# Appendix — King v. Smith

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0022%3A01

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1968
- **Citation:** 392 U.S. 309

## Text

» 2 . °
PTE Oe TO RE. QUE PI Hate eg Ime Hd a PRT

LIBRARY.
SUPREME COURT. U; 5 )

VOLUMEL

IN THE’

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNTED $1 STATES

_Ooroom ‘Tams, 1967

RUBEN K. KING, Et Al’ Appellants,

-

Ss.

or the Middle District of

Northern Division

_

uw ~
: % z
. ait?
*- ‘ . : -
. ° ~
‘ .
y
NO.. 94
> :
= $
=
. :
°
ES .

3 by |
On er Pa the Uniied Stotes District Court.

| MRS, SYLVESTER SMITH, Et Al, Appellees.

r-
.
f
t
.
e
.
a
- eae
x *
-
2
s
,
,
4
>
*
B *
oe
*
°
.
eaten Sees
.
.
s
.

-
.
«- .
ie
-
.
:
.
.
,

- le seo onvedvewssosinns 20

ey

vCal tind a treat oie somaaieamaaeas - So Ai hie LOY DE 5 EO
ii
| . Page
‘Defendants’ Answer ..... ee akecasouns MGs kaso dhessaan 21
Writ of Injunction eee eT Torre _ Siac verre prrye coke’ @
; Opinion of Three Judge Court * ieaes iekdebiusedinnweds ) 41
\\s Decree of Three Judge Court ........... weangtics iweenehs - 59
‘.. Order of Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black Granting
a rr Pe Oe a ee pe mr es ae 61
Deposition of Ruben K. King— Lat as
GES TR as laf ee ee Pe er 64°
i ee - cVeies tebe sabasesearebedarenee’ 65
I 6 ch ice caved so0v-ecbuecnnssoecaeee 113
ER er ee 114
Deposition of Clara Mae ——,
“cil Vac tintkientckbsnchowdsemwsdeves oven ae
L Direct examination ...... nee Cae \ Laaehiwet vn ae
Cross-examination ...... Cbdbectesneseteesasanl frre 121
Redirect examination .....:........ sttbvsbhesesevebos 121
Deposition of Jacqueline Stancil— / Mere.
- Stipulation ...... EF eS ee Eee eer
Direct examination ............ findnsvsersedeueneuns 126
Deposition of Jeam Johnson— pin eat oe
Stipulation .............. Vickbensakeseeekanes ‘naaseeeed \iviseudevevkasengensdtnecinas neneneieias 742
PTT rrr Tor eT Terre Ty TTT re Tr tree 744
D. pgn.ns 595s coadebusecnsawie tube bees Raerehveaseenoset 747
i: HbddewhbnesstiavablesesedeousseWsrssssates sankkeaees 765
EL sb ceneeretendsnebaeteuesesscedendecwretenpveseubese 772
Gh; eensecdnckeddvervecepsagueveves ptundshedsoeebacses pi
. Pik bkaeentuscevescssceqgaececs deed sbcaeeeseceserigeee
chs bapsdsvsncsnececethoendes as jébbdsenceeesuuepes 779
Ge écsecdeanccdnedsesecscnedsencebsateccceveneegeennes 783

-
) .

APPENDIX.

In the United ‘States District Court for the Middie
District of Alabama, Northern Division. -

‘Mrs. Sylvester Smith, Individually and‘)
on Behalf of Her Minor Children,
Ida Elizabeth Smith, Ernestine

- Smith, Willie Louis Smith and Wil-
lie James Smith and ‘on Behalf of
All Other Mothers of Needy, De-
pendent Children Similarly Situated,

| Plaintiffs,
v6. ,

Ruben K. King, Commissioner of the
State Department of Pensions and

_ Security, State of Alabama; Lurleen
Burns Wallace, Chairman, State
Board of Pensions and Security,
State of -Alabama; James Record,
Mrs. Mary Waite, William M.
Clarke, Temple Coley, Grant Whid-
don, Mrs. Mary Ella Reavis, Mem-
bers of the State Board of Pensions
and Security, State of Alabama; Mrs.
Clinton S. Wilkinson, Sr., Director,
Dallas County Department of Pen-
sions and Security, Individually and
in Their. Official Capacities,

or at Defendants. |

Civil Action.
r - No. 2495-N..

4

RELEVANT DOCKET ional
1966

Dec. 2--Cempleisit filed.

Dec. 16—Plaintiffs’ -motion for preliminary injunction
_ filed. “ : '

Dec. 22—Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed.

1967

Jan. 4—Order appointing U. S. as amicus. curiae -atid
ie :
Jan. 23—Defendants’ answer ‘filed.

” Nov. 8_Writ of indinatien issued.

Nov. 8—Opinion of three-judge court.

Nov. &—Deeree of three-judge court.

Nov. 29—Order of Associate Justice of the his Court,
Hugo -L: Black, granting stay, filed.

are ae

po

In the |
United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

Mrs. Sylvester Smith, Individually )
and on Behalf of Her Minor.
' Children, Ida Elizabeth Smith,-
Ernestine Smith, Willie Louis
‘Smith and Willie James Smith and
on Behalf of All Other Mothers
of Needy, Dependent Children
Similarly Situated, . Plaintiffs,
"versus
Ruben K. King, Commissioner of
the State Department of Pensions
and Security, State of Alabama; 3
George Wallace, Chairman, State | Civil Action.
Board of Pensions and Security, { No. 2495-N.
_ State of Alabama; James Record, |
Mrs. Mary Waite, William M.
Clarke, Temple Coley, Grant »
Whiddon, Mrs. Mary Ella Reaves,
Members of the State Board of
Pensions and Security, State of -
Alabama; Mrs. Clinton S. Wilkin-
_son, Sr., Director, Dallas County | -
Department of Pensions and |
Security; Individually and -in
Their Official Capacities, |
Defendants. | | °

‘COMPLAINT
(for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief y

(Filed Dec. 2, 1966.)
Ls

- 1. This is a suit for injunctive relief authorized by —
. Tible 42, US.C., §1983 to be commenced by aad citizen

\
\

of the United States or other persons within the jurisdic-
‘tion thereof to redress the deprivation under color of
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the
state of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
‘Constitution and the laws of the United States. The
rights, privileges and immunities sought herein to be re-
dressed are those secured by the equal protection and
due process clauses of ‘the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, by the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C., §§601-609, and. by §601 of the Civil
’ Rights Act of 1964. This is also a suit for a declaratory
judgment. pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C., §2201 of rights

established by the aforementioned constitutional and ©

statutory provisions. : s

2. This is a proper case for determination by a three- |

judge court pursuant to 28 U.S:C., 2281 since it seeks
an injunction to restrain the Defendant officers of the
State of Alabama from .the enforcement, operation and
_ execution of .the state-wide regulation set forth in the
Alabama Manual for Administration of Public Assistance,

Part I, Chapter Il, Section V (A) (entitled. “Child in-

eligible if There is a Father or ‘Mother Substitute’),
and commonly referred to as the ‘‘substitute father’
regulation (a copy of which is attached hereto as Ex-
hibit A), on the ground of the unconstitutionality of said
regulation under the Constitution of the United States.

3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C.,
§1343 (3) and (4) providing for ‘original jurisdiction of
this Court in suits authorized by 42 US.C., §1983; juris-
diction is further conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C.,
'§§2201 and 2202 relating to declaratory judgments and iw
-28 US.C.,, §§2281 and 2284 providing for a a
Court.

4. Plaintiff Sinker Smithi is an adult Negro citizen

of the United States and Alabama and is the mother of

Plaintiff children, Ia Elizabeth Smith, age fourteen
years; Ernestine Smith, age twelve years; Willie Louis
Smith, age eleven years;: Willie James Smith, age nine
- years. For several years prior to October 1, 1966, Plaintiff |
and her children had been recipients of financial assist--
ance under the Aid to Dependent Children program
(hereafter referred to as ADC) of the State of Alabama,
a public assistance program authorized by Code of Ala...
bama, Title 49, §17 and Title 42, U.S.C., §44601-609. By.
notice dated: October 11, 1966, Plaintiff Smith and her
children were removed retroactive to September 30, 1966
from the list of persons eligible to receive aid, on the
_ ground of the ‘‘substitute father’’ regulation. A‘copy of
said notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A few weeks
prior to her termination from ADOC, Plaintiff Smith had
sent a letter to President Johnson complaining of ‘the
- inadequate size of her welfare grant and of other Ala-
bama welfare policies. Through an aide, the President
forwarded the letter ‘to responsible welfare officials.

5. Plaintiffs bring this action on their behalf and on
behalf of all the other-persons similarly situated pursuant
to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The members of the class similarly situated
are needy Negro mothers and dependent Negro children
in the State of Alabama otherwise eligible for ADC in
Alabama whose ADC financial assistance has been termi-
nated or denied on the ground of the aforementioned
“‘substitute father’’ regulation. The members of this class
‘are so numerous as to make joinder impractical; there are
questions of law and fact common, to the class;-the claims
of the representative parties are typical of the claims of
the class; and the representative parties fairly and ade-
quately protect the interests of the class.

6. Defendant George Wallace is Chairman of the State .
Board of Pensions and Security and Defendants James

—

Record, Mary Waite, Williain M. Clarke, Temple Coley,

Grant Whiddon, and Mary Ella Reavis are other-mem-
bers of said Board. Under Code of Alabama, Title 49, §17
(5a and 38) they are responsible, in conference with the

' Commissioner of the State Department of Pensions and -

Security, for the adoption of the policies, rules and regu-

lations of the State Department of Pensions and Security,

including the ‘substitute father’? regulation here com-
plained of.

Defendant Sin K. King i is ‘Commissioner of the State

Department of Pensions and Security and, as noted di-°

vectly above, has statutory responsibility for the adop-
tion of the regulations here complained of. Defendant
King is also responsible, under Code of Alabama, Title
49, §17 (5a and 37 ), for’ all- executive and administrative

duties of said State Department and for interpreting the.
regulation formulated by the State nome of Pensions —

‘and Security. .
Defendant (Mrs.) Clinton S. Wilkinson Sr., Director of

the Dallas County, Department of Pensions and Security, —

. is responsible, under the Terms of Code of Alabama, Title

49,-§17 (9 aud 39), for en i the regulations of the

State Department of Pensio

and Security jin the County
of Dallas. aise

7.(a) At all times hereafter mentioned, Defendants
Wallace, Record, Clarke, Waite, Coley, + ‘Whiddon, Reavis |

and King (and their predecessors in office), in order to
receive federal funds for the ADC program of the State
of Alabama, have been required by the provisions of
42 U‘S.C., §§601-609 to have formulated a ‘‘state plan’’
for ADC consistent with the provisions of the Consti-
tution of the United States and the provisions of 42
U.S.C., §601 et seq.

(b) Said Defendants are also, under the terms of Code

of Alabama, Title 49, §17(7), required to ‘‘act as the

\.

ne

agent of.the federal government . a the administration
of any federal funds granted’ to the state to aid in the
furtherance of any of the functions of the state depart-

ment ...,’” and=t@ otherwise act as the agents of the

federal government in the furtherance of the objectives
of the ADC program.

(c) Federal funds, granted under the provisions of 42
U.S.C., §601 et seq., constitute the major shate of ADC
grants in the state of Alabama.

(d) Under: the terms of Code of Alabama, Title 49,

" Section 17 (14), defendants aré required to- grant ADC

financial. assistance -

‘fon behalf of any needy ‘child who is a eben
as defined in the Federal Social Security Act .or
amendments thereto who shall comply with’ the ap-

. plicable requirements of this chapter, and who: (a)

Has not sufficient income and resources frgm all
sources to provide a reasonable subsistence com-
patible with decency and health; (b) who meets any
_ one of the following residence requirements—(1) has
>» resided within the state for one year immediately
preceding the application for aid, or (2). was born
within the state within one year immediately. pre-
ceding the application for aid; or whose parent. or
other near relative (as defined in the Federal Social .
Security Act) with whom the child is living has re-
sided in the state for one year immediately preceding
the birth ef said child; (c) has not directly or in- —
directly disposed of or deprived himself of any

property for the purpose of qualifying for the bene-

" fits of this chapter; and (d) is not receiving -any
other type of public assistance for which federal -
matching is available.

Under the terms of 42 USC. 5606 (a) . “dependent
child’’ means:

epee ee hw

—8—

“‘a heedy child (1) who has been deprived of parental

Support or care by reason of the death, continued ,
absence from\ the home, or physical or mental ‘in-
capacity of a parent, and who is living with his,
father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother,
* sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister,
uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, or hiece, in a place
of residence maintained .by one or more of such rela.
tives as his or their own home, -and (2) who is (A)

' under the age of eighteen, or {B) under the age of
twenty-one and (as determined by the State in ac-
cordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary),

a student ‘regularly attending a school, eollege, or .

_ University, its equivalent, or regularly attending a
course of vocational or technical training designed
to fit him for gainful employment;’’

8. (a) In all respects, except for the ‘substitute father’’
regulation promulgated and enforced by Defendants,
Plaintiffs and the members of their class are eligible for
and entitled to ADC financial assistance.

. ‘ v e 7
(b) Plaintiff children Ida, Ernestine and Willie Louis,
have not received parental ‘support or care from their -

father, who has been dead since 1955, Plaintiff child
Willie James has not received parental support or éare
from his father, who has been continuously absent for
many years. All the children are living in the home of
their mother, Plaintiff Sylvester Smith, and all are. under

the age of eighteen, are Alabama residents for more than —
one year, are not receiving ‘any other type of public .

assistance, and have not directly or indirectly ‘disposed
of property for the purpose of qualifying ‘ ADC assigt-

ance. The sole income of Plaintiff Smith a eer children

is in the sum of sixteen dollars ($16). per. week paid to
Plaintiff Smith for working as a waitress six days a
week from 3:00 a. m. to 12:30 p. m. Said income is be-

_ low the financial standards ‘promulgated by Defendants as

| nc:
necessary for a subsistence compatible with decency and
health. . | ee

9. (a) According to information give to Plaintiff Smith

_ by one Mrs. Stancil, an employee agent of Defendants NF
and ‘‘counselor4 of Defendants for Plaintiff Smith, the @
“substitute father’? of the Smith children is one Mr. —
Willie E. Williams. Plaintiff Smith was told by Mrs.

_ Stancil on or about October 11, 1966, that ‘she and ‘her
children were no longer eligible for ADC aid because Mr.
Williams was the ‘‘substitute father’? and ‘that Mrs.

Smith should ‘look to Mr. Wiliams for support. There-
after, by notice dated October 11, 1966 and signed by
Defendant Wilkinson, Plaintiffs’ ADC aid was terminated
on the ground of the ‘‘substitute father’ regulation.

(See Exhibit B attached hereto.) *

_ (b) Mr. Willie E. Williams has nine children of his.
own; he lives with his family, including his wife and |
eight of their nine cHildren’ who are dependent upon him
for support. He earns barely enough for the support -of

.~ his own children through work as a heavy laborer. Mr.
Williams‘is not now, nor was he at the time of the termi-
nation of Plaintiff Smith’s ADC benefits, willing or able
to support the Smith family. Mr. Williams is the father

of none of the children of Plaintiff Smith , |
(c) Mr. Williams has known Plaintiff Smith virtually -~. . .
all of her life; in the last fiye years, he has visited- her
. home with some frequency. He does not live in her home.
_ Plaintiff Sylvester Smith is not’ willing to discuss whether
she engages in a sexual relationship with Mr. Williams.

~—

10. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have
applied their ‘‘substitute. parent”? regulations so as to
disqualify from ADC benefits only or virtually only
Negro mothers and. children and not white mothers and
children. , oes ?

SAB. RIG e QR

a am
‘

11, By promulgating, ‘adopting and enforcing. the “.

Certificate of Mailing.

Montgomery, Alabama, ~
DecembO@r 22, 1966.

I hereby certify that on December 22, 1966, I served
a copy of the foregoing Motion upon Honorable Charles
S. Conley, 530 South Union: Street, Montgomery, Alabama,
Attorney for -plaintiffs, by depositing a copy thereof in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, envelope ad-
dregsed to said attorney at his address set forth herein- -
above, which address is the last address of the poe
known to me.
| -- CAROL F. MILLER,

| - Attorney for Defendants.

ORDER APPOINTING AND DESIGNATING
THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS
CURIAE AND AS PARTY.

(Caption omitted.)
(Filed Jan. 4, 1967.)

Upon consideration of the complaint in the above-styled
case and the relief sought, it appears that the issues in-
volved are common and general, and this Court is of the
opinion that the due and ‘proper administration of justice
requires that the public interests should be represented in
these proceedings. To this end, this Court is of the opinion
that it is now appropriate and necessary that the United
States should ‘be designated to appear and participate in
- all proceedings in this action before this Court and to ac-
cord Court the benefit of its views and recommenda-
tions,“with the right to submit pleadings, evidence, argu-
ments, briefs, and to participate actively as a party in
every phase of said proceedings, including the right to
initiate such further proceedings that may be necessary
and appropriate. Faubus v. United States (8th Cir. 1958),
254 F. 2d 797, cert. denied 358 U.S. 829; Bush, et -al. v.
Orleans Parish School Board, et al., 188 F. Supp. 916, aff’d.
365 U.S. 569; Bush, et al. v. viens Parish School Board,
et al., 190 F. Supp. 861, aff’d 366 U.S. 212; United States
v. Barnett (5th Cir. 1962), 330 F. 2d 369; Lee v. Macon
County Board of Education, 231 F. Supp. 743 (1963);
Miles, et al. v. Dickson, et al., Civil Action No. 2326-N, MD
Ala., June 15, 1966, ... F. Sei. . 5 Alabama NAACP
State Conference of Branches, et re v. , Genres C. Wallace,
et al:, Civil Action No. 9457- N, MD Ala.

‘ In accordance with the foregoing and for wal cause, it
is the Order, Judgment and Decree of this Court that the
United States of America be and-is hereby designated to
appear and participate in all proceedings in this action

eae:

before this Court as amicus curiae and as a party thereto.
It is the further Order of this Court that the Attorney
General of the United States, and such attorneys in the
United States Department of Justice as he may. designate,
be and he is hereby appointed to appear and participate
in behalf of the United States in this action.

Done, this the 4th day of January, 1967.

FRANK W. JOHNSON, JR.,
Chief Judge.

ANSWER.
* (Caption omitted:)
(Filed Jan. 23, 1967.) °

I

The complaint fails to state a claim against defendants
or any of them upon which relief can be granted.

IL

Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their available admin-
istrative remedies. The administrative remedies which are
available to plaintiffs are provided for in Title 49, §17(18),
Code of Alabama 1940, recompiled 1958, and the rules and
regulations of the State Department of Pensions and
Security promulgated thereunder and set out in Manual
for Administration of Public Assistance, Part I, pages
I-3, V-4-9, and Administrative Letter No. 2103 dated Jan-

_uary 24, 1966. Copies of these rules and regulations are

attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.
i
1. In answer to Paragraph 1 of the complaint, defend-
ants state that the complaint as a whole does not establish

r

—_—

— 22 —_—
.
.

a right in the plaintiff for a suit for injunctive relief au-
thorized by Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983 or Title 28,
U.S.C., Section 2201, in that there is no showing of an tm-
reasonable classification or any other. denial of equal pro-
tection as Paragraph 1 sets out as rights, privileges, and
immunities sought to be redressed.

2. In answer to Paragraph 2 of the complaint, defend-
ants deny that this is a proper CASE, for determination pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 in that the complaint as a whole
fails to set out a right in the plagntiff or in any other
mothers similarly situated to secure injunctive relief from
the defendant officers of the State of Alabama as set out
in Paragraph 2.

3. For answer to Paragraph 3 of the complaint, defend-
ants deny that jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by
virtue of the code sections cited in that the complaint as
a whole fails to establish such right.

4, Datuadaihe admit the first four sentences of Para-
‘graph 4 of the complaint. Defendants are without knowl-
edge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in the remainder of
‘Paragraph 4 of the complaint. Defendants further allege
that not one of them has any knowledge of nor-has any
one of them received in any way notice of the plaintiff’s
‘alleged letter to the President of the United States re-
ferred to in, Paragraph 4 of the complaint. —

5. For answer to Paragraph 5 of the complaint, defend-
ants aver that plaintiffs are not bringing this action on
behalf of all persons similarly situated pursuant to the
Federal rules of civil procedure in that they are purport-
ing to represent only needy Negro mothers and dependent
‘Negro children in a class action based on a rule which is
applicable to all needy mothers and needy dependent chil-
dren without regard to race. While defendants in no way

(

ae

discriminate in,the policy plaintiffs are complaining of,
plaintiffs clearly are seeking to represent only Negro mem-
bers of the class which they seek to represent. This con-
stitutes only one segment of the population of the class
described in the policy as a whole and to which the policy,
by state and Federal law, is applicable. In the first sen-
tence of Paragraph 5 of the complaint plaintiffs purport
¥ to bring the action on the behalf ‘‘of all other persons
similarly. situated.’’ However, plaintiffs in the next sen-
tence of Paragraph 5 define ‘‘the class similarly situated’’
as ‘‘needy Negro mothers and dependent Negro children.”’ _
By law and policy the class involved in the policy, of de-
fendants would represent that class of person who is de-
scribed in the regulation regardless of race. If this policy
affects a larger number of persons in any one ethnic group,
it is not because of any inherent discrimination in the
policy or the promulgation of the policy or in the -ap-
"plication of the policy. - |

6. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Para-

graph 6 of the complaint, except in the last paragraph.

‘ Defendant Wilkinson is not solely responsible for enforc-

ing all of the regulations of the State Department of
Pensions and Security in Dallas County.

7. In answer to Paragraph 7 of the complaint, defend-

ants admit the allegations contained in subsections a, b,

- and c. In answer to subsection d, defendants say that

the provisions of law cited are not the sole governing pro-

visions of law- applicable to the’ granting or refusing

to grant Aid to Dependent Children financial assistance.

Defendants could not make payments to any grantee rela-

tive on behalf of any dependent child unless the provisions

of Title 49, §17 (15), Code of Alabama 1940, recompiled
1958, are complied with.

8. Defendants allege that they are without ities
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

. —

.the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the com-
“plaint. et; . : :

9. Defendants deny the allegations in the first two sen-
tehces of Paragraph 9 (a) and allege that the determina-
tion about the applicability of the substitute father policy *
_ was made upon information given ‘to Mrs. Stancil by plain-

tiff Smith in October 1966, whick information was in sub-
Stance that plaintiff Smith had engaged in a marital rela-
tionship with Mr. Willie E. Williams for a period of six —
years and was continuing to do so. The substitute father
policy was explained by Mrs. Stancil to Mrs. Smith. De-
fendants allege that Mrs. Stancil explained that under
the agency policy cohabitation meant having sexual rela-
tionship with a man, that plaintiff understood this and .
stated that she was having sexual relationships with Mr. -
Willie E. Williams. Mrs. Stancil also explained that if at
any point Mrs. Smith chose to break off this relationship,
she, Mrs. Stancil, would, in aecordance with agency policy,
assist Mrs. Smith in establishing that this relationship
had been broken.

9(b). Defendants allege that they are without knowl-
edge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 (b) of _
the complaint. . : ¥ ;

9(c). Defendants allege that they are without knowl-
edge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation in paragraph 3 (ct) of the complaint
that ‘‘Mr. Williams has known plaintiff Smith virtually all
her life’’; defendants admit that Mr. Williams has visited
in plaintiff Smith’s home frequently during at least the
last five years, as alleged in the last clause of the first
sentence of Paragraph 9 (c) of the complaint, or more.
Defendants allege that they are without knowledge or in-
formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in the remainder of Paragraph 9 (c)

%,-

_— =

of the complaint. Defendants allege, however, that plain-
tiff Sylvester Smith has willingly discussed and freely ad-
mitted to workers in the Dallas County Department of

Pensions and Security a continuing sexual ne
with Mr. Williams,

‘10. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
in Paragraph 10 of the complaint.

11, Defendants deny each and evéry allegation contained
in Paragraph 11, including subparagraphs A, B, CG, D, E,
and F thereunder, of the complaint.

12. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained
‘in Paragraph 12 of the complaint.

13. Defendants deny each and every material allegation

of the complaint not herein specifically admitted. —

e

Defendants, pray ‘to be hence dismissed with their rea-

sonable costs,

/s/ MacDONALD GALLION, .
MacDONALD GALLION,
Attorney General,
/s/ MARY LEE STAPP,
MRS. MARY LEE STAPP,
Assistant Attorney General,

‘ /s/ CAROL F. MILLER,

MRS. CAROL F. MILLER,
Assistant Attorney General,
64 North Union Street, ©
' Montgomery, Alabama,
Attorneys for Defendants.

— 26 —

Montgomery, Alabama
January 23, 1967.

I hereby certify that on January 23, 1967, I served a
Copy of the foregoing Answer upon Honorable Charles S.
Conley, 315 South Bainbridge Street, Montgomery, Ala- }
_bama, Attorney for plaintiffs, by depositing a copy thereof
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, envelope ad-
dressed to -said attorney at his address set. forth herein-
above, which address is the last address of the attorney _
known to.me. — . . |
CAROL F. MILLER,
Attorney for Defendants. .

cr et | Certificate of Mailing:

~e

T hereby certify that on January 23,-1967, I mailed a
copy of the foregoing Answer to Honorable Ramsey Clark,
Attorney General of the United States, Washington, D. C.,
and a copy of said Answer to Honorable Ben Hardeman, -
United States Attorney, P. O. Box 197, Montgomery, Ala-
_bama, each with postage prepaid. ire

. . CAROL F. MILLER, |
Attorney for Defendants.

a pa

EXHIBIT A.
» Administrative
Letter No. 2103
January 24, 1966

State of Alabama

Department of Pensions and Security —
Montgomery

To: anes Directors of Pensions and Security
Subject: Appeals and Fair Hearings

. We have recently. received a revised section of the Fed-
eral.Handbook on Appeals and Fair Hearings. In the
_ main, our present policies relating to appeals are in line
with the Federal material. We therefore, are not. revis-
ing our Public Assistance Manual, Part I, on Appeals and
Fair Hearings at this time. Your special attention is
called, however, to the following procedures.

At the time of application and at the time of any agency
action affecting an applicant’s or recipient’s claim to aid, -
he must be given a written statement of the right to a
hearing and the method by which a hearing may be ob-
tained. The manual provides that a copy of the eligibility

statement, which contains information about appeals, will
be given each person at time of application. Effective
immediately, a copy of the appropriate eligibility’ state-
ment will be enclosed with each award authorization,
change of status affecting the payment, termination of
award. and denial of aid mailed to each applicant or. re-
cipient. Record the date each time a copy. of the eligi-
bility statement. is given to or mailed to the client. This
must be done by an entry on the Face Sheet under item IX.

Provision is made in the new Federal material that the
claimant may employ a lawyer of his choice ‘to represent

an

pb cmt

a

isl eae aM WRN a caf Salar A Me

BE

him in an appeal. Under Federal policies it is also per-

migsive for states to pay the fee for such legal. service |
with participation in the cost by the Federal Government.

It has long been possible under our policies for claimants

to employ lawyers to represent them in appeals and some
claimants. have exercised this right. We will continue .
such policy. It will not be possible for us, at this time,

_to provide for the cost of such legal’service. We will, how-

ever, accept appeals which are made for applicants or

- recipients of aid by their duly authorized lawyers.

Please see that the appropriate members of your staff
are informed of the contents of this letter.

Cordially yours,
| /s/ RUBEN K. KING,

RUBEN K. KING,
Commissioner. -

‘May, 1966.
"Ala, Manual, Fart I Tom at 4 1-3

Do not count. as an application a referral made for
a person withouf his knowledge and consent, except
when application was made by a legal representative,
legal guardian, or one of the persons specified with
whom a mentally handicapped minor lives. —

Do not take applications on persons who ‘make
inquiries only. When it appears that a person con-
cerned in an inquiry or a referral may become an
applicant, make a master index card and post it on the
back as ‘‘Inquiry”’ or ‘‘Referral”, =~

Clear every application with the. master index card
file on the date it is received. If no previous record is
found, make a master index card and file it. The date

of the request is the official date of application. Make
a control card on every application immediately upon
receipt of the application. Handle and report all

applications according to financial and statistical .
procedures in Chapter Four and instructions for pre-
paring the monthly statistical report relating to aiahil
cations'in Part II of the manual.

Handle a reapplication in‘the same way as a new
application. .

Ill. Application Interview.

Interviews are usually held in the office, in an
intake center, or in the home. When an applicant
is too ill or too handicapped to be interviewed, inter-
view his legal representative, legal guardian, or the
person directly responsible for his care.

A. The first mterview is an important part of
the process of determining eligibility and the
need for other services. Follow the ee
given below:

i Explain ° eligibility sequiseinente, ‘@ per-
son’s right to a fair hearing, and the pro-“
cedure for requesting a hearing. Give each
applicant a copy of the eligibility require-
ments if he wishes one at the‘time of applica-
tion; otherwise, tell him that a copy will be
mailed to him along with the decision on
on his application. (Refer to Administrative
Letter No. 2103, January 24, 1966; relating

_to appeals and fair hearings. )

2. Explain methods of near eligi-
bility.
3. Explain the need for making contacte

with relatives and references. }
4, Explain the use of documentary and

other records for verifying factual data in
establishing eligibility. —

—0—

5. Secure from the applicant information

as follows:

a. A clear shateinnid: of how he man-
aged in the past.

November 1, 1962:

Ala, Manual, Part.I —_ VA

Section II
Hearings

General Requirements |

" ‘itles I, IV, X and XIV of the Social Security Act pro-

vide for fair hearings for applicants and recipients of

~OAP, MAA, AB, ADC, and APTD. Alabama law pro-

vides for fair hearings in OAP, MAA, AB, ADO, and —
APTD. By State policy, the same fair hearing —

applies to TA.

At the time of ieaiiiatine. give each applicant a writ-
_. ten statement of the right to a hearing and the method by

which a hearing may be obtained. For this purpose, use
* the summary eligibility statements, which include the
hearing aieamed

Keep» a copy of the rules and peer on Leenioge |
posted in the county department in a conveniert. place

for everyone to see.

Organization and Conduct of Hearings
“The Committee on Hearings of the State Department

is is composed of the following:

1. The assistant director of the iim of Public
Assistance, Chairman; : :

2. The director of the Bureau of Field Service;

>

‘—sl—

_ 3. A field representative from a district other than
- the one in which the request for a hearing is made,
or another State staff member with social work
‘background and with administrative or supervisory —
responsibilities, or. the legal advisor.

The Committee acts for the State Departmént iayptan-
ning and conducting hearings. It makes its recommenda-
tions in writing to the Commissioner, who..has- responsi-
bility for the final decision on each hearing. In APTD
cases, the State Review Team will assist the Committee on
Hearings in making recommendations to the Commis-
sioner on the ‘eligibility — of permanent — total
disability:

Any member of the Committee who has not taken part
in the action under consideration may. serve as hearing
officer and conduct the hearing. If a member has taken
part in the action by assisting the county department in
the review or making some indépendent investigation,
that member may attend the hearing but can neither con-.
duct it nor participate in the final recommendations. 3

The chairman of the Committee on a is re-
sponsible for handling hearing procedures, including cor-
respondence’ and clearance with field representatives,
— departments, and eemeanta.

Ala, Manual, Part I | i, vs. °,

a

The hihi officer represents the Alabama State De-
partment of Pensions and Security and has fuil control |
over a hearing, although other State staff members may
be present. The duties of the hearing officer are as follows:
(1) to: direct the hearing; (2) to explain the conduct of
the hearing, the type record which will be made of it,
the claimant’s right. to review it in the county office at

ally reasonable time, and the manner in which the decision

a
“
o

ee 5 ,

Danie 65

on

iN Aa RING Dak nian eS oa ge Ad alin Ae alae

— 32 —

will be made and given to the claimant; (3) to hear testi-
mony; (4) to examine witnesses and otherwise receive
evidence having a direct bearing on the point or points
at issue; and (5) to exclude from the hearing material
unrelated to the point(s) at issue. Questions directed to
the hearing officer must be limited to those concerned with

the explanation of the hearing procedure.

‘There is only one party to a hearing—the claimant him-
self. He is not opposed at the hearing by either the
county or State departments. While neither of these de-
partments is supported by an advocate, staff or board ~
members of either department may attend and may serve
as witnesses if they have factual knowledge of the case.

‘The hearing’ officer may call and examinp witnesses on
his own, but he must then give the claimant or his. repre-
sentative an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses.

The hearing officer may also cross-examine ) enannee in-

troduced by the claimant.

The role of the hearing officer is that of an impartial
tribunal, and in examining witnesses and in the general
conduct of the hearing, he must maintain an attitude of
impartiality. The. only objective in examining witnesses

_ shall be to attempt to arrive at the truth concerning the

issues involved.

The claimant must. be present at the hearing unless

‘the Commissioner or Committee on Hearings excuses him

for a specific reason. He may present his case himself at
the hearing or may designate one person as his official
representative. .He may also have members of his family
and other persons present, -who may serve as witnesses.
Staff and Board members of the State and county de-
partments may also serve as witnesses. - (The hearing
officer will consider a person qualified to be a witness only
when the person has factual data about the point(s) at
issue.) /

1

— a

In general, the hearing consists of the following proce- —
dures.

Statement of Issue—The hearing officer will state the
issue(s) as set forth in the claimant’s appeal. When
the request for a hearing is based on a decision as to
eligibility, the hearing officer will make a statement for,
the record of the hearing with respect to points of eligi-
bility which have previously been satisfactorily estab-
lished. The hearing officer will then define the issue(s)
under consideration in the hearing. The claimant or his
representative will be asked whether he accepts the ‘state-
ment of the issue(s). If not, the claimant or his repre-
sentative may correct or modify the statement. The
issue(s), however, must have a bearing upon the claim-
ant’s eligibility or amount of payment.

Ala. Manual, Part I ° | V4

Period of Testimony—The hearing officer will hear tes-
timony about the defined’ issue(s) from the claimant, —
his designated representative, and qualified ‘witnesses. All
persons giving testimony must. confine their remarks to
factual information about the issue(s) relating to the
establishment of eligibility or ‘payment in the particular
ease. The hearing officer, the claimant, or his. designated
representative may direct questions to witnesses, as indi-
cated, provided the questions relate to the defined issues.
Written statements of evidence from all sources.and other
—_ may also be presented and examined.

- During the period of testimony, the hearing officer will.
not hear complaints. or arguments about Federal and
State laws or policies.

Period of Arguments—The hearing officer will allow a
reasonable time (usually not more than 30. minutes) for
the claimant or his representativé to summarize their

=

factual data and to present any arguments and complaints
they wish about the point(s) under consideration in the
particular case. This may a refuting oral or written
testimony. :

Conclusion of Hearing—The hearing officer will close
the hearing wlien satisfied that all available facts relating
_ to the issues involved in the hearing have been given.

Rules and Regulations

1. Each ‘person requesting review of his . case has free
choice of whether such review shall be handled ° through
informal complaint and adjustment procedures or through
a hearing. If he chooses a hearing, it cannot be delayed
or cancelled without his consent because of a review by:
the local office.

2. Any person ‘dissatisfied with the county department’s
_ action or failure to act on his claim to aid has a — to
request a hearing. He-may do so when:

a. His application ‘is denied or is not acted upon
within one month, =, |

b. His hay ai is discontinued.
c. He is dissatisfied with the amount of payment.

- 4d. He-is otherwise dissatisfied i in regard to his claim
to aid.

A request for ‘a hensind Minced on action by the -county
department must be filed within 90 days of the action
_ questioned.

_ 3. A request for a hearing must be filed in writing and
signed by the applicant/recipient, his legal guardian, a
grantee relative in ADC, or by a parent or brother or
sister of a mentally handicapped minor under 21 (APTD
and AB). It must give the reason(s) for dissatisfaction,
the date on ;

Ala. Manual, Part I | V7
which the cause of dissatisfaction occurred, and the claim-
ant’s correct mailing address. It may be filed with either
the county department or the State Department. The one

receiving the request must notify the other within five
_ days. 7 7 px...

4, Within five days after the State Department receives
(from the claimant or the county department) the written
request for a hearing, the State Department sends the
claimant in writing the following information:

a. The procedure at the hearing; | oo

b. The claimant’s option to present his case or be
represented by an authorized person; —

c. The claimant’s right to present. written satin

and testimony and to bring to the manne members of,
his family and other persons;

d. The hearing will be held at:a place convenient
* to him, either in the State office or elsewhere. He will
be notified in advance of the time, date, and place.

The claimant will be advised of possible further investiga-
tion by the county department. A copy of this informa-
tion will also be sent to the county department.

et The chairman of the Committee on Hearings refers
the request for a hearing to. the field representative or
another member of the State staff. Within 20 days after *
the request is received, this staff member will review the
case with the county department and will make or ask
the county director to make any further investigation
necessary. The claimant will also be: requested by either
the State or county department to furnish ecaiaiaed in-
% formation which he can readily secure.

6. If the total findings in the case show that the county .
department should take further action, such action must.

ee

be taken at once. When the original reason for the hear-
ing has been removed by action taken by the county de-
‘partment, the State Department will write the claimant a
letter, stating this to be the case and asking if he wishes
to withdraw hjs request for a hearing. This shall not
prohibit his continuing with the hearing, if he so desires.’
Any decision to withdraw must be his own. The with-
drawal should be in writing and should state the reason
for withdrawal. It may be sent or given to either the
State \or county department. The one getting it will.
notify the other within five days.

7. A request for a hearing will be considered aban d
if: (a) neither the claimant nor his.representative appears
at the time and place of hearing; or (b) a time and place
for a hearing have been set but the claimant asks for a
delay and does not wish to.set another date; and -(c).
within 30 days after the mailing of ’an inquiry as to
whether he wishes any further action taken on his request
for a hearing, no reply is received by either the local or
State agency.

Ala. Manual, PartI ; | V-8 °Y’

. 8. Wher no satisfactory adjustment is made, the county
department shall submit a summary of the case to the
chairman of the Committee on Hearings within 30 days
after the request for a hearing is received in. the State ©
Department. -This summary shall be a part of the written
testimony for examination at the hearing. It shall include
only factual data relating directly to the issue under re-
view. In addition, the State staff member who reviéwed |
the ¢ase shall submit a written report, together with .
recommendations. This report shall become a part of the
written testimony at the hearing. —

_ 9. Upon receipt of the necessary information, the shite.
man of the Committee on Hearings sets a date, time, and

~

a pe

place for the hearing. This date shall be within 20 days
after such information is secured unless more time is
needed for a reasonable cause. The State Department
shall notify the claimant, the county department, and the
field representative at least 10 days before the hearing.
The county director will advise the chairman of the
county Board of the date, time, and place of the hearing..

10. If it becomes evident during the hearing that the
: issue actually involved is different from the one on which
the hearing was réquested, the hearing, at the discretion
of the hearing officer, shall be conducted on the new is- |
sue. All evidence constituting the basis for decision must
be presented at the hearing or et a continuation thereof.

11. The hearing may be adjourned from day to day or
to a designated date, at the discretion of the hearing of-
ficer, when reasonably necessary to give full opportunity
to obtain and present all evidence concerning the points
at issue in the particular case. The hearing may be con-
cluded when the hearing officer is satisfied that all per-
tinent information bearing upon the a has been
introduced and examined.

12. The hearing, officer shall decide on ‘the type record
to be made of the hearing. It may be: (a) a complete,
verbatim transcription from shorthand notes;.or (b)
verbatim machine recording; or (c) a summary report
containing the main facts, including the oral and written
testimony, questions, and rebuttal. The type record chosen
shall become a part of the complete record. The claimant
shall be told of his right to review the record of the hear-
ing at any reasonable time. If he does.not wish to review’
the record, it will not be necessary to transoribe ‘machine
recordings, but these recordings will be ‘available to the
Committee on Hearings and the: Commissioner and will be

. — yetained as a permanent part ‘of the files in the State De-

_ partment. If the record is made of the hearing other than -

i

e

—38—

by machine recording or if the claimant does state his »

desire to review the record, the procedure in the para-

graph below will be used. |

If a machine recording is used, either the. State or
county department will have it transcribed in triplicate.
If a verbatim transcription is made from shorthand notes,
the county department shall,have this typed up in. tripli-
cate immediately following tHe hearing: Any record typed
by the county department shall be forwarded in triplicate
at once to the hearing officer in the State Department for
review and editing. The hearing officer shall return one

_ . copy: of the edited record to the county department to’

become

Ala. Manual, Part I es vV-9

a part of its permanent files. This copy will be made
available for inspéction by the claimant or his representa-
tive at any reasonable time. The remaining copies will be
submitted to the Committee on Hearings for review. ‘If it
is decided that additional facts are needed, the Committee
on Hearings will have the Lene sed re-opened ‘in order to
secure them.

13. The Committee on Hearings will make recommenda-
tions to the Commissioner as soon as possible after the
close of the hearing. The Commissioner makes the final
decision based only on the oral and written evidence, tes-

‘timony, and exhibits introduced at the hearing. Not more
than three weeks shall elapse between the: close of the
hearing and the final decision. The decision must be in

writing, signed by the Commissioner, and shall set forth -
the issue(s), the principal and relevant facts brought out
at the hearing, the pertinent ‘nrovisions in law and agency
policy, and the reasoning that led to the decision. Copies
of the decision. shall be sent to the claimant and to the
county department immediately following the action of

— ‘an

the Commissioner. The decision shall be final and shall -
be binding upon the claimant and the county department.

14. Upon receiving a copy of the decision, the county
department shall take immediate steps to see that any
necessary action is taken. If the decision requires action
by the county department, the county director shall send
_ @ written report to the Commissioner stating what has
been done. Continuing supervisory ay is ned
gated to the field ——

15. A decision on a fair hearing is binding on the
county department and is not invalidated by county ac-
tion so long as the conditions under which the decision
was made remain the same. However, this does not pre-
clude the county department from modifying the award
or making other’ changes to meet changed conditions in

the’ claimant’s situation, in law, or in policy. |

16. When new evidence indicates that a valid. decision

- has not been made, the Cqmmittee on Hearings has the

authority to decide to re-open a case for re-hearing, either
_ through its own motion or upon request of the claimant.

—0—

In the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division.

Mrs. Sylvester Smith, Individually and >
on Behalf of Her Minor Children,
Ida Elizabeth Smith, Ernestine

‘ Smith, Willie Louis Smith and Wil-
lie James Smith and on Behalf of
All Other Mothers of Needy, De- |.
pendent Children Similarly Situated,
| ' - Plaintiffs,

iad

_Buben K. King, Commissioner of the
State Department of Pensions and
Security, State of Alabama; Lurleen + Civil Action.
Burns Wallace, Chairman, State ‘ No. 2495-N.
Board of Pesshons and Security, 6
State of Alabama; James Record, |‘
Mrs. Mary Waite, William M. Clarke,
Temple Coley, Grant Whiddon, Mrs.
Mary Ella: Reavis, Members of the
State Board of Pensions and Secu-
rity, State of Alabama; Mrs. Clin-
ton 8. Wilkinson, Sr., Director, Dal-
las County Department of Pensions

- and. Security, Individually and in
Their Official Capacities,

a Defendants. |

WRIT OF INJUNCTION.

To the Above-Named Defendants and Each of Them:

Take Notice that you and each of you, your agents,
employees and. successors, and all persons in active con-
cert and participation with you, who shall receive notice
of this order,.be and you are hereby Enjoined and Re-

— a. ays

. strained as more particularly set out im the opinion and
the decree of this Court made and entered in this cause
on this date, copies of which are herewith served upon
you. This writ of injunction is issued in accordance with

_ said opinion and decree. . ar
Witness my hand and the seal of this Court on this the

8th day of November, 1967, at Montgomery, Alabama.

| RB. C. DODSON,
Clerk of the United States District Court —
for the Middle District of Alabama,
-- By: JANE P. GORDON,
Deputy Clerk.

OPINION.
(Caption omitted.) —
(Filed Nov. 8, 1967.) |
Before Godbold, Circuit Judge, and Johnson and Pittdhan,
District Judges. :
Per Curiam:
L

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief
filed pursuant ‘to 42 U:S.C., § 1983.1 The ‘‘rights, priv-
ileges, or immunities’’ sought to.be redressed are those se-
cured by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of

1 Ҥ-1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, .regu-
lation, custom, or usage, of any State or. Territory, subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. R. S. § 1979.”

_ ;
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of - the
United States and by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.,

§§ 601-609. The declaratory judgment aspect of the action
is pursuant to 28 US.C., § 2201.

Plaintiff Sylvester Smith, a citizen of the United States, °
_ the State of Alabama and the County of Dallas, and the f.
mother 6f plaintiffs Ida Elizabeth Smith, aged 14; Ernes-
tine Smith,-aged 12; Willie :Louis Smith, aged 11, and
Willie Sind Smith, aged 9, brings this action in her own
behalf, in behalf of said minor children and, pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, in behalf of all other persons similarly situated.

The defendants are the chairman, members and officials
of the’ Alabama State Board. of Peniions and Security, re-
sponsible, in conference with the Commissioner, under the
law of Alabama for the adoption of policies, rules and:
regulations of the Alabama State Department of Pensions
and Security. Code of Alabama, Title 49, §17. The Com-
missioner of the Alabama Department of Pensions and .
Security ‘has a. statutory responsibility for the adoption .
of the regulations designed to effect the policy and for —
exercising the executive and administrative duties of ‘the
Alabama State Department of Pensions and Security. Code
of Alabama, Title 49, §17: The defendant Mrs. Clinton S.
Wilkinson, Sr., is Director of the Dallas County ‘ Depart-
ment of Pensions and Security’ and is responsible under
the law of Alabama (Title 49, § 17) for enforcing the poli-
cies and regulations of the Alabama State Department of

Pensions and Security i in the County of Dallas.

Since the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief rextraining the
defendant officers of the State of Alabama from the en-
forcement, operation and execution of a statewide regula-
‘tion set forth in the Alabama Manual for Administration
. of Public Assistance, Part I, Chapter II, Section VI, .Par.:

Vy (entitled “Child Ineligible if There Is a Father or ©

?

id

ee ee

Mother Substitute’) and commogly referred to as the _
‘‘substitute father’’ regulation,?.on the ground of the un-
constitutionality of said regulation when. measured by
the requirements of the Constitution of the United States,
a three-judge court was convened, pursuant to 28 U. S. C.,

2 “V. Child Ineligible if There Is_a Father or Mother Substitute
“A. Father Substitute: An able-bodied man, married or sin-
gle, is considered a substitute father of all the children of the
applicant/recipient mother living in her home, whether they ~
are his or not, if:,(1) he lives in the home with the child’s
-natural or adoptive mother for the purpose of cohabitation;
6r (2) though not living in the home regularly, he visits fre-
quently for the purpose of cohabiting with the child’s natural
or adoptive mother; or (3) he does not frequent the home but.
cohabits with the child’s natural or adoptive mother elsewhere.
Pregnancy or a baby six months or under’ is prima facie evi-
dence of a substitute father as indicated above: ees
“When there appears to be a substitute father, disapprove
an application or terminate aid unless the mother establishes
that one of ‘the following situations exists: '(1)-she and/or
- the substitute father miéets the -criteria of disability as de
scribed under ‘Physical or Mental Intapacity’; (2) the sub-
stitute father is no longer living in the home or visiting the
home for the purpose of cohabiting with her; or (3) the rela-
tionship js broken between the mother and a man who has not.
been living in the home-or frequenting the home.
“Evidence showing that the relationship has been discon-
. tinued includes proof such as: the father has marriéd another
woman; or he is-in a public institution; or, if he has been
living in‘the home, he is now living at another address; or a
notarized statement by the mother and substitute father that
they have discontinued their relationship. This evidence must
be corroborated by at least two acceptable references in a
position to know. Examples of acceptable- references are: law-
enforcement officials; ministers; neighbors ; grocers. If needed,
the mother will-be given 30 days to present her evidence be-
fore her application is disapproved or her case closed inless -
additional time is needed. If additional. time is needed, an-
other 30 days may. be allowed. In no instance shall more than
60 days be allowed. Although the burden of proof rests with
the mother, the worker will assist in any way- possible to help
the mother establish that she has broken a relationship. Also,
--before- rejécting an application or ‘closing a case, the worker
will talk with the’ mother about reasons for the agency’s ac-
tion and about her right to reapply at any time that she does
break the relationship» If the family is otherwise eligible, the
case should be recertified for aid immediately.” bie:

:

§ 2281, for hearing and determining this action. Jurisdic-
tion is conferred on saad court by 28 ati § 1343(3) and’
(4).

IL.

_ By stipulation of the parties made and filed with the
Clerk of this Court, the action is submitted on depositions,
numerous documents and — | and the briefs and .

sacacmeal of the parties. |

_ For several years. prior to October 1, 1966, plaintiff Syl-
vester Smith and her children had been recipients of
- financial assistance under the Aid to Dependent Children
- program of the State of Alabama, a public assistance pro-
gram authorized by the Code of Alabama, Title 49, §17
‘and 42 U.S.C., $§ 601-609. By notice dated October 11,
1966, plaintiff Smith and her children were removed, re-
troactively to September 30, 1966, from the list of persons
eligible to receive such:° ‘aid; this ‘action was taken by the
Dallas County, Alabama, welfare authorities pursuant to
the ‘‘substitute father’’ regulation. In all respects, ex- |
cept for the ‘‘substitute father’? regulation promulgated —
and enforced by the defendants, plaintiffs. and: the mem-'
bers of their class are eligible for and entitled to receive
financial assistance under the Aid to Dependent Children

program.

The defendants, in order to receive federal funds for
the Aid to Dependent Children program conducted for the
State of Alabama, have been required by the provisions
of 42 U.S.C.,°§§ 601-609 to formulate a ‘‘State Plan’ for
aid to dependent children consistent with the provisions
of the Constitution of the United States and the provisions
of 42 U.S.C., § 601 et seq. Under the terms of the Code
of Alabama, Title 49, 4 17(7), the defendants are also re-
quired to ‘‘Act as the agent of the federal government

. in the administration of any federal funds granted to

unintlicen

2: @

the state to aid in the furtherance of any of the functions
of the state department .. .’’ and otherwise to act as the
agents of the federal government-in the furtherance of the
objectives of the’ Aid ‘to Dependent Children program.
With this arrangement, federal funds are granted under
the provisions of 42 U.S.C., § 601 et seq., and these funds
constitute the major share of Aid to Dependent Children .
grants in the State of Alabama.® , ae

Under the terms of 42 U.S.C., $606(a), a ‘‘dependent
child’’ is defined as: . Ss

_ **, . . a needy child (1) who has been deprived of
parental support or care by reason of the death, con-
. .+ tinued absence from the-home, or physical or meptal. -
incapacity of a parent, and who is living with his
father, mother, grandfather, ‘grandmother, brother,
sister,.stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister,
uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, or niece, in a place
of residence maintained by one or more of such rela-,
tives as his or their own home, and (2) who is (A)
under the age of eighteen or (B) under the age of
twenty-one and (as determined by. the Staté in ac-
cordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary)

~.° 8 Alabama requires defendants to. provide Aid to Dependent

Children financial assistance “on behalf of any needy child who.
is a dependent child as defined in the Federal Social Security Act
or amendments theréto-who shall comply- with the applicable re-
quirements of this chapter, and who: (a) Has not sufficient income
and resources from 4ll sources to provide a reasonable subsistence .
compatible with decency and health; (b) who- meets any one of
the following residence requirements—(1) Has resided within the’
state for one year immediately preceding the application for aid, or
(2) was born within the state within one year immediately preced-
ing the application for aid, or whose parent or other near relative
(as defined in the Federal Social Security Act) with whom the
child is living has resided in the state for one fear immediately
preceding the birth of said child; (c) has not directly or indirectly
disposed’ of or deprived himself of any property for the purpose
of qualifying for the benefits of this chapter; and (d) is not re-
ceiving any other type of public assistance for which federal match-
ing is available. . . .”.Code of Alabama, Title 49,°§ 17 (14). -

on

a student regularly attending a school, college, or
university, its equivalent, or regularly attending a
course of vocational or technical training oamgnes to
fit him for gainful employment;”’

Three of the plaintiff children have not since 1955 re-
ceived parental support or care from their father, who

- has been dead since that year. The fourth plaintiff child |

has not for several years received parental support or care
from his father, who has been continuously absent for
many years. All the ‘plaintiff children are living in the
home of their mother, plaintiff Sylvester Smith, and all
are under the age of 18 and are not receiving any other
type of public assistance.. The sole income of plaintiff —
Smith and her children is the sum otf $16 per week, which
sum represents wages paid to her for working as a wait-.
ress; said income is below the financial standards promul-
pares by the defendants as‘ necessary for a subsistence’
compatible with decency and health. In October 1966,
Sylvester Smith was advised by an employee agent of the

defendants that the ‘‘substitute father’’ of the Smith chil-

dren ‘was Willie E. Williams; that she and her children
were no longer eligible for Aid to Dependent Children

financial: agsistance because Mr. Williams was the ‘‘sub-

stitute father,’ and that Mrs. Smith and_'the children

should look to Mr. Williams for financial support. There-_ -

after, the Aid to Dependent Children financial assistance
was formally terminated through the use of the ‘‘substi-

tute father’’ regulation. The evidence reflects that Willie

E. Williams has nine children of his own and that he lives
with his family, including his wife and eight of their nine
children, who are dependent on him’ for support. Wi
E. Williams is not now, nor was hé at the time wine
termination of benefits to the plaintiffs, willing or able to,

- gupport. the Smith children. Willie E. Williams is ‘the

. father of none*6f the children of plaintiff Sylvester Smith

and does not live in the Smith home. While the evidence

on this point is conflicting, it reflects with reasonable cet-
tainty that Dallas County, Alabama caseworker Mrs. Jac-
quelyn Stancil received a report that Willie E. Williams

was periodically visiting in the home of Sylvester Smith ©

and that from time to time Willie E. Williams and Syl-
_ vester Smith were engaging in sexual activity. The length
or frequency of Willie’ E. Williams’ visits with Sylvester
Smith does not appear. Sylvester Smith failed to submit
‘‘evidence showing that the relationship’’ had been discon-
tinued.

Ii. me
Some discussion of the federal-state welfare relation-

ship, particularly the negotiation concerning the promul- -

gation of policies such as are now under consideration,

provides some pertinent historical background. In Janu-

ary 1961, the Secretary of Healt, Education and Welfare
—after.a hearing on a plan thpt had been adopted and
promulgated by the State of Louisiana which was very
similar to the rule now under. consideration—stated what
_later became known as the ‘‘Flemming Ruling’’:* |

‘*I. have concluded that when a needy child who

- otherwise fits within the Aid to Dependent Children
program of the State is denied the funds that are
admittedly needed to provide the basic essentials of
life itself, because of the behavior of his’ parent or

_ other .relative, the State plan imposes a coridition of

eligibility that bears no just relationship to the Aid .

to Dependent Children pré am. I therefore believe
that this Department should inform the State agencies
administering Aid to Dependent Children plans that

4 Notice of this ruling was given to all “State Agencies Admin-
istering Approved Public Assistance Plans,” including the Alabama

Department of Pensions and Security, on January 17; 1961 in ~

State Letter No. 452, Bureau of Public Assistance, Sogial Security

Administration, Department of Health, Edycation- and Welfare,

page 1.

ore

ake
eligibility conditions with the effect described above
-are not compatible with entitlement for continued
Federal grants.’’

The United States Commissioner of Social Security, fol-
lowing the ‘‘Flemming ee, issued a statement to the-
effect: Pe

“A State plan. for aid to dependent children may
‘not impose-an eligibility condition that woul@ deny
assistance with respect to a needy child on the basis
that the home conditions in which the child lives are
unsuitable, while the child continues to reside in the
_ home. Assistance will therefore be continued during ©
the time efforts are being made either to improve the
home conditions or to make arrangements for the
child elsewhere.’’ |

It was announced that the United States Department of
Health, Education and Welfare’s reasons for rejecting
guch policies were that:®

“It is of great basiaeteicle that State agencies
should be concerned about the effects on children of
‘the environment in which they are living and that
services be.provided which will be directed toward
_affording the children, maximum protection and
i strengthening their family life. Whenever there is a
question of the suitability of the home for the child’s
upbringing, steps should be taken to correct the situa-
tion or, in the alternative, to arrange for other ap-
propriate care of the*child. It is completely incon-
sistent, howéver, to declare a horne unsuitable for a
child to receive assistance and at the same time per-
ae mit him to remain in the same home exposed to the
- same: environment. 7.

5 Tbid., p. 2.
61d pee 2

—#—

Even before the Ninninian Ruling” and as early as
April 1956, the then Alabama Commissioner of Welfare
and the federal authorities corresponded with some fre-
quency in an effort to determine whether the Alabama
policy was in conformity with federal requirements inso-
far as that policy related to ‘‘suitable family’? homes, and
in April 1959 the United States Department of Health,
Education and -Welfare by letter indicated certain sub- ©
stantial defects in legislation that was being proposed for
the State of Alabama at that time:

*‘Section 2 of the proposed legislation defines a
‘suitable home’ as one which provides a-‘stable en-.
vironment’ and lists criteria te be applied to the
determination gf a ‘suitable home’ and a ‘stable en-
vironment’. It appears under this definition that the

_ birth status of the child of a non-marital, but stable, °
union would not affect eligibility if the home was _
determined suitable. However, one of the criteria
listed—‘has continued to have illegitimate children’
raises a question as to its meaning: and intent. If,
regardless the fact that the home provided a ‘stable
environmen#, the children were to be denied ADC
because all the children were illegitimate, or bechuse
a number of them were illegitimate, it would raise
a question of reasonable classification.’’

> ° * * ££ © © &@ &

“Section 3 raises a number of questions as to its
meaning and its consistency with Section 2. Can
‘illicit relationships’ be interpreted as not including
a ‘stable environment’, i. e., would a child of a
‘stable union’ born after the receipt of ADC be re-
garded as illegitimate?

‘Tf interpreted so that parents endeteteion a sta-
le relationship (nor marital) and providing a suit-
able home for the children receiving ADC because
of incapacity of one parent will be removed from ADC

_

if and when another child is born, it would raise a

question. The termination of assistance would be due
entirely to the birth of an illegitimate child rather
than to any change in. the home environment that had
been considered stable up to that point.”’

In May 1959 a new suitable home policy was submitted
to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
After review by that department, it was declar€d ‘‘unsuit-
able,”’ and then later, in August 1959, still another suit-
able home policy was sent to the federal authorities for
approval, with the same results. This negotiating con-
tinued, and in June 1961 the federal authorities replied
_ to an Alabama submission as follows:

‘‘Since HB 613 appears to contemplate denial of ~

assistance to the children who are permitted - to re-
main in their homes after finding that the home is

unsuitable it is inconsistent with Title IV of Social
Seeurity Act as amended by P. L. 87-31. Farther-

more, finding of unsuitability based solely on birth

status of child is ‘also inconsistent with Title IV.’’

Still later—and over two years after the ‘‘Flemming
. Ruling”’ —the federal authorities, by letter dated June 12,
1963, advised the welfare authorities for the State of

. Alabama that the ‘‘suitable home’? policy bills then being

submitted to the Alabama Legislature

‘«.. . appear to deny ‘assistance to a needy child

because he is found living in a home considered to be
unsuitable. Since the proposed legislation provides
for denial of assistance under the AFDC program
while the child remains in the. home without provid-

ing for other ‘adequate care and assistance for such,

child,’ it cannot be considered to be consistent with
ine Social Security Act.”

; The evidence in this case vellneta that tenmnodintaly after
’ his. appointment in January of 1963, Ruben K. -King,

s

of

4 - .

x ; Sy ;

gr | ‘ ——_ 51 aaa | s .

; present’ Commissioner of the Alabama State Department
of Pensions and Security, commenced a complete study of
the Aid to Dependent Children program ‘in the State of

_ Alabama; this study led to the adoption and promulgation
of the’ ‘‘substitute parent’? policy now under ~onsidera-.
tion.” Par: , : : .

-

The ‘‘substitute father’’ regulation presently under con-
sideration by this Court is substantially the same as the

regulation first submitted to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare in September 1964 by Commis-
sioner King and his organization. Upon receiving the
Alabama ‘‘substitute father’’ regulation, the Atlanta Re-
‘gional Director for the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, by letter dated August 31, 1964, responded
by stating: Pe nea ae oaN |

-

1 While the plaintiffs placed considerable emphasis upon facts
strongly indicating that the “substitute father” regulation was de-
signed to discriminate and has the effect of discriminating against
Negroes, by reason of the facts presented, this case does not rest
upon racial considerations and therefore the decision should not rest
upon such considerations. On the contrary, this decision should be
and will be designed to enure to the benefit of all needy children

’ regardless of their race or color. The Equal Protection Clause is

‘not restricted in its application to the protection of the rights of -
Negroes. It-is more far-reaching, protecting. the rights of any identi-
fiable class. See, e. g., the opinion of another panel of this Court,
White v. Crook, 251 F. Supp, 401, 408-09 (M. D. Ala. 1966).

‘In this connection, the Alabama Commissioner, Mr. King, testi-
fied that’ since June 1964, wlien the “substitute father” regulation
was promulgated, the Alabama Aid to Dependent Children rolls —
have been reduced. by 16,000 children. Gommissioner King’s testi-
mony on this point was as follows: ’

““Q. Can you tell us the approximate number of recipients
under the child eligible rule?

A. Do you want it prior to the substitute parent poNty?

Q. Prior to and subsequent to. -

A. In June of 1964, there .were 22,373 cases.in Aid to De-
pendent Children. In June of 1964, there were 92,124 re-
cipients: of these, 72,764 were children. In January of 1967,
there were 71,228 teal number of pe Teg the ADC

program; of which 56,822 were children.” .

_

‘*We have reviewed Administrative Letter No. 1919
which amended, effective July 7, 1964, the approved
Alabama AFDC plan. This Administrative Letter
purports to amend your policies on deprivation of
parental support or care, with the specifically ‘stated
purpose of restricting the AFDC* caseload. This
amendment goes far beyond your presently approved
pian in that it results in ineligibility .of, all children
living in a home with a mother; if she cohabits with
a man who is not her husband, or is illegitimately
pregnant, or has given birth to an illegitimate child
within the preceding six months, irrespective of
whether the man has any family relationship with
the mother and the child or children. ;

‘This policy raises a serious question with Section
404(b) of the Social Security Act and State Letter
No. 452 by denying aid ‘with respect to a child be-
cause of the conditions in the home in which the child
resides’. ‘Under the identified Federal law and policy
a State may not impose an eligibility condition that
would deny assistance with respect to a needy child.
on the basis of behavior of the mother or other un-
suitable conditions in the home so long as the child
continues to reside in the home. The provisions of
Administrative Letter No. 1919 seem clearly to be
out of conformity with such law and policy.

‘‘Other provisions of the po ief imposing the bur-
den on the mother with respect to proof of identity
of .the father or his whereabouts appear to. be so un-
_ reasonable as to bring into question their acceptability
under Federal policy. Eligibility may not be condi--
tioned upon requirements which go beyend the par-
ent’s ability to meet. _ |

‘The ‘Regional office is unable to accept Adminis-
trative Letter No. 1919 for incorporation into your ap- -
proved AFDC plan. We would suggest, therefore, that

ead

“‘The attempted classification . .. .- must always
‘rest upon some difference which hone a reasonable
“and just relation to the act in respect to which the
elassification is proposed, and can never be made arbi-
. trarily and’ without any such basis.’’>

be

‘The Supreme Court continued by. pointing out ‘that “arbi-

trary selection can never be justified by calling it classi-- -
fication.’ ’? 165 U.S. at 159, This doctrine of constitutional .

' Jaw has developed to the extent. that its application may

be stated as ‘‘rules.’’ Those rules were reiterated in Morey

-v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 463-64, 17 8. Ct. 1344,. 1 L. Ed. 2d

1485 (1957). | ——*

“‘The rules for testing a discrimination have been
summarized as follows:

- “7. Fhe equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment does not take from the State the power _
to classify i in the adoption of police laws, but admits
of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion in that
regard, and avoids what is done only when it is: with:
out any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbi-
trary. 2. A classification having. some reasonable basis
does not offend against that clause merely because it
_- is not made with mathematical nicety or because in
practice it results in some inequality. 3. When the
_ classification in such a law is called: in question, if any
state of facts reasonably can be ‘conceived that would
sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the
time the law was enacted must be assumed. 4. One
who assails. the classification in such a law must carry »
the burden of showing that it does not re¥t upon any
_ reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.’ Lindsley .
v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78-79.”’

For illustrations of the breadth pf factual situations in _
which these rules. apply, see also Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384

55

U.S. 305, 308, 309, 86 S. Ct. 1497, 16 L* Ed. 2d 577 (1966) ;
McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S. Ct. 283, 13 L.
Ed. 2d 222 (1964) and cases cited, 379 U.S. at 190, 191;
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 478, 14 .s. Ct. 667, 98
L. Ed. 866 (1954). ee

This Court is clear to the conclusion that Alabama’s
“substitute father’’ regulation creates precisely .the type
of classification prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.
.The Alabama regulation directs that Aid to Dependent
Children -finaricial assistance not, ‘be given to a class of.
children who meet the statutory eligibility requirements
and thgt this financial assistance be denied for an arbitrary
reasou—the alleged sexual behavior of the mother; such a
reason is wholly unrelated to any purpose of the Aid to
Dependent Children statutes. The ‘basic purpose of the
program (Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.,
§ 601 et seq.) and the Alabama statute (Code of Alabama,
Title 49, $17) is to provide financial assistance to needy |
children who are deprived of the support and care of one |
of their parents. As a matter of fact, the Alab statute
' requires the defendants to furnish Aid to Dependent Chil--
dren financial assistance ‘‘on behalf of any needy child
who is a dependent child as defined in the Federal Social
Security Act.’’ As to this aspect of the program, the fed-
eral act defines a ‘‘dependent child’’’ as one who is ‘‘de-
prived of parental support or care by reason of the death,
continued absence from the home; or physical ‘or mental
incapacity of a parent.’? Despite this clear legislative pur-.
pose of both the federal and Alabama statutes, the ‘‘sub-
stitute father’’ regulation directs that aid shall not be

given to a particular class of needy dependent children -

who are deprived of ,parental support or care as a result of

-. the death, or continuois absence of their father from the

home, and who in. all other t¢spects meet the statutory
eligibility requirements. In this regard, the Alabama regu-
lation sets forth three situations in which needy dependent

. Se -

NRE ALARA A q

~
fi He a a A Ail AN cat Had ig pais
2 ‘

tas ue

Sar

children, otherwise eligible, are to be denied this financial
assistance:
‘¢(1) When a man (not married to the mother and
. not the father of the children) lives in the home ‘for
_ the purpose of cohabitation’ “with the mother; bi

“*(2) When a man -(not married to the moth and
not the father of the- children) visits the home ‘for ~

© the purpose of cohabiting’ with the mother;

_“(3) When a man (not married to the mother and
not the father of the children) ‘cohabits’ with the
mother ‘elsewhere’, i.e., outside the home.’’

It is quite clear, therefore, that the Alabama regulation is

directed at a dependent child or. children whose mother
has non-marital sexual relations with a man or men—or,
more broadly, whose mother’s conduct i immoral, accord-
ing to the Alabama authorities—and is not in anywise
directed to either the support or care of the children by
the mother or by ‘the statutorily ‘created “ No. 2495-N.
Ruben K. King et al.,
Defendants. |

Deposition of Mr. Ruben K. King, taken in the above
_ styled cause pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-.
cedure, on the 9th day of March, 1967, at 11:00 a. m., in
the office of Commissioner King, of the Department of
Pensions and Security, State Administrative Building,
Montgomery, Alabama, before Ira Fred Watson, a Court
‘Reporter, and a Notary Public at Large for the State of

— 64 — °
Appearances:
Hon. Charles S. Conley and Hon. Martin Garbus hie
the Plaintiffs. : a
Hon. Mary Lee Stapp and Hon. Carol Miller for the
Defendants.
[2] | INDEX.
Witness | ’ Direct in Redirect
Mr. Buben:K. King °° ~ ae. 71 71
) : “Exhibits, ee
) Bxhibit No. 13 .......- Ar "Sea ehe mua a |
ie ME a, La Lo cee Scactaueaanemaes ee
| MEM ok tc eee
| Exhibit Mp, 16 ...........-.- eee er re iene
Exhibit No. 17 ...... Pe ratte 7 eee
Webbie Me, WA ccosa sg scccesavesssceeesee Pee et
a Nn oe aaa ee 10~
| Exhibit No. 20 .........i600000 eee er
Exhibit No. 21-A, 21-B,.21-(.dnd 21-D ...0.......... 12
acc bes upc 13
a OP os sis eases ieee ae
i | | : : \\
[3] : | Stipulation. :

It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel rep-
resenting the parties that the deposition of Mr. Ruben. K. -
King may be taken before Ira Fred Watson, as Commis-
sioner, at the offices of Mr. King, No. 500, State Admin- S

ae
istrative Building, Montgomery, Alabama, on March 9,
1967, at 11:00 a. m., and that all notice and issuance of
a commission are waives and the parties further agree .
that the submission of said deposition to ‘the witness for
reading and signature is waived, the said deposition to
have the same force: gnd effect as if full compliance has

been had with all laws and rules of court relating to the
taking of depositions.

-It is further agreed’ that it shall not be necessary for
‘any objections to be made by counsel to say questions
except as to form or leading questions, and that ‘counsel

for both Plaintiff and Defendant may make objections —

and assign grounds at the time and place of trial ors orat
-* the- time the said deposition. is offered in: evidence or
~ prior “thereto. :

It i is further. agreed that notice - the party taking the
deposition of the. filing’ of said deposition to any. or all
other parties is hereby waived.

[4] oie ae Deposition.

Whereupon,

RUBEN K. KIN G,
aie first being duly sworn, was examined, and deposed
as follows: :

Direct Examination,
by Mr. Conley:
Q. Would you state your name, please?
A. Ruben K. King.
Q. Avid where do you reside?
A. At Alexander City, Alabama. eee
Q. Where are you employed, Mr. King?

A. I am employed with the State Department of Pen- ;

sions and Security, Montgomery, Alabama-

«

4

_-_ =
Q. What specitically is $ your commission, sirt |
_ A, Conmutesioner, State —_——- of Pensions and
Security. :
Q. How long Have you been wae the Department of
Pensions and ‘Security? :
A. Since January 15, 1963. . ‘ ee.

* Q. Now, Mr. King, can you state ‘the number or. én ap-

proximate 1 number of persons under your supervision?

A. Direct’ ‘supervision, Or working with the Department
throughout the State?

'Q. Working with the Department i aus the State.
[5] A. Approximately fifteen hundred. —

Q. Approximately fifteen hundred?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many persons are ‘oe your direct super-
vision t

_ A. Here in the State = I think er there
are 175. , f

Q. All right, sir.

. A. The rest of them are in the 67 County offices
throughout the State.

Q. Now, Mr. King, are you familiar with the Substitute
Parent Rule? |

A. Yes, sir, I am fiitiee with it.

Q. Would you explain briefly how this =" was ar-
rived at?
‘ A. When I came down as Commissioner in 1963, I was
aware at that time that there was a great deal of contro-
versy. I think the Aid: to Dependent Children program
is. the most controversial, not only here in the State of
Alabama, but any other State in the Union. There was a
great deal of talk at that time about abolishing the pro-
gram; period. We were getting a great deal of inquiries.
from the people throughout the. State, as well as members
of the Legislature; and so I asked for a complete investi-
gation of this program. A complete investigation of the

—_ an

program was made. After it was ‘side it was pretty
- 6] apparent that there were a great many weaknesses
in the program. It pointed out for one thing, the laxity
__of the non-support laws in. this State. We immediately
went before the Legislature in regular session, and asked
that non-support be made a felony in this State. After
that that, it also pointed out that there were : many people

in and out of thé homes who were enjoying the privileges —

of the husband, but who were not carrying the responsi-
bilities of the home. So, in order to save the whole pro-
- gram, there had to be something done. After conferring
with many, many people in this State, we came 7 with
the Substitute Parent policy.

Q. Were public hearings held prior to the adoption of
this?

A. No, there were no public hearings held. -

Q. And who finally formulated the rule? ‘ad

A.‘ finally formulated the rule, with the help of my
Department.

Q. Can you tell us the approximate t the number of re-
cipients under the child eligible rule?”

A. Do you want it prior to the substitute parent ws

Q. Prior to and subsequent to.

A. In’ June of 1964, there. were 22,373 cases in Aid to
Dependent Children. In June of 1964, there were 92,124
[7] recipients: of these, 72, 764 were children. In January
’ of 1967, there were 71,228. total number ,of recipients

under the’ ADC program; of which 56,822 wile children. _

(Off record discussion. )

Mr. Garbus: I would suggest that we mark as Exhibits -

13 and 14, the two decuments just referred to by Mr.
King. °

Q. (By Mer _ Garbus) Mr. King, will you describe for
the recor’ “© first document that-you referted to?

A. Ali right. ‘The first document showing that there

~ were 92,124 recipients under ADC, is referred to as Sta-

At

ia
tistics, dated J une, 1964, State of Alabama, —

_ of Pensions and’ Security.

(The docunient referred to, Witness King, was aoe
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 13.) . ,

The Exhibit showing 71,228 people as the whine of .
recipients in January of 1967, of which 56,822 were chil-
dren, is shown as Statistics, January, 1967, o— of Ala-
bama, Department of Pensions and Sectrit |

(The document referred to, Witness = was marked

"cas Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 14.)

Q. Mr. King, may we mark as Exhibits 15 and 16, the ©
documents which you have before you, and which I would
appreciate if you would describe. e:

A. All right. Comparative. case load data’ for the
[8] months of May; 1964 and June of ’64, will be referred
to as Exhibit No. 16. ‘é

(The document referred to, Witness King, was sere
as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 15. )

Comparative case loads data for the months of ‘Decem-
ber, 1966 and January, 1967, will be referred to as Pisin-
tiff’s Exhibit No.~16. -

. (The document referred to, Witness King, was marked
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 16. ) ;

_Q. (By Mr. Conley) Cen you give us a further ns.
down on the number of recipients ho are Negro and the °
number who are White? . Pi :

. A During that particular timet

Q. Yes, sir.

_. A. I don’t know if we have them for these particular
months, because we only have, those sfatistics are only -
. made available, I believe, in January.and June of each.

Mr. Garbus: May we mark, that document as Plaintiff’s

Exhibit No. 17. | , “ne

*.

—69 —

(The document referred to, Witness” King, ‘was marked
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 17.)

. (Off record discussion.) 7

Witness: Public Assistance cases for Dévember of 1966
classified by Race, will be shown as Plaintiff’s Exhibit
[8-A] No. 17. Now, you asked a specific question in regard -
to the number of Negro? 4

Q. Yes. ;
A. Are you talking about in our Xe case load, or
overall? gate
' Q. ADC case load. $f

A. In December of 1966,. there were a total of 17,157.
families in this State. The figure shows that 67.3 per cent
were members of the Negro Race, 32.4 per cent were
members of the White Race, the other was three tenths
of one per cent of other Races. These figures here =
also show a breakdown by counties also.

Q. What isthe figure then for the overall welfare =
_ gram? |

(Off record ileal.

A. Total cases receiving public assistance for December ;
of 1966 showed that there were a total of 149,063 in all
categories tf public assistance; and 56.3 were White; 43.6
per cent were members'ef the Negro Race; and, one-tenth
of one per cent were members of other Races.

Q. Can you give“us the approximate amount or the
average amoung of checks received for this program?»

_ A. Will you re-phrase your question? I am not sure
that I understand it.

Q. Can you give us an approximate figure as’ to the
"amount each family received, ‘first under the. ADC pro-
gram? .

[9] Mrs. Stapp: Mr. Conley, do you mean the amount,
the total amount of money, or do you mean the indi-
ee \

$

4

to

4

_— =

Mr. Conley: The total amount of money which was
received.

The Witness: I don’t think ‘that our figures wéuld
show that. These documents are going to be in evidence.
I don’t think that it shows the amount of money that
they are getting. These statistical bulletins over here

may show something; but I don’t think that it is going to .
show in regard to’ Race. It will show you what the

average payments were:

Q. (By Mr. Conley) Well, what about the average pay-

ments then? ;
“ A. All right. In June of ,1964, the average payment
per family was $48.15, or $11.69 per recipient. This was
in June of 1964, as shown by Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 13.
In Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 14, referring to the amount of
payment per family as of January of 1967, shows that
the average payment per family was $52. 68, $12.72 ad
recipient.

Q. Have you additional information which would celate
to the amount of the average payment received by the
Negro as opposed to the White family, a White man?

A. I don’t think that we have it broken down.: We

’ have the number of recipients, but I don’t think that we
have it that way. I am not aware of any statistics which

[10] would show that.

Q. Have you any statistics to show the . saad of
times in ’65 and ’66 where the Substitute Parent Rule
has been invoked ‘for the purpose of: withdrawing cover-—
age?

A. I don’t know. I think your ai themselves will
show. I would assume that your greatest reduction, Mr.
Conley, in the number. of recipients and families, were,
as a result, of your Substitute- Parent policy, I don’t

- know that we have any eae that will show that in
particular. ‘ eens

(Off record Section.)

fs ees

Mrs. Stapp: Mr. King, ‘this is the only thing that has
been done that we know to date on the Substitute Parent
policy. This is the only material that we know of that
has been done on this policy as such.

Mr. Garbus: We would like to mark that document
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 18. ;

(The above-mentioned document, Witness King, was
marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No, 18.) ,

The Witneds: Could we also mark as Plaintiff’s Ex-
- hibit No. 19, Public Assistance cases’for June of (1964, .
classified by Race?

‘(The document referred to, Witness King, was marked
as. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 19.) , |

[11] .Q. ‘(By Mr. Conley) Is it my understanding that
you don’t have any information with respect to the num-
ber of eases which would reflect-——
‘A. Well, we have something here which shows Public
Assistance cases closed because of change in Agency
policy inevitable because of substitute or This is
July, 1964 to June of 1965. e,

(Question by Mr. Garbus):— _

—Q.

The Witness: Well, you are asking for a conclusion on
my part.

Mr. Garbus: Yes.
The Witness: And I have no conclusion.
Q. (By, Mr. Garbus) In other words, as far as you are

“~ concerned, you don’t know why the, as I understand it,
- Substitute Parent policy that you have presently submitte

has not been approved; is that right? .

A. I don’t know that it has not: and if you ask me why
any objection, I know of no objections.

Q. Do you understand that the Substitute Parent policy

has been approved? ,

A. No. .
[44] Q. Do you know of any reason why it hasn’t been
approved?

A. No. - 2

Q. You have no idea at all as to why it hasn’t been
epproved?

A. Other than, other than ane ¢ that we » have

already shown——
Q. What is your understanding of why the policy has

not yet been approved?
A: I have no understanding as to why. I can’t under- -

stand why it hasn’t been approved. We ere it
for approval.

(Off record discussion. )

Mr. Garbus: Back on the record. All right, | Mr. King.
_ The Witness: Let’s put it on record. I don’t know why

°

a ll ta

the policy hasn’t been approved, because I think that it
is a very good policy. 5
Q. (By Mr. Garbus) And after reading the letters of
Mr. Steininger and Mr. Perry that were addressed to you
since 1964, you still have no idea what the basis is for ©
their objection to the policy; is that right?- |
A. Because those letters have never, we have never got
an official letter from the Federal Government denying
: this policy,.and the reason for the denial. We have gotten
[45] letters from the Federal Government pointing out to
us certain objections to,the policy.
_ Q. And so you understand at least the Federal Govern-
~ ment’s objections to the policy?
A. Oh, yes, they are objecting to it.
Q. And the objections to the policy that they said in
1964, do they also apply to the: policy that you peeepany: |
have? |
A. I don’t know, I don’t know that, | think that that
would call for a conclusion on my part. |
Q. Have yon ever gotten.a letter from the Government
_». .. in which it said that the policy was out of conformity with
of the Social Security Act?
A. I-may have, but I don’t recall that we have gotten
one. Do you have such g letter in your files? Mr. Garbus, “
there are tons of mail that come across this desk; and I
am going to be honest when I say, I don’t know, and I (
don’t recall such a one apy ‘ |

. a

(Off record discussion. )

Mr. Garbus:. Let’s get back on the record. '
Q. (By Mr. Garbus) Is it your understanding then, Mr.
King, that, at this point that you are waiting for the ;
Government to make some kind of a decision on the Sub-
stitute Parent policies that you have submitted?
A. Well, we have been waiting now for over two years,
[46] two and a half years, for them to make a decision ; :

¢

‘our statistics do not show it

1

and they have had ample opportunities, and we have dis-

- cussed it with them on several different ‘occasions.

Q. Would it change your testimony if I were to tell you
that Mr. Steininger testified that they were waiting for you
to submit a Substitute Parent policy - complied with

. the Social Security Act?

A. As far as I know, I have never gotten a letter from.
Mr: Steininger to that effect that I had to. We have sub-
mitted a policy to them. They had a right to either deny
it or to approve it, and they have never done either one.
Now if we had gotten an official denial.from them, then we

: would have had to in order to continue to get Federal’
; funds, come back with a policy that would be in conformity .

with what they interpret the Social Security Act, or we

. would have had the right to go into court and ask an in-

junction prohibiting their interpretation; but we have

never gotten a denial; and until such time as we have

gotten a denial, then we operated under what we con-

‘sidered to be a valid policy, and which we still consider
- to be a valid policy.

Q. The records indicate that specified number of sub-
stitute parent cases were closed during the first year of
the policy. By that; I'am referring to: Plaintiff’s Ex-
hibit No. 20. Do you have any breakdown as to the race
[47] of the people——

A. No, sir, we do not. >

Q. pane apparently—who are Negro?

A. The individual cases I am sure would show it, but

Q. Do your county——
-A. ——I would assume, I would assume that in as much
as some 67 per cent of our ADC cases are Negroes, I

. would assume that most of them are Negroes.

Q. But. do you what percentage—Withdraw that. Now,
Subdivision Three of the Substitute Father regulation

states, quote, ‘‘He does not frequent the home, but co-

habits with the child’s natural or adopted mother else-

—————K—K—K—K—K—K—K—_———S . “.
where,’’ end quote. Is it your understanding that by his
not frequenting the home, we are referring to someone .
who never comes into the home? :
A. (No response.) |
Mrs. Stapp: Would you state that sisi iaiits
The Witness: Well, let me find what he is talking about.
Mrs. Stapp: See page 24.

(Off record discussion. )

Mr. Garbus: _ You used frequently twice, and I just
wanted to make sure in which way it was being used. -

‘ -The Witness: Well, of course, as I said to. [48]. begin .
with, the word cohabitation, in going back to Black’s dic-
tionary’s definition, I think refers to not only relationship
in the home, but out of the. home.

Q. (By Mr. Garbus) I am not now referring to the
definition of the term cohabitation, I am referring to
the— |

"A. The application of the substitute iia could be ap- -
plied in those cases in some instances where the man does

_ hot go to the home.

Q. In other words, it could. be applied where the man
never visited the home—— |

A. That’s correct. _

Q. ——Nor ever seen the children?

A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. Is that portion of the Substitute Father regulation
the same as the Suitable Home provision that you had in
your law prior to 1962?

Mrs. Stapp: Off the record, please.

“(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Garbus: Back on the record.

Q.-(By Mr. Garbus) Mr. King—Well, now pn were
we? Mr. Reporter, will a please read back the previous
question? .

(The previous question was read back by the Reporter.)

pay . beer

aa

[49] Q. (By Mr. Garbus) What is your answer? -

A. No.

Q. Now; Mr. King, I show you Table No.2 on Plain-
tiff’s Exhibit No. 22, which has a breakdown of the
status of ‘the. father with respect to eligibility of the
children for ADC, and the document has-a racial break-
down with respect to those families that were on ADC .
where ‘the father was divorced, separated, or separated
without a court’s decree, deserting, not married to the
mother, in prison, or absent for another reason, and I
ask you whether you have those same statistics for any
period of time since the implementation and application

of the Substitute Parent rule?
A. No, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. King, I show you a ‘ine data September »
11, 1964, which purports to be your letter to Mr. Perry,
the originalcopy of which had been certified as an ex-
hibit-in the examination of Mr. Steininger in the presence
of. Mrs. Stapp; and I ask you to read it.

A. Read the letter verbatim? ‘8

Q. No, not out loud, but just to yourself.

A. All right, sir.

(The witness examines same.)

Q. Mr. King, I quote the sentence, ‘‘Furthermore it
appears that the Department of Health, Education and
[50] Welfare believes that aid should be given to a
family even though the relationship between the mother
and a substitute father is unbroken,’’ end quote. Is it
your interpretation of the rule that if a man cohabits
with a woman, and then does not see her again for three
or four months, that relationship is unbroken?

A. It ‘would’ be my interpretation that if a man, as
I stated earlier, if man does not see a woman at least
once a week, in my opinion, in my opinion it is broken.

Q. So that if a man sees a woman once a week, and

—

doesn’t see her for the third and fourth weeks, in your
opinion that relationship would have been broken——
A. I don’t think that it would be frequently or regu-
larly. I don’t think that it is frequently or regularly.
Q. And that the term ‘‘unbroken’’ and “frequently”?
and ‘‘regularly’’ as used in the statute, has the same
. Meaning to you; is that right?
A, It could be, yes:
- Q. Now in your letter of bie 16, 1964, to Mr.
Steininger, you indicate that the proofs have been made ~
more reasonable which the mother must present to prove
discontinuance of relationship; will you please tell me
in what way the rule was changed?
A. For the record, let Miss Bryan answer the [51] al
. tion for me, |

- (Off record discussion.)

Mr. Garbus: Let’s get back on the record.
_ Mrs. Stapp: Will the Reporter anraadt read back the
previous question?

(The Reporter read back ‘the ihe question.)

‘Mr. Garbus: All right, if you want, we can let this \
lady testify, and that can be your answer.

The Witness: All right. For the record let her answer
the question for me. Mr. Reporter, this: is Miss Elizabeth
Bryan, Bureau Director of Public Assistance, State De-
partment of Pensions and Security.

‘Miss Elizabeth Bryan: What we attempted to do was
to help the mother secure the- information that she would
need in order to let the Department .know whether the
relationship is broken or not. In an earlier interpretation,
we had said that the proof was entirely with the mother: .
‘and now we have said, that it was the worker’s re-
“sponsibility to help the mother. Well, we also said that —
she could have thirty days before the case was terminated,
or before the application was rejected, with another

mean . * a

thirty days if it took that long to establish whether the |
_ relationship was broken .or not. Originally if “we had

found that the relationship was unbroken, we terminated

‘the case. We told them about this, but we terminated
[52] the case. |

_ Mr. Garbus: In what way was the worker to help the
woman who had been cut off?

Miss Bryan: Well, they would help her to know where
the man is at this time; and if we can help you to estab-.
lish- through any source where he is at this time, if he —
is living at another address, if he is married again—
sometimes they ddn’t know these things. Maybe they
haven’t seen him, and they just don’t know. So if he

has moved to another address, or is married, or hap-
_ pened to have gone to some institution: these are some

of the things that the worker helps the mother to estab-
lish. Also—— |
. Mr. Garbus: How would you help to establish themt
Miss Bryan: Because sometimes they just said that

- the person is gone, and we don’t know. We said that

this may be some of the reasons that you could show why
the relationship is broken. We also would say to her, ‘

. {Do you think that your minister could Id help you to know
. where the person is, or a member of yc your family. would.
_ know where he is?’’ These are the — that they try

to help the mother with. ,

Mr. Garbus: Other than the conversation that« you
would have,- was there any. otherhelp extended ?. |
[53] A. The worker would go to these people if they
wanted her to. I think that I should point out another
factor, too. Before an application was rejected or a case
was closed, the worker would talk with. the mother about -
the reasons for closing the case, and explain to her that
she had the right to come back and apply at any time
that she wished to do so.

Mr. Garbus: Mr. Conley, do you Have-any questions?

ies:

—101—

Mr. Conley: I have a couple of questions. .
Q. (By Mr. Conley) Is there a committee or a super-
_visor who has the authority to review dn immediate case.
. which is withdrawn by a case worker? .

A. (The Witness) I don’t know whether there is-a
supervisor, but I am sure, for example, we have, the
most skilled workers that we in the Welfare Department
in this State are assigned to the ADC caseload. When
I came here as Commissioner, Mr. -Conley, the average |
ease load in ADC was over two hundred per worker.
It is now down to sixty. We have placed our most skilled
workers in our ADC category; and: then, of course, we.
have supervisors, we have welfare supervisors that are

. _ assigned to these offices; and I am sure that these cases

are reviewed by a supervisor, or by the Director, which
she—in some counties I don’t think we have enough |
workers, haven’t been able to hire what we would call
a welfare supervisor; [54] and in those cases the County
Director would supervise and study the record; but ‘the

‘records, before a person is terminated, the record’ would ~

have to be approved by either ; @ supervisor or by a Di--
rector. :

(Off the meowd dieniieaten:) ‘

(Back on the record.) |

The Witness: In addition, we have a unit within the
Department that is our quality control unit, who also
takes a look at the records, a certain percentage of the
records, as well as our field supervisors who’ have certain
responsibilities in certain counties, and they also go; and -
not only that, at yéur meetings, at the meetings that
they have with your county boards, they also bring up
the people who have been terminated, as well as those
people who have been .put on the welfare rolls. |

Q. What I was trying to get at was the - possibility
that internally the a itself could make a re-

&

e

—12— ss

view; and if the Department was not satisfied with the

determination of a case worker, such a asus could be

placed back on the rolls?

A..Yes, if our quality econtrol unit or a field worker
is of the opiniow that there has been error, the people
can be placed back on.

Q. Do you have any statistics as to the number of
times that this has occurred?

[55] A. No, I don’t have any statistics. I think that you

could probably get more information from Miss Mildred

Beale when you take her deposition. She is head of the
Bureau of Field Service,. and she has primary responsi-

_ bility of the Quality Control Unit and the Field Work ©

Supervisors who go out into the field.

Q. When financial aid is withdrawn in an ADC wes
situation, is there any other kind of assistance which is
available, especially where there are children of tender
years? .

A. No, sir, we do not have a general assistance program

in the State. . oe

Q. Is it considered by your r Department, if the wieinas
amount of income is $52.00, as is provided by. the Btate, .
is this considered adequate?

A. No. It is considered by me to be very ibitsiheite,
and this has been a primary concern of mine ever since

I have been Commissioner. In fact we have raised the
‘percentages. When I came here, we were only paying

38 per cent of need. We now have up to 41 per cent of
need: and if I had my way, tomorrow it would be a hun-
dred per cent.

Q. And so in your judgment some kind of additional

| ‘aid would be needed in order to adequately provide a

family whether they came from a substitute parent or-
“otherwise?

A. That's exactly right: and in a with that, the
[56] records will show that I have written to every

JS

— 103 —

County Coémmissioner’s Court in this State, and so had
Governor Wallace when he was Governor, holding out
to them the need for direct distribution of the food stamp
_ program within that county. We went so far as to even .
. give them an estimate ‘as to’ the cost of the program as
well as the number of recipients that would be eligible, .
and pointed out to them, particularly in our ADC cases,
where the average payments were some $11.00 or $12.00
a month, that each person could receive an additional
$7.00. to $9.00 a month in food, depending on the amount
of commodities that were available within @ given period
of time. In other words, in our direct distribution pro-
gram, the amount of food per person ranges from $7.00
a month to $9.00 a month: and we pointed this out. I
mean. it would Have been in some cases—for example, our
payments now are twelve ‘dollars and something’ a month
—and if you could have given them $9. 00 more, you
would have been almost doubling it, the amount per. per-
son. We have called this to their attention. I have goné
all over the State of Alabama speaking to the Commis-
sioners’ Courts, and the civic clubs throughout this State.
And we. wrote a letter here in Montgomery County,‘and
we pointed out that here in Montgomery County that for
every dollar that Montgomery County put into the pro-
gram that they would get [57] over fifty dollars back in
“food; and I got a one paragraph letter back stating to me.
that there was no need for the program in this. County.

Q. Mr. King, would shor consider this Substitute ‘Parent
policy. as being highly punitive, particularly where there
are children of tender years, irrespective of Figce. or r Color,
who are the direct victims—— ,

A. No, I don’t consider it punitive, because the mother
has a dialed in this situation .to give up her pleasures
or to act like a woman ought to act like and continue to
receive aid; and-even in those cases later on where she
decides that she wants to continue her nightly pleasures,

4 a ei ~ ‘ = ee Ae ee ne ee
Pe re Pee ‘

al 104 —

if Pm decides bili on that she wants to cut it out, then
there are methods, and there are reasonable methods for
it-to. be removed: I don’t consider it to be punitive.

Q. I am thinking about the children now.

A. I do not consider it: to be punitive.

Q. Is there a transitional period’ provided so as to per-

mit other agencies to come in and assist so as- to keep

the children from being without food?
A. Well, this Agency works very closely with the Red

Cross; the Salvation Army: and I know of no cases where —
we have had children starved in this State as a result of ©

- [58] Q. Do you know what has been done——

A. This has been, this has been in line with something
that I have tried to do ever since I. have been Welfare
Commissioner; and it goes back to the days ‘when I used
to represent a poor woman who would come into my office
with three or four children hanging on to, and she is.
pregnant again because of some sorry lowdown man out
here running off and leaving her. I have a. very strong

‘conviction about making a man support his children—
black, white, pink, yellow, or whoever he is: and this was
just another example to me of trying to put the responsi- -

bility of. support where it ought to be; and that is, if a
man goes in that home; and he enjoys the privileges of
a husband, or, he stays. out of the home and still _enjoys

‘the’ privileges of a husband, he ought to have-the re-

sponsibility. 7

Q. Mr.: King, are you aware of any legal nidialiity
which can make it. mandatory that such so-called substi-
tute parent carry on the responsibility of supporting the
child, or accept the responsibility of supporting the child?

A. No, I know. of no legal machinery. If you are talk- .
ing about whether this ‘mother has the ‘Tight, to go in tog
-. court and seek support, no.

Q. (By Mr. Garbus) Do you know: of any one case,

‘ ,
(Deposition ended at 1:35 p.m.same day.) -. ,

[74] Certificate.
State of Alabama,
County of Montgomery.

I, Ira Fred Watson, a Court Reporter, and a Notary
Public for the State of Alabama at Large, do hereby cer-
tify that I reported in shorthand the foregoing deposition
of Ruben K. King, at the place stated in the caption
hereof; that the witness was by me sworn to speak the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that the .
witness was examined by counsel for the rhepedtive par-

ties; and.I later reduced my shorthand notes to typewrit-
_-ing, or under my direct supervision; and that the fore-: °

going pages, numbered 4 through 73, both inclusive, is a

true record of the testimony given by the witness.

I further certify that I am Theither or counsel nor of kin
to any said parties in said - ‘cause, nor in any manner in-
terested in the outcome thereof.

I further certify that the reading and signing of | the
deposition by the witness was waived by counsel and wit- -
negs _— | .

This 28 day of March, 196(. .
/s/ IRA FRED WATSON,
_ IRA FRED WATSON,
Special Court Reporter,
Notary Public.

a ND a Sai Ute wr fey a ae Milne DG RS RRR GS a
°

ae ae hate

a

DEPOSITION OF CLARA MAE LLOYD.
(Caption Omitted.)
(No. 4.as Noted on p. 1 of Stipulation Filed 4-27-67.)
_ March 9, 1967
Montgomery, Alabama. -

[1] Deposition of Clara Mae Lloyd, ‘taken in the above-
‘styled cause, pursuant to the Federal, Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, on: the 9th day of March, 1967, at or about 4:00
p. m., in Room 552, State Administrative Building, Mont-
gomery, Alabama, before Ira Fred Watson, a Court Re-
porter and a Notary Public for the State of Alabama at

\ Large.

Anohiatialane

Mr. Charles S. Conley 3 and Mr. Martin Garbus, appear-
7 ing on: behalf of Plaintiffs.

Mrs. Mary. Lee Stapp and Mrs. Carol Miller, appearing
on behalf of Defendants.

INDEX:

Deponent: Dir. Cross Red.
Clara Mae Lloyd . vivaseaeerene Pere 3 9 9
| Exhibits. i
Plaintiff’s: . For ident.
No. 24 (Project Report) Pere beteeeeeees : on
[2] ‘Stipulation.

It is stipulated and agreed by and between’ parties
tha? the Deposition of Clara. Mae Llofd may be taken
before Ira Fred Watson, as commissioner, in Room 552,
State Administrative Building, Montgomery, Alabama, at

-

eee ae

—117 —

or about 4: 00 | p. m.; and that all notice and issuance of
a commission are waived; and the parties further agree
that the submission of said deposition to the witness for
reading and signature is waived, the said depositjon to
have the same force and effect as if full compliancé.had
been had with all laws and rules of court relating to the
taking of depositions. It js further agreed that it shall.

not be necessary for any objections te be: made by counsel —

to any questions except as to form or leading questions, *

and that counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants may

» ‘make objections and assign grounds at the time and place

of trial or at the time the said deposition is offered in
evidence or ‘prior thereto.

. It is further agreed that ndtice by the party taking the
deposition of the filing of said deposition to any or all
other parties is hereby waived.

. [3] Deposition.

| _ CLARA MAE LLOYD,
being first duly sworn, was examined, and deposed as fol- .
lows:
Direct Examination, ih
by Mr. Garbus: . ; .
Q. What is your present position?
' A. Child Welfare Supervisor.

Q. Which county do you er a

A. Dallas County.

Q. And did you prepare a project titled “A Demon-
stration Project Strengthening Family Life for A. D. C. °
_ Children,’’’ living in homes where conditions were cur-
rently considered unsuitable? — . | |

A. Yes, I did, im cooperation with the Advisory Com-
mittee of the State Departmen: ‘of Pensions and Security.

Mr. Garbus: I ask that. this be — as -Plaintiff’s
Exhibit N 0. 24. ‘

— 118 —

| (Document referred to was marked for identification as
| Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 24. )

[4] Q. Was this initiated at the State. level, and were you .
the local project Director?
A. That’s right, it was initiated at the State level.
-Q. And the study was made of 493 children im 128 >"
A. D. C. families in Dallas County?
A. That’s right. : .
Q. Was one of the criteria for the iii of Dallas
County for the study, other than your own qualifications,
the fact that it was.a county which was both rural and
urban in: nature? -.
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q.: Did you in the course of your study draw any con- —
“clusions about the stability and permanency of relation-
ships where a man and woman lived together without the
formality of a marriage? a
A. We had a very distinct impression from our work
on the project that relationships of substitute father,
‘whether part time or full time, did in the majority of
_eases have real meaning to the children in the family. So
many of ‘the children called the man ‘‘Daddy,’”? they ©
would distinguish between Daddy. and ‘‘my real daddy”’;
and one of the [5] interesting things was that even after |
the relationship was broken, many of the children still
maintained that relationship with a friend of the mother.
'Q. Was it one of your conclusions of the study that,
irrpapective of the fact that a man-and a woman may or
may not have been married, that the’ presence of the sub-
stitute parent was a healthy thing ineoter as the chil-
' dren were concerned ? ee
A. In a lot of ‘the instances ‘where there was a . real
meaningful relationship there was.
Q. Did you find any difference with respect to relation-
ships where you had a formal marriage. and, relationships
where you did not have a formal marriage, insofar as the

— 119 —

strength of the relationship or the ane of the
: relationship to the. children?

' A. I would-certainly say ‘there was a tiem, i don’t’ -
know the extent—we didn’t draw any conclusions of the .
difference. .That:was not the purpose of the project. It —
was to strengthen these homes -where unsuitable factors —

. existed; and unsuitable factors included health—so many

different things—housing, financial, [6] —— and
those kinds of things.
_ Q. Would you say, based on your experience, that ‘the -
_presence of the substitute parent was a healthier situation
than if the .same situation: existed without his presence,
insofar as the children were concerned?

A. We didn’t draw any conclusions on that. ae

Q. Well, what is your — about it, based on your
experience?

A. I think this: I think where there has been emotional
deprivation; relationships mean more to those children .
than they do where there has not been emotional depriva-
tion. They latch onto any person, whether it is a short .
time or a long time. Some of them are more extensive
relationships than others. But as far as drawing a con-
clusion as one against the other, we did not, byt we did
look at ones that did have meaning.
| Q: Your feeling, then, is that these relationships in

many cases were healthy for the children?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you presently live in Dallas County?

A. Yes.

[7]. Q. Are you laid ‘eign by the ‘Welfare De-
partment?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen the application of the Substitute,
Parent rule? ©

A.- Yes, I have. :

‘Q. What is your observation about what it has done in
these family situations?

a ee,

- I ien't believe that I have had or seen iasiate Tm
Supervisor of these Child Welfare worke efs,.and we have
a very small number of A. D. C. cases in our case load;
and so, I don’t think I have seen enough. The ones that -

+ we have seen, where the parents are married, are where

_ the parents are married, if the substitute father and the
person gets married—we have, I know, of one where I
can recall where the relationship has gone on regardless
of the termination of the grant.

Q. Would you say that it has been your general ex-
perience: that the presence of the substitute father, which

- will deny benefits to the mother, a situation like that, re-
sults in the break-up of the relationship? a
. A. The ones that I know, they have not snied in
the break-up of the relationship. —~.. ©
[8] Q. Even though the aid has been cut off?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you discussed the application: of the eubatibate
‘parent rule with other professional people?

‘A. In general, in staff meetings, ete.

Q. And you have heard from some of these other people
in your profession. that the presence of the substitute
father rule leads to the break up of these relationships?

A. I don’t recall specifically that.

Q. Were you at any of these staff meetings inveived
in discussion concerning the substitute parent rule?

A. Not in mine—I have heard generally but not in

_ specific discussion on that one point.

Q. What is your opinion, based on your experience as
a social worker and your experience as local project di-
rector of this project, with respect to the relationship
between children—whether they be legitimate or illegiti-
mate—and the substitute parent, as it is affected ~ the |
substitute parent regulations?

A. I would say that-these relationships still [9] existed
after the termination because of a policy that the rela-

e

~it—

- . tionship was sufficiently stable ina good many instances

to withstand other pressures terminating the case.

- Mr. Garbus: I have no more questions.

| _ Cross-Examination,
by Mrs. Miller: § — .

Q. Mrs. Lloyd, I believe you testified to the effect that
the termination of aid often did not result in a breakup |
of the relationship between the parent and the substitute.
parent: Could you say whether termination of aid actu-
ally had the opposite effect?—did some of the people go

‘ahead and get married,-for example?

. A. Yes, they did.

ed Redirect Examination,
by Mr. Garbus: . _ 8 a ree
- Q. Do you know of any cases where the termination
of the aid resulted in thé man leaving the home? |

A. I do some where they have moved out of the home.
The relationship was not broken, but they moved out of ©
the home. —_ . ‘
_Q. They moved out of the home and the [10] relation |

was not broken; so that, as I understand it, they con- ,

tinued to receive aid—is that right?
ee ,
Q. Do you know of any instances where the relation-

ship. was permanently broken because of the substitute .

father regulation?
A. No. You see, it’s difficult in a way, because the

"present substitute policy was not in effect at the time

the Project was in effect.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that the present substitute ‘parent
policy is basically the same as the substitute parent policy
that went into effect towards the end ef your Project?

-A. Virtually the same, yes; I believe it-is. . .

Q. In your study of these relationships, you found in

RO OS FS A BR ee

- parent and the children—is that migat!

—=—
many cases, as I understand it, a great deal of Jove and
affection flowing between the mother and the substitute

e

A. That ’s right.
- Q. And without making a qualitative analysis of love

and affection, as I understand your*testimony, you found

relationships often aa good and healthy as in formal _

marriage situations—is. that right?
[11] A. Found them more or as strong?

Q. As strong as.

A, Yes, I would say for the _ being; hee were
temporary, and——

Mrs. Stapp: Your testimony earlier was. that in some -
instances——

The Witness: Ih some instances. There are always ex-

ceptions to the rule

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0022%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.