Court Opinion

ID: 9637715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:16:41.483744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:59.530313
License: Public Domain

WEIS, District Judge
(concurring).
The primary duty for the support of an indigent parent rests upon the financially responsible children, not the state. The obligation is as old as the family itself and in Pennsylvania has been incorporated into statutory law.
The regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Assistance which require recipients who are parents to take the relatively simple and uncomplicated step of filing a civil suit for support from their children are not unreasonable or arbitrary. They appear consistent with the professed intent of the Pennsylvania Public Welfare Law, inter alia, “ * * * to encourage self-respect, self-dependency and the desire to *515be a good citizen and useful to society.”1 Support also appears in the Code of Federal Regulations2 which provides that if a state agency holds relatives responsible for the support of applicants that the state plan shall establish and carry out policies with reference to applicants’ and recipients’ potential sources of income which can be developed to a state of availability.
The difficulty in this case arises because the penalty for non-compliance with the regulations, that is, a reduction in the total amount payable to the family unit — falls not only upon the reluctant mother but also upon the minor niece who is in no sense responsible for the infraction. Another significant factor is that the state has available to it an alternative remedy which would exact the same measure of responsibility from the uncooperative daughter and thus comply with the state’s obligation to the taxpayers who ultimately pay what the daughter should, but will not. With an annual income of approximately $6,100.00 and apparently with no dependents other than her mother, the daughter should be required to explain her failure to fulfill her filial duties.
As the majority opinion indicates, it is clear that the state is empowered to prosecute the claim against the daughter by a suit filed either in its own name or in the name of the Department of Public Assistance.3
While the Department of Public Assistance has a legitimate interest in securing whatever benefit may be obtained by having the parent institute the litigation, the sanction for refusal must yield to the realities of the greater need of the niece toward whose welfare the provisions of the Aid For Families Of Dependent Children are primarily directed.
In reality, it is not the requirement for a support suit which is in conflict with the federal law but rather the means for enforcing compliance. I do not agree with the contention of the plaintiffs that the imposition of the obligation to file suit against a legally responsible relative is an unlawful addition to the test of eligibility, but instead find it perfectly consistent with the federal statute.4
By upholding the legality of the support litigation requirement but channeling enforcement of the rule into an area consistent with the primary purpose of the AFDC, we are observing the respect due the state regulations in harmony with the Supreme Court’s recent decision of Dandrige v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491. To this extent, I concur with the result in this case.

. 62 P.S. § 401.

. 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (3) (vi) (a), (ix).

. For a case in which a private institution was successful in such a proceeding under somewhat similar circumstances as here present, see Commonwealth Ex Rel. Home for the Jewish Aged v. Kotzker, 179 Pa.Super. 521, 118 A.2d 271.

. 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.