Court Opinion

ID: 9677615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:56:18.000999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:57.005536
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P.J.
(dissenting). Respectfully, I dissent for the reason that respondent’s deregistration sanction violates the provisions of 42 USC 602(a)(19)(F).
That statutory provision provides:
"A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must * * * provide * * * that if * * * any child, relative or individual has been found by the Secretary of Labor under section 633(g) of this title to have refused without good cause to participate under a work incentive program * * * or to have refused without good cause to accept employment in which he is able to engage which is offered through the public employment offices of the State * * * if the relative makes such refusal, such relative’s needs shall not be taken into account in making the determination under clause (7), and aid for any dependent child in the family in the form of payments * * * will be made * *
This statute does not restrict itself to general AFDC benefits and its provisions deal specifically *16with the situation presented in this case. Under this statute, a state must terminate the parent’s aid where the parent refuses without good cause to participate in a work incentive program. However, the state may not terminate the child’s aid. This statute can only be interpreted in the manner that claimant urges as was recognized by the 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Davis v Reagen, 630 F2d 1299, 1302 (CA 8, 1980):
"Congress first added an unemployed parent’s provision to the AFDC in 1961. * * * This statute required that a state’s AFDC plan provide for cooperative arrangements with state public employment agencies, including registration and periodic reregistration by unemployed parents, so that these parents might find employment. * * * In short, benefits to the entire family would be terminated if the unemployed parent refused an offer of employment.
"[T]he amendment repealed the previous statutory provisions governing cooperation with state employment agencies and sanctions for refusing work. In their place, the amended statute provided for referral (later, certification) of unemployed parents to the Secretary of Labor under a newly created comprehensive work incentive (WIN) program. * * *
"Under the WIN program, the sanction for nonparticipation or refusal of a job offer is termination of benefits only to the family member who refused to participate or accept the offer. * * * The limited nature of this sanction reflects a legislative compromise between the Senate and the House; the House version of the bill provided for termination of benefits to the entire family if and for so long as the unemployed parent refused to accept employment.”
The majority opinion in this case ignores this legislative history. In fact, this interpretation of § 602(a)(19)(F) can be reconciled with the provi*17sions of 42 USC 607(b)(2)(C)(i) if the latter section is read only as applied to initial entering requirements. That is, a person is ineligible for aid under the act unless he first registers with a work incentive program. By interpreting § 602 as it does, the majority opinion reinstates the very sanction that was rejected by Congress in the 1967 amendment.
While it is true as the majority states that the present text of § 607 was more recently enacted than that of § 602, the 1976 amendment to § 607 did not substantially alter the prior language of this statute or provide for a new sanction for failure to register with a work incentive program. In pertinent part, the present provisions of § 607(b)(2)(C)(i) provide:
"for the denial of aid to families with dependent children to any child or relative specified in subsection (a) of this section—
"(i) if and for so long as such child’s father, unless exempt under section 602(a)(19)(A) of this title, is not registered pursuant to such section for the work incentive program established under part C of this subchapter, or, if he is exempt under such section by reason of clause (iii) thereof or no such program in which he can effectively participate has been established or provided under section 632(a) of this title, is not registered with the public employment offices in the State * *
Prior to the 1976 amendment, this statute provided:
"for the denial of aid to families with dependent children to any child or relative specified in subsection (a) of this section—
"(i) if, and for so long as, such child’s father is not currently registered with the public employment offices in the State * * *.”
*18Thus, the 1976 amendment of § 607 did not change its substance, rather, it added certain exceptions to the registration requirement. For this reason, the majority’s reliance upon the rule of statutory construction that the most recent enactment prevails over a conflicting and older statutory provision has no basis. In this case, the 1976 amendment to § 607 did not create a new sanction for failure to register with a work incentive program.
The purpose of the 1967 amendment of § 602 as explained by the Court in Davis v Reagen is thwarted by the majority’s interpretation of these statutes. The question of whether a parent’s failure to register with a work incentive program should disqualify his or her entire family from benefits is a matter of policy within the exclusive domain of the legislative branch of government. Congress rejected this sanction in the 1967 amendment to § 602. The majority opinion judicially enacts this policy that Congress has rejected.
I dissent and would reverse. The respondent Department of Social Services may not deny AFDC benefits to claimant’s family for his failure to participate in a work incentive program because the Congress repudiated this sanction in the 1967 amendment to § 602.