Smyth v. Carter, Civ. No. 96-0089-H (W.D. Va., June 25, 1996).
This case, filed as a class action, challenges the state's recently revised definition of cooperation for child support enforcement purposes under which the caretaker must provide the first and last name of any putative father. Such identification is required in all cases except verified rape, even if the caretaker does not have the information and has no way to obtain it. The initial sanction for non-cooperation is the caretaker's loss of her share of the AFDC grant AFDC and, pursuant to an HHS approved waiver, ultimately the loss of the entire family's grant. Plaintiffs claim that the policy violates federal statutes and regulations insofar as it requires them to provide information they do not have or cannot reasonably obtain and fails to allow them the opportunity to attest to the lack of information. They also claim that the policy discriminates against nonmarital children in violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. The court has granted preliminary relief to individual plaintiffs. It found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their statutory and regulatory claim based on the plain language of the federal regulation. The court declined to certify a class on the ground that the individual plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the class because of some apparent misrepresentation and some lack of understanding of the case. CH # pending. No Standing in IN Waiver CaseS.W. v. Shalala, No. IP 95-180-C H/G (S.D. Ind. Sept. 28, 1995 and Dec. 7, 1995) (Entry on Federal Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Final Judgment). This case, filed as a class action, challenged Indiana's AFDC waiver project, the IMPACT Demonstration Project, which HHS approved in December 1994. The waiver project includes among other provisions a two year limit on AFDC for a job ready adult, a family cap/child exclusion policy under which an AFDC increase is denied for children born more than 10 months after a family goes on AFDC, and child immunization and school attendance requirements. Plaintiffs, individuals who are subject to the new rules, asserted violations of equal protection; due process; privacy and family integrity; 42 U.S.C. 1315 (a), relating to the HHS Secretary's waiver authority; 42 U.S.C. 3515b relating to protection of human subjects in experimentation; and 45 C.F.R. 46.101 relating to Institutional Review Board requirements. Defendants include the HHS Secretary and state officials. The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to meet standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution that plaintiffs show actual injury or the imminent threat of injury. Plaintiffs had not alleged actual benefit reduction or that they had engaged or intended to engage in conduct that would result in grant reduction. The court concluded that the requirement to sign a personal responsibility contract, the fact that the plaintiffs are subject to the experiment, and allegations that the family cap would interfere with their ability to have sexual relations did not satisfy the injury requirement. The court granted the motion to dismiss and leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and to add new parties. Motion for class certification was denied as moot. Plaintiffs did not subsequently amend their complaint. On December 7, 1995 the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Plaintiffs' counsel reported that a state court case filed against state defendants only, S.W. v. Sullivan, No. 49C019412 (Marion Cy. Super. Ct., Ind., filed Dec. 27, 1994), CH # 50,311, raising similar claims against state officials was dismissed earlier and the claims combined in the federal case.) CH # 50,497...Relief in VA Paternity ID CaseSmyth v. Carter, Civ. No. 96-0089-H (W.D. Va., June 25, 1996). This case, filed as a class action, challenges the state's recently revised definition of cooperation for child support enforcement purposes under which the caretaker must provide the first and last name of any putative father. Such identification is required in all cases except verified rape, even if the caretaker does not have the information and has no way to obtain it. The initial sanction for non-cooperation is the caretaker's loss of her share of the AFDC grant AFDC and, pursuant to an HHS approved waiver, ultimately the loss of the entire family's grant. Plaintiffs claim that the policy violates federal statutes and regulations insofar as it requires them to provide information they do not have or cannot reasonably obtain and fails to allow them the opportunity to attest to the lack of information. They also claim that the policy discriminates against nonmarital children in violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. The court has granted preliminary relief to individual plaintiffs. It found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their statutory and regulatory claim based on the plain language of the federal regulation. The court declined to certify a class on the ground that the individual plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the class because of some apparent misrepresentation and some lack of understanding of the case. CH # pending.
S.W. v. Shalala, No. IP 95-180-C H/G (S.D. Ind. Sept. 28, 1995 and Dec. 7, 1995) (Entry on Federal Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Final Judgment).
This case, filed as a class action, challenged Indiana's AFDC waiver project, the IMPACT Demonstration Project, which HHS approved in December 1994. The waiver project includes among other provisions a two year limit on AFDC for a job ready adult, a family cap/child exclusion policy under which an AFDC increase is denied for children born more than 10 months after a family goes on AFDC, and child immunization and school attendance requirements. Plaintiffs, individuals who are subject to the new rules, asserted violations of equal protection; due process; privacy and family integrity; 42 U.S.C. 1315 (a), relating to the HHS Secretary's waiver authority; 42 U.S.C. 3515b relating to protection of human subjects in experimentation; and 45 C.F.R. 46.101 relating to Institutional Review Board requirements. Defendants include the HHS Secretary and state officials. The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to meet standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution that plaintiffs show actual injury or the imminent threat of injury. Plaintiffs had not alleged actual benefit reduction or that they had engaged or intended to engage in conduct that would result in grant reduction. The court concluded that the requirement to sign a personal responsibility contract, the fact that the plaintiffs are subject to the experiment, and allegations that the family cap would interfere with their ability to have sexual relations did not satisfy the injury requirement. The court granted the motion to dismiss and leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and to add new parties. Motion for class certification was denied as moot. Plaintiffs did not subsequently amend their complaint. On December 7, 1995 the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Plaintiffs' counsel reported that a state court case filed against state defendants only, S.W. v. Sullivan, No. 49C019412 (Marion Cy. Super. Ct., Ind., filed Dec. 27, 1994), CH # 50,311, raising similar claims against state officials was dismissed earlier and the claims combined in the federal case.) CH # 50,497.