FREIDA POMEROY vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE & others. [Note 1]

GRANT, J. [Note 2] The plaintiff has appealed from a decree of the Superior Court affirming (on a bill for review under

Page 178

G. L. c. 30A, Section 14) a decision of the Department of Public Welfare (department) rendered under G. L. c. 18, Section 16 (as amended through St. 1969, c. 885, Section 11), denying the claim of the plaintiff which is hereinafter described. The case is physically before us on papers which include the record of the proceedings before the department, something called "Parties Agreed Statement of Facts" which was submitted to and considered by the Superior Court, [Note 3] and a copy of what we are advised is the pertinent version of the department's Massachusetts Public Assistance Policy Manual (Manual). [Note 4] The material facts may be summarized as follows.

On January 10, 1964, the plaintiff's then husband secured from the Probate Court for the county of Hampden a decree of divorce nisi [Note 5] from the plaintiff in which she was awarded custody of the three minor children of the parties and he was ordered to make weekly payments to her of $40 for the support of the children. For some reason which is not entirely clear, such payments as were made by the former husband were made to the probation office of

Page 179

the District Court of Springfield, which remitted them to the plaintiff until December 11, 1967.

On March 16, 1967, the plaintiff applied to the department for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) assistance payments for herself and the three children. On March 28, 1967, the department approved the application, subject to the qualification that the plaintiff's family budget was to be determined on the basis of her needs and those of two of the children who were then living in the plaintiff's home, and would not reflect the needs of the third child, who had been placed in the Belchertown State School in 1965 and who still resided there. [Note 6] Because she was receiving (through the District Court) some support payments from her former husband, the plaintiff's monthly AFDC payments were in the amount of the budgeted need as thus computed, less the support payments actually received, which were treated as an "available resource" (Manual, c. IV, Section B, p. 1). The plaintiff was duly advised in writing of the department's determination and of her right to appeal therefrom within sixty days if dissatisfied (Manual, c. VI, Section B, p. 2). She did not appeal.

From April 7, 1967, until December 11, 1967, the plaintiff received support payments from her former husband which were supplemented by AFDC assistance payments in such amounts that her combined income from both sources was equal to the amount of the family budget, as computed in the manner previously described. On December 11, 1967, the department arranged with the District Court to have the sporadic support payments which were being made by the former husband remitted to itself, while at the same time increasing the amounts of its direct payments to the plaintiff so that they would be equal to the total amount of the computed family budget (Manual, c. IV, Section B, p. 8). [Note 7] Those arrangements for payments persisted

Page 180

until August 3, 1970, when the plaintiff relinquished custody of the child at Belchertown to her former husband pursuant to a modification of the divorce decree. [Note 8]

The department did not give the plaintiff an express written explanation of its actions in rearranging payments in the manner just described. We think, however, that the purpose of any such requirement was met in this case. The plaintiff must have understood the rearrangements from the facts (a) that she was no longer receiving payments from the District Court and (b) that she was receiving grant checks which were increased by amounts which reflected the support payments which her former husband should have been making to the District Court. [Note 9] The plaintiff, although aware of her right of appeal if dissatisfied, took no appeal from the rearrangement within sixty days (Manual, c. VI, Section B, p. 2) of December 11, 1967, or within sixty days of her first learning of the rearrangement.

At various times following December 11, 1967, the plaintiff, according to her testimony at the departmental hearing, made purchases of clothing and personal effects for the child at Belchertown. [Note 10] On several occasions she tried without success to persuade the department to reimburse her for such expenditures. [Note 11] The appeal which gave rise to the

Page 181

present proceedings was filed by the plaintiff with the department on December 14, 1970. It purports to be from some unidentified official's refusal to approve a request made by the plaintiff on November 23, 1970, that she be paid $937.66, which is said to represent one third of the aggregate of the support payments made by the former husband between December 11, 1967 (when the department rearranged the method of payments), and August 3, 1970 (when the plaintiff relinquished custody of the child at Belchertown).

The theories of the plaintiff's request (which was denied by the department) appear to be that the department, which had refused to include the needs of the child at Belchertown in the determination of the AFDC family budget and thus had not been supporting that child, acted wrongfully (a) in diverting to itself the one third of the support payments which had been intended by the Probate Court for the use of that child and (b) in forcing the plaintiff to use for the support of that child portions of the budget which had been intended by the department to meet the needs of the other two children who were living with the plaintiff.

We do not pause to examine the plaintiff's theories in detail, [Note 12] for a majority of the court are of the opinion that any legitimate grievance the plaintiff may have had with respect to the rearrangement of payments which was effected on December 11, 1967, was barred by the expiration of the aforementioned sixty-day appeal period long before the plaintiff purported to appeal on December 14, 1970. [Note 13]

Page 182

Although "a decision in favor of an appellant applies retroactively to the date the incorrect action was taken" (Manual, c. VI, Section C, p. 3), that section clearly applies only to action from which a timely appeal has been taken. The plaintiff's request for $937.66 was unequivocally retroactive in nature. It sought modification or reversal of a course of action which had been initiated by the department more than three years earlier (and of which the plaintiff had been given timely written [see n. 9] and oral notice), and which had terminated more than three months earlier. We see no error in the department's denial of the request. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the requirement that appeals be filed within sixty days of written notification of the action to be appealed from.

Decree affirmed.

GOODMAN, J. (dissenting). In my view the department wrongfully denied Mrs. Pomeroy's claim that she was entitled to one-third of the funds paid to the department by the probation officer of the District Court of Springfield who had received them as support, ordered by a Probate Court for Mrs. Pomeroy's three children, from the father of the children, only two of whom were eligible for and given aid by the department. The third child, R---, had been placed in the Belchertown State School in 1965, and her needs were not included in the AFDC grant made on March 28, 1967, because she was not living at home. G. L. c. 118, Section 1, as amended by St. 1967, c. 658, Section 27. 42 U. S. C. Section 606(a). Yet the department, on December 11, 1967 [Note Dissent-1],

Page 183

arranged with the District Court to turn over to the department the father's support payments for all three children, although the department was making payments to Mrs. Pomeroy for only two of the children. Mrs. Pomeroy had no notice of this change until after it had been accomplished. [Note Dissent-2] The result was obvious. Mrs. Pomeroy used funds designated for the two children to meet the expenses of R---'s needs at the Belchertown School.

On or about November 23, 1970, Mrs. Pomeroy requested that one-third of the $2,813 ($937.66) paid to the department through the District Court [Note Dissent-3] until August 3, 1970

Page 184

(when she relinquished R---'s custody to her former husband) be paid to her. This request was denied, and on December 14, 1970, the plaintiff appealed under G. L. c. 18, Section 16, as amended through St. 1969, c. 885, Section 11. [Note Dissent-4]

I submit that the referee's "findings" that "the agency acted correctly in applying all available income to the needs of the family members in the home" and that the appeal was untimely are erroneous as a matter of law (G. L. c. 30A, Sections 14[7][c], 14[7][g], as renumbered by St. 1973, c. 1114, Section 3) and, further, that (contrary to the trial judge's ruling) Mrs. Pomeroy's claim was properly brought against the department under G. L. c. 18, Section 16.

1. I see no justification for the department's ruling that support paid for R--- could be applied to "the needs of the family members in the home." The department's only claim to funds paid by the father of the children for their support arose under G. L. c. 18, Section 21, which provides in relevant part, "The department shall be subrogated to the rights to support and maintenance of any welfare recipient to the extent of any payments made by the department to such recipient." However, R--- was not a "welfare recipient"; she had been expressly excluded from the AFDC grant originally made by the department because she was not at home but at the Belchertown School. Thus the department had no right in connection with payments for the

Page 185

other two children to appropriate funds ordered for R---'s support by the Probate Court.

Further, Section 21 must be construed in harmony with 42 U. S. C. Section 602(a) (7) (1970) [Note Dissent-5] (see Carroll v. Acting Director of Pub. Welfare of Cambridge, 355 Mass. 182, 187 [1969]), which is binding on the department. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 317 (1968). Banner v. Smolenski, 315 F. Supp. 1076, 1078-1079 (D. Mass. 1970). That section of the Federal Code has consistently been interpreted as prohibiting consideration of support payments intended for the benefit of a non-AFDC recipient in computing AFDC grants. Gilliard v. Craig, 331 F. Supp. 587, 593 (W. D. N. C. 1971), aff'd. 409 U.S. 807 (1972). Dorsey v. State Dept. of Social Servs. 266 Md. 162, 165-166, 169-170 (1972). Bourque v. Commissioner of Welfare, 308 A. 2d 543, 546-547 (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1972). See also Randall v. Goldmark, 366 F. Supp. 947, 951-953 (D. Mass. 1973); Howard v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 272 A. 2d 676, 679 (D. C. Ct. App. 1971). In those cases the funds applicable to a non-AFDC recipient were generally used to reduce the AFDC grant. I can see no real distinction between that situation and this one in which, as a condition of the grant, monies designated for Mrs. Pomeroy to use for R---'s support were retained by the department.

The department's brief suggests that R--- has no "property right" in the Probate Court decree. This seems to me beside the point. Once the money was received by the District Court, it became a "joint resource" in accordance with the Manual, c. IV, Section B, p. 1, which provides, "It is important to determine to which members of the assistance household the income belongs. A joint resource between two or more owners is divided equally." Under that formula,

Page 186

the particular resource (the support payments) is divided among the other two "members of the assistance household" to which they are applicable (the other two children), and R---, who with them is a "joint owner." This reading of the regulation is not disputed by the defendant. It is obviously intended to eliminate a time-consuming accounting based on Mrs. Pomeroy's actual expense and makes administrative sense. [Note Dissent-6]

2. The appeal was timely. As is clear from the Statement of Agreed Facts, Mrs. Pomeroy "never received notice of" the department's action in diverting the support payments for R--- from the District Court. Nor did she receive "notice of her right to appeal said action," and her appeal on December 14, 1970, was therefore timely. The sixty-day period, if it began to run at all, began sometime on or after November 23, 1970, when the denial of her request for payment precipitated the appeal. It is immaterial (as the trial judge ruled and the majority opinion does not dispute) that Mrs. Pomeroy did not appeal the original determination that R--- was not entitled to an AFDC grant -- though this is the basis for the department's ruling that the appeal was not timely. Mrs. Pomeroy had no quarrel with that original determination.

The majority ignores the Agreed Statement of Facts and predicates its position on an inference of actual knowledge of just what the department had done when it diverted the funds from the District Court in December of 1967, and of her right to appeal. There was, of course, an awareness that a change had occurred soon after December 11, 1967, though whether that was sufficient notice to her of the ramifications of the department's action seems to me highly dubious. See Vargas v. Trainor, 508 F. 2d 485, 489-490 (7th Cir. 1974). But, with all respect, I find no basis for an inference that Mrs. Pomeroy was even aware of her right to appeal prior to November 23, 1970, at which time she went to an OEO office.

Page 187

In any event, the regulations are clear. The Manual provides for written notice of the right to appeal an action of the department. [Note Dissent-7] And this requirement is also mandated by the Federal regulations. [Note Dissent-8] It seems to me particularly important that there be strict adherence to these provisions. Persons subject to the welfare program are not apt to be sophisticated in the ways of a bureaucracy. The response to a change made by the department without explanation is hardly likely to be a telephone call to a lawyer.

3. Further, the appeal was properly filed under G. L. c. 18, Section 16 [Note Dissent-9] The regulations give this section an expansive application. Thus the Manual, c. VI, Section B, p. 1 ("Complaint and Appeal Procedures: Appeals"), provides, under the heading "Basis of Appeal," that an "[a]pplicant or recipient has the right of appeal when he is dissatisfied for any of the following reasons: . . . (7) Assistance seems inadequate. (8) Agency policy as it affects his situation . . .." Also, the Manual, c. VI, Section A, p. 1 ("Complaint and Appeal Procedures: Inquiries and Complaints"), provides that if a "complaint" [Note Dissent-10] "cannot be adjusted . . . the individual . . . should be informed of the right to appeal and have a fair

Page 188

hearing or review without a hearing." [Note Dissent-11] Even at its narrowest, it can hardly be said that receipt of amounts less than those to which a recipient is entitled can be said to be "adequate." Administrative appeals have generally been allowed in other jurisdictions in similar situations. Howard v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 272 A. 2d 676, 678 (D. C. Ct. App. 1971); Bourque v. Commissioner of Welfare, 308 A. 2d 543, 545 (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1972); Dorsey v. State Dept. of Social Servs. 266 Md. 162, 164-165 (1972). And such an appeal would seem to be required by the Federal regulations. See 45 C. F. R. Section 205.10(a) (5) (1974).

Accordingly, I would set aside the decision of the department and order (G. L. c. 30A, Section 14[7], as renumbered by St. 1973, c. 1114, Section 3) that the department take such steps as may be necessary to effect the payment to Mrs. Pomeroy of the sum of $937.66 (see fn. 3), the stipulated amount due retroactively. Bourque v. Commissioner of Welfare, supra, at 547. See Alexander v. Weaver, 345 F. Supp. 666, 675 (N. D. Ill. 1972), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Edelman v. Townsend, 412 U.S. 914 (1973); Manual, c. VI, Section C, p. 3. Interest on that sum should be computed from the date of the filing of the administrative appeal on December 14, 1970. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 359 Mass. 206, 209-210 (1971).

Page 189

END OF DECISION