Opinion ID: 1828146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: 1. Are otherwise eligible persons who are presently unable to find employment dependent persons within the meaning of secs. 49.01 (4) and 49.02, Stats., regardless of their having voluntarily left private employment sometime in the past? 2. Does sec. 49.002, Stats., deny general relief to those who have voluntarily left private employment in the past, regardless of their current willingness to work and their eligibility and need as dependent persons? Was petitioner a dependent person within the meaning of secs. 49.02 and 49.01 (4), Stats.? Respondents, as officials of the department of public welfare of Milwaukee county, have a statutory duty, pursuant to sec. 49.02, Stats., to furnish relief to all qualified applicants. [3] Sec. 49.02, Stats., provides, in part: ... (1) Every municipality shall furnish relief only to all eligible dependent persons therein and shall establish or designate an official or agency to administer the same. (2) Every county may furnish relief only to all eligible dependent persons within the county but not having a legal settlement therein, and if it elects to do so, it shall establish or designate an official or agency to administer the same. . . . (6) Officials and agencies administering relief shall assist dependent persons to regain a condition of selfsupport through every proper means at their disposal and shall give such service and counsel to those likely to become dependent as may prevent such dependency. This court has held that counties or municipalities do not furnish relief under the statute as a matter of right, but are under a duty to do so. Ashland County v. Bayfield County (1944), 246 Wis. 315, 318, 16 N. W. 2d 809. The determination of whether applicants for relief, under sec. 49.02, are dependent persons is a question of fact that is not left to the discretion of local welfare officials. Outagamie County v. Town of Brooklyn (1962), 18 Wis. 2d 303, 311, 312, 118 N. W. 2d 201. Therefore, if petitioner, an applicant for general relief, is as a matter of fact a dependent person, the respondents, as the relief conferring officials, are under a statutory duty to provide relief, [4] and mandamus is the proper remedy to compel respondents to perform their duty. As used within the context of ch. 49, sec. 49.01 (4), Stats., defines the term dependent person as: `Dependent person' or `dependent' means a person without the present available money or income or property or credit, or other means by which the same can be presently obtained, sufficient to provide the necessary commodities and services.... (Emphasis supplied.) There is no issue as to the reason petitioner was denied his request for general relief. Petitioner was denied general relief because, at the time of his application, he was unemployed as a result of his previous voluntary termination of his employment with St. Francis Hospital. The term dependent person is defined to relate to a person's present economic situation. The statute provides that a dependent person is one without the present available money or income, or property or credit, or other means by which the same can be presently obtained, sufficient to provide the necessities of life. It is petitioner's present condition of being unable to provide for himself the necessities of life that classifies him as a dependent person and entitles him to relief. A person who presently has an available job could be considered to have the other means, however, the record indicates that petitioner does not presently have an available job. Under the facts of this case, respondents were not authorized by the language of sec. 49.01 (4), Stats., to rely on petitioner's past conduct as the cause of his present dependent person status, and thereby terminate his assistance. Petitioner is a dependent person within the meaning of that term as used in secs. 49.02 and 49.01 (4).