherwise. Congress obviously rejected this argument: Congress believed that child support collections would increase if the government took up collections, and therefore enacted section 602(a) (17).
HHS's policy actually motivates the working-poor absent parent not to send support payments to assist his children. The prospect of the family's losing AFDC assistance due to one support payment and being without funds with which to pay for food and shelter motivates the well-meaning absentee parent to withhold monetary support even when able to contribute, unless he or she is confident that payments can continue. By discouraging the working-poor absent parent from contributing to his or her children's support, the government actually promotes perpetual dependence on AFDC payments, thus depriving other children who might be eligible for assistance due to the finite nature of the program's resources and frustrating the program's attempt to give people a leg up and promote self-sufficiency. See Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U.S. 251, 94 S. Ct. 1746, 40 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1974).
The AFDC program is also intended to serve the purposes of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA), 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (3) (ii) (d) (1990). OBRA was designed to husband and, hopefully, reduce the outlay of federal dollars targeted for social programs. OBRA amended the prior lump sum provisions under AFDC such that the receipt of a lump sum is considered income in the month it is received. OBRA did not eliminate the distinction between income and available income.
The applicable implementing regulations, promulgated by HHS, provide in relevant part that "income and resources are considered available both when actually available and when the applicant has a legal interest in a liquidated sum and has the legal ability to make such sum available for support and maintenance." 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (3) (ii) (D) (1990) (emphasis added).8 Although we must endeavor to defer to the agency interpretation of its statutory authority, the Supreme Court has invalidated agency interpretations that violate the actual availability principle. See, e.g., King, 392 U.S. at 319-20, 88 S. Ct. at 2134-35. The majority states that the Social Security Act "does not preclude HHS from exempting child support from the best estimate rule." Maj.Op. at 511. Even if this be true, HHS is bound by its own regulations as well as the enabling statute to evaluate need based on actually available income. Yet its recent policy contradicts the spirit of the Act and directly contradicts the availability principle set out by the Supreme Court in Turner.
Accordingly, section 232.20(b) (1) provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) Definition. For purposes of this section, notwithstanding any other regulations in this chapter, support collections, monthly collections and support amounts for a month mean the assigned amount that the support enforcement agency collects from an absent parent or spouse on a monthly support obligation, less the disregarded sum under § 305 [sic].51(b) (1).
Section 232.20 refers us to section 302.51(b) (1) which states in pertinent part:
Of any amount that is collected in a month which represents payment of the required support obligation for that month, the first $50 of such amount shall be paid to the family. This payment may not be used in determining the amount paid, if any, to the family in paragraph (b) (3) of this section. If the amount collected includes payment on the required support obligation for a previous month or months, the family shall only receive the first $50 of the amount which represents the required support obligation for the month in which the support was collected.
Section 302.51(b) (1), too, does not specifically except child support from the "best estimate" calculus.10
I respectfully submit that a close reading of all of the interrelated regulations requires that 1) a best estimate be made based on the amount of support actually available to the AFDC family; and 2) that best estimates take into account, not only income, but "other relevant circumstances " pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (13) (A).11
$50 to Zeien 45 C.F.R. § 302.51(b) (1) requires that the family receive the first $50 of any amount collected representing the required support obligation for that month. $490 to IDHS 45 C.F.R. § 302.51(b) (2) requires the state to reimburse itself for the AFDC already paid for the month in which the support was collected. $60 to Zeien 45 C.F.R. § 302.51(b) (3) requires that any excess remaining be paid to the family up to the difference between the AFDC payment for the month and the court-ordered amount for the month ($600 - $490 = $110, less $50 already distributed under § 302.51(b) (1) = $60). $440 to IDHS 45 C.F.R. § 302.51(b) (4) requires the state to retain any excess remaining after the first three distributions as reimbursement for any AFDC benefits paid in past months for which the state has not yet been reimbursed.
The eligibility ceiling excludes from the $1,000 valuation the family home, one automobile, and one burial plot for each family member. 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (7) (B) (1988)
(1) Continue to provide all appropriate [child support collection] services for a period not to exceed three months from the month following the month in which the family ceased to receive assistance under the [state AFDC] plan. The State may not charge fees or recover costs from support collections and must pay all amounts collected which represent monthly support payments to the family [.]
C.F.R. § 302.51(e) (1) (1990) (emphasis added)
The dissent emphatically reminds us that we are reviewing HHS regulations rather than an act of Congress. The HHS regulations that directly prevented Zeien from receiving any income in the month of June 1988 are 45 C.F.R. §§ 302.32(b) and 302.51(b) (2). HHS amended these regulations to conform with 42 U.S.C. § 654(5), the TEFRA amendment to the Social Security Act designed to eliminate the possibility of AFDC families receiving both child support and the AFDC payments for the same month. The intent behind these HHS regulations thus is that of Congress, not the HHS. Congress made the policy decision that the possibility of double payments to AFDC recipients for a single month was an evil greater than the possibility of no payments at all. HHS simply implemented that policy decision, as 42 U.S.C. § 654(5) required it to do
The majority's opinion relies on Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 107 S. Ct. 3008, 97 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1987), for the proposition that Congress must decide whether the cost savings of the HHS child support policy outweighs the hardship the policy inflicts on the needy. This court is not reviewing an Act of Congress, it is reviewing the agency rules and policy dictated to fill the gaps in congressional legislation
Maintenance of the family's structure is the paramount purpose of the federal program granting aid for the care of dependent children. Ramos v. Montgomery, 313 F. Supp. 1179 (S.D. Cal.), aff'd at 400 U.S. 1003, 91 S. Ct. 572, 27 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1970)
The Ninth Circuit came to a similar conclusion in Schrader v. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, 768 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1985). The court considered a state AFDC regulation that counted the value of the recipient's real property as available assets even if the recipient was unable to sell the property despite a good faith effort to do so. In finding the regulation contrary to the Social Security Act, the court stated that the issue was not whether the Social Security Act requires the state to give the recipient a grace period to sell the property before disqualification from the program. The issue was whether the state regulation satisfied the availability requirement. Id. at 1112. If real property is not considered available to the recipient even when the recipient has full control over the property, it follows that child support payments may be found unavailable when the recipient has no control at all over the flow of that income
Clearly, section 233.33(b) and section 302.51(b) (1) exist to provide a specific calculus for determining a family's actually available income--the only type of income which may legitimately be considered when determining a family's need. It states that $50 of the amount collected is to be given to the family and not considered income. The remaining monies, even if they are considered income to the family, are processed under the other provisions of section 302.51(b), which provide, among other things, for the reimbursement of the government for any assistance payments made to the family for the present month past months. Thus, section 302.51(b) provides a definite mechanism for determining what portion of a child support collection is to be considered actually available income. Therefore, child support payments are not excluded from the actual availability principle
The regulations provide that "all types of income will be taken into consideration in the same way except where otherwise specifically authorized by Federal statute...." 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (1) (emphasis added)