Margaret M. Barron, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc., Christine Spellers, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

Margaret M. Barron, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc., Christine Spellers, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc.

496 F.2d 1187, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7878

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1974

Docket1187

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 1187 (Margaret M. Barron, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc., Christine Spellers, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Margaret M. Barron, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc., Christine Spellers, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H. Harden, Etc., 496 F.2d 1187, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7878 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Barron and Spellers represent a class of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children who were the intended beneficiaries of court ordered child support payments but who received sporadic payments. By order dated September 27, 1973 the district court held, and we think correctly so, that the “averaging method” 1 employed by the defendants in determining income when unpredictable court ordered child support was received by recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children conflicted with federal regulations 2 and was invalid. Retroactive injunctive relief and financial assistance to members of plaintiffs’ class was denied. With this we also agree. Edelman v. Jordan, 1974, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 [42 U.S.L.W. 4419].

Prior to entry of final judgment the Georgia General Assembly enacted the Child Support Recovery Act, Title 99 § 901b et seq., which removed the plaintiffs’ and the class they represent from the operation of the averaging regulations, and the Act was implemented with respect to the plaintiffs.

We affirm the district court’s denial of retroactive injunctive relief and financial assistance to members of plaintiffs’ class. 3 The judgment enjoining the enforcement of the child support averaging policy, now superceded by the Child Support Recovery Act, is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss that portion of the proceedings as moot.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded with directions.

1

. The Child Support Averaging policy, Part III, § VII p. 9 of the State Plan for AFDC provides in pertinent part that “when income is unpredictable, the previous year’s income (6 months in AFDC) may be used to determine monthly income.”

2

. 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (3) (ii)(c).

3

. Plaintiffs’ dismissed their cross-appeals pursuant to Rule 42(b) F.R.A.P.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Barron and Spellers represent a class of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children who were the intended beneficiaries of court ordered child support payments but who received sporadic payments. By order dated September 27, 1973 the district court held, and we think correctly so, that the “averaging method” 1 employed by the defendants in determining income when unpredictable court ordered child support was received by recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children conflicted with federal regulations 2 and was invalid. Retroactive injunctive relief and financial assistance to members of plaintiffs’ class was denied. With this we also agree. Edelman v. Jordan, 1974, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 [42 U.S.L.W. 4419].

Prior to entry of final judgment the Georgia General Assembly enacted the Child Support Recovery Act, Title 99 § 901b et seq., which removed the plaintiffs’ and the class they represent from the operation of the averaging regulations, and the Act was implemented with respect to the plaintiffs.

We affirm the district court’s denial of retroactive injunctive relief and financial assistance to members of plaintiffs’ class. 3 The judgment enjoining the enforcement of the child support averaging policy, now superceded by the Child Support Recovery Act, is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss that portion of the proceedings as moot.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded with directions.

1

. The Child Support Averaging policy, Part III, § VII p. 9 of the State Plan for AFDC provides in pertinent part that “when income is unpredictable, the previous year’s income (6 months in AFDC) may be used to determine monthly income.”

2

. 45 C.F.R. § 233.20(a) (3) (ii)(c).

3

. Plaintiffs’ dismissed their cross-appeals pursuant to Rule 42(b) F.R.A.P.

In the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register/touch-Tone Decoder on the Telephone Line Bearing the Number 305-921, Etc. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (Southern Bell) v. United States of America, in the Matter of the Application of the United States of America for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register/touch-Tone Decoder on the Telephone Line Bearing the Number 305-920, Etc. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (Southern Bell) v. United States

541 F.2d 1151 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States

541 F.2d 1151 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Gutierrez v. Butz

415 F. Supp. 827 (District of Columbia, 1976)

Jordan v. Trainor

405 F. Supp. 802 (N.D. Illinois, 1975)

Kaisa v. Chang

396 F. Supp. 375 (D. Hawaii, 1975)

Bennie Stone Gooden, Jr., Etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Mississippi State University, Etc., Defendants-Appellants-Crossappellees

499 F.2d 441 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 1187, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margaret-m-barron-etc-v-betty-bellairs-etc-richard-h-harden-etc-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack