People v. Shirley
360 P.2d 33, 92 A.L.R. 2d 413, 55 Cal. 2d 521 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state administrative agency may validly enact regulations that consider the income of a man assuming the role of a spouse in the home of a welfare recipient when determining the needs of a child, even if the man has no legal duty of support.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1948, the defendant received welfare aid for herself and her minor children from Tulare County.
- The defendant was repeatedly informed by the welfare department of her duty to report any changes in family status, household members, or income.
- On October 21, 1958, the defendant told a social worker that her only income was from welfare and that no unrelated adults lived with her.
- For at least six months, from approximately October 1958 to April 1959, a Mr. Shirley lived in the defendant's home.
- During this period, Mr. Shirley contributed approximately $30 per week to the household for expenses and cash, and also helped with payments on a refrigerator.
- On April 16, 1959, investigators found Mr. Shirley in the defendant's bed at her home.
- The defendant admitted to investigators that Shirley had been living there for months and contributing financially, and that she knew she was supposed to report such changes.
- On April 23, 1959, the defendant reported to the welfare department that she had married Shirley the previous day.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by indictment in a trial court with grand theft of funds from Tulare County.
- Following a trial, a jury found the defendant guilty.
- The trial court suspended the sentence and granted the defendant three years of probation.
- The defendant appealed the order granting probation and an order denying her motion for a new trial to the California Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state welfare regulation that considers the income of a man assuming the role of a spouse, but not married to the mother, in determining a needy child's eligibility for aid, constitute a valid exercise of administrative authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, C. J.
Yes, the regulation is a valid exercise of administrative authority. The welfare code must be administered fairly, with due regard for safeguarding public funds. It is reasonable to infer that a man assuming the role of spouse will contribute to the support of the mother and her needy child, thus reducing their actual need. The regulation provides a practical solution to the difficulty of ascertaining the exact amount of such contributions in every case. A contrary ruling would place a premium on an illegal relationship and deter marriage. Therefore, the regulations are valid as they align with the program's primary purpose of aiding only truly needy children.
Dissenting - Peters, J.
No, the regulation is an invalid usurpation of legislative power. The State Board of Social Welfare has exceeded its authority by creating a rule that enlarges the scope of the legislative enactment. The legislature statutorily requires considering a stepfather's income because it simultaneously imposes a legal duty of support on him. The regulation improperly applies this standard to a man with no legal obligation to support the child, effectively creating a 'common-law stepfather' by administrative fiat. This punishes the innocent child for the mother's conduct, which contravenes the fundamental purpose of the Aid to Needy Children program.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the validity of the 'man in the house' rule, empowering welfare agencies to look beyond legal relationships to the practical economic realities of a household. It strengthens the authority of administrative bodies to enact regulations they deem necessary to prevent fraud and ensure public funds are distributed only to those in actual need. The ruling prioritizes a pragmatic assessment of a family's available resources over a strict adherence to legal support obligations, setting a precedent that would influence public benefits administration for decades.
