Court Opinion

ID: 9759595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:21:03.869096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.080787
License: Public Domain

FRANK J. MURRAY, District Judge
(dissenting).
I do not join the opinion and judgment of the majority of the court because I believe the amended State regulations do not go far enough. I agree that reasonable procedures to verify an applicant’s eligibility are permitted by both the Social Security Act and the Constitution. The amended regulations now approved by the majority exclude certain persons, including members of the plaintiffs’ class, who are eligible for AFDC benefits under the Social Security Act but are unable to present the necessary corroboration from documentary or third-party sources. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Eligibility for AFDC benefits is a matter of federal law under the Social Security Act. The Act requires that, under the state AFDC plan, AFDC benefits shall be provided with reasonable promptness “to all eligible individuals . . . 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(10). Eligibility is not explicitly defined in the statute, but AFDC is defined essentially as payments in respect to a “dependent child”. 42 U.S.C. § 606(b). “Dependent child” in turn is defined in terms of age and relationship. 42 U.S.C. § 606(a). See also 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(10); 45 C.F.R. § 233.10(a)(1)(h) and (vii) (1975). The corroboration requirement of State Letter 314 pertains to age and relationship. But since State Letter 314 excludes some persons eligible under the age and relationship requirements established by the Social Security Act, it must yield to the Act. See King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971); Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 92 S.Ct. 1932, 32 L.Ed.2d 352 (1972), and Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 95 S.Ct. 1893, 44 L.Ed.2d 525 (1975).
This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the Commonwealth could select the less restrictive procedure of permitting applicants an opportunity to demonstrate eligibility by sworn statement or verified application. This alternative procedure would still permit the Commonwealth to deny the application if the applicant’s sworn statement were disbelieved, or to later terminate the benefits if it developed that the applicant could have furnished corroboration and culpably failed to do so. Such a procedure would protect the interests of the Commonwealth without imposing an undue administrative burden. More importantly, such a procedure would insure that persons who are eligible under the Act are not excluded from receiving AFDC benefits.
JUDGMENT
This action came on for hearing before the court and the issues having been duly heard and the parties’ pleadings, stipulations, arguments and briefs having been duly considered, for reasons stated in the court’s memorandum of decision filed contemporaneously herewith, it is
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that judgment be entered for the defendants dismissing the action provided that defendants amend and promulgate forthwith the State Department of Public Welfare Letter 314 so as to conform to the draft of said letter dated December 3, 1973 and to the second paragraph of Assistant Attorney General Behar’s letter to the court dated January 25, 1974, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits A and B.
*668EXHIBIT A

State Letter Draft December 3, 1973
TO: WELFARE SERVICE OFFICES
FROM: STEVEN A. MINTER, COMMISSIONER
RE: VERIFICATION OF AGE AND ELIGIBILITY IN AFDC
Before final eligibility for AFDC may be approved, there must be verification of factors relating to eligibility and amount of the budget. The types of documentation which will be accepted to establish age, and relationship of children whose grantee-relative is applying for AFDC shall be as follows:
(1) There must be documentary evidence of (a) the ages of the needy children and (b) the relationship of the needy children to the grantee-relative. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to secure copies of these documents which will be retained as part of the case record.
Evidence to establish age and relationship shall be at least one of the following:
(a) Birth certificate (for children born in Massachusetts, an uncertified copy may be obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the Secretary of State's Office'"dt no cost.)
(b) Certificate of baptism
(c) Marriage license or certificate
(d) Family Bible or genealogical records
(e) Passport indicating age and relationship of children
(f) Hospital birth record
(g) Affidavit of a third person, if it is based on personal knowledge of facts which would determine the probable age and relationship of the children and is not merely a statement of belief based on the applicant's personal *669appearance; the affidavit shall contain statements of the circumstances upon which the applicant's knowledge is based.
Or any of the following dated at least six months prior to the date of application which contains evidence of (a) the ages of the needy children and (b) the relationship of the needy children to the grantee-relative.
(h) United States Census records
(i) School records
(j) OASDI records
(k) Immigration and naturalization records
(l) Pol 1 Tax Records
(m) Court records (e.g. adoption, divorce or separate support)
(n) Insurance policies
(o) Employment records
(p) Newspaper records and local histories
(q) Indian agency records
(r) Other governmental or local re'cords
OBSOLETE MATERIAL
State Letter 314 Verifications" item (1)
*670EXHIBIT B

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE HOUSE • BOSTON 02133
January 25, 1974

Robert Smith Deputy Clerk United States District Court Post Office Square Boston, Massachusetts
Re: Rol%n, et al v. Minter, et al _Civil Action No. 73-3418-G
Dear Mr. Smith:
At the hearing in the above-named case held on Friday, January 18, 1974, the Court requested me to report whether the Department of Public Welfare would consider amending proposed state letter 314, subsection (g), to permit oral testimony of third person5.
The Department has advised me that it is not prepared to amend subsection(g) in this particular. However, the Department is prepared to amend the subsection to permit the transcribing in affidavit form of oral statements made by third person-affiants who appear at welfare service offices. If an affiant will sign and swear to the affidavit ( which in some circumstances may require an oral reading by a Department employee or interpreter), the Department will consider such an affidavit with reference to the requirements of subsection(g).
I am enclosing copies of this letter for Justices McEntee, Murray and Garrity.

KENNETH BEHAR Assistant Attorney General
KB/meg Enc. cc: Charles Caoace