Court Opinion

ID: 9631821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:51:14.850218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:51.426556
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This action for declaratory and injunctive relief was brought by an applicant for benefits under the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, administered by the Department of Health and Social Services of New Mexico under the Social Security Act of 1957, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. The plaintiff made application for benefits, including her two children, one of whom was illegitimate. Her application was denied because she would not cooperate with the New Mexico Department officials by giving the name of the father of her illegitimate child.
She has exhausted her administrative remedies and here challenges the New Mexico Department of Health and Social Services Regulation 223.321, which requires her to cooperate, and requires the case worker to inquire as to date of conception, promiscuity, frequency of contacts with putative father, names of persons who could corroborate the relationship, and “ . . . specific facts establishing an act of intercourse with the putative father at or near the date of conception.” The regulations appear to have been adopted pursuant to the amendment made to the Social Security Act by Congress in 1967 (now 42 U.S.C. § 602(a) (17) which directs state agencies to attempt to establish the paternity of children under the circumstances.
Since the initial hearing in this proceeding, the United States Supreme Court, by its affirmance without opinion of several three-judge cases, has clearly held that a state may not withhold Aid for Dependent Children benefits when the mother does not comply with state regulations which require her to participate in paternity proceedings, or to provide information as to the father of the children. The cases so affirmed have held that there is presented a substantial constitutional question sufficient to support the jurisdiction of a three-judge court; but the matter is resolved on the statutory issues. These courts have held that the states may not by requirements of this nature condition the eligibility of the family. The reasoning is that the Social Security Act sets forth the two requirements of need and dependency, and the states may not add others.
Since we consider the issue to be settled, it is sufficient to refer to these cases, and it is not necessary to review the arguments. These cases include: Taylor v. Martin, 330 F.Supp. 85 (U.S. D.C., N.D.Calif.1971), affirmed by the Supreme Court as Carleson v. Taylor, 404 U.S. 980, 92 S.Ct. 446, 30 L.Ed.2d 364, 1971; Meyers v. Juras, 327 F.Supp. 759 (D.Or.1971), affirmed, 404 U.S. 803, 92 S.Ct. 91, 30 L.Ed.2d 39 (1971; Doe v. Swank, 332 F.Supp. 61 (N.D.Ill.), affirmed Weaver v. Doe, 1971, 404 U.S. 987, 92 S.Ct. 537, 30 L.Ed.2d 539. The court has considered the issues to be distinguishable from those in King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968). See also the three-judge opinions in Saddler v. Winstead, 332 F.Supp. 130 (N.D.Miss.), 1971, and Doe v. Schmidt, 330 F.Supp. 159 (E.D.Wis.), 1971.
We find substantial constitutional questions to be present, but they need not be decided. We must hold, under the authorities, that Regulation 223.321 of the New Mexico Department of Health and Social Services is an invalid addition to the eligibility requirements of the Social Security Act of 1935, and its enforcement and application is hereby permanently enjoined.
The plaintiff has asserted that this is a class action, but no showing has been made to demonstrate that it comes with the requirements for such an action. We thus find that this is not a class action.
The plaintiff filed her effective application which was thereafter relied upon, and upon which administrative re*167lief was sought, on August 20, 1970. Her previous application was withdrawn. We hold that if she and her family were otherwise eligible for benefits under A.F.D.C. on that date, they are entitled to such benefits retroactive to August 20, 1970.
• It is so ordered.