# Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Molyneaux

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 1982 · 498 Pa. 192

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712500

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellant, v. Judy MOLYNEAUX, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 26, 1982
- **Citations:** 498 Pa. 192; 445 A.2d 730; 1982 Pa. LEXIS 513
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nix
- **Judges:** O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712500

## Opinion text

NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
Section 407 of the Social Security Act, 75 Stat. 75 , as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 607 , 42 U.S.C.S. § 607 , part of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children provided benefits to families whose dependent children have been deprived of parental support because of the unemployment of a father 1 prior to the Act of August 13, 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 607 (a) (Supp. IV 1981) which substituted “unemployment ... of the parent who is the principal earner” for “unemployment ... of his father.” In Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 , 99 S.Ct. 2655 , 61 L.Ed.2d 382 (1979) it was clearly held that benefits were to be paid to families “in which either the mother or the father is unemployed within the meaning of the act.” 443 U.S. 91 -93, 99 S.Ct. at 2664-2665 .
Neither the statute, in 1978 when the Molyneaux children were denied aid, nor as amended in 1981 requires the conclusion that, “No matter what the size and nature of [the father’s] contribution to his children’s support, Federal *204 AFDC funds are not available when both parents, one of whom is employed, are living with their children.” (Majority Opinion, p. 735) The majority’s conclusion interprets the cited portion of the statute as implicitly excluding benefits, although one parent becomes unemployed, as long as the other parent also residing in the house is employed. This conclusion is neither required by the language of the statute nor has the majority cited any cases supporting such an interpretation.
Therefore, I dissent.
. Although this statute did not provide such benefits to children when the mother becomes unemployed, Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 , 99 S.Ct. 2655 , 61 L.Ed.2d 382 (1979) required a reading of the statute to substitute “parent” for “father” because of the unconstitutionality of the gender-based classification.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712500. Public record. Not legal advice.