Shonkwiler v. Heckler

628 F. Supp. 1013, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22944
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedJanuary 31, 1985
DocketIP 84-1612-C
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 628 F. Supp. 1013 (Shonkwiler v. Heckler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shonkwiler v. Heckler, 628 F. Supp. 1013, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22944 (S.D. Ind. 1985).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

STECKLER, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction. The Court having considered plaintiffs’ motion and the briefs of the parties, having heard additional evidence at a hearing conducted on January 15,1985, and being duly advised in the premises makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. Margaret Heckler is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and as such is responsible for the implementation of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 601, et seq.

2. Donald L. Blinzinger is the Administrator of the Indiana State Department of Public Welfare and as such is responsible for policy and the implementation of the Aid to Families with Children (hereinafter referred to as AFDC) program pursuant to Ind.Code §§ 12-1-2-12 and 12-1-2-17.

3. Under 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(26)(A), all rights to support for eligible children receiving benefits under the AFDC program must be assigned to the State for collection, with the first fifty dollars ($50.00) returned to the AFDC family unit.

4. Under prior law, any child could choose whether to receive AFDC benefits regardless of the eligibility of their siblings and half-siblings.

5. Section 2640(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 was passed by Congress on July 18, 1984 and implemented in Indiana on November 1, 1984.

6. Section 2640(a) provides as follows:

“[T]hat in making the determination under paragraph (7) with respect to a dependent child and applying paragraph (8), the State agency shall (except as otherwise provided in this part) include—
(A) any parent of such child, and (B) any brother or sister of such child, if such brother or sister meets the conditions described in clauses (1) and (2) of section 406(a), if such parent, brother, or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child, and any income of or available for such parent, brother, or sister shall be included in making such determination and applying such paragraph with respect to the family (notwithstanding section 205(j), in the *1015 case of benefits provided under Title II).”

7. Section 2640(b)(1) provides as follows:

“[T]he first $50 of such amounts as are collected periodically which represent monthly support payments shall be paid to the family without affecting its eligibility for assistance or decreasing any amount otherwise payable as assistance to such family during such month.”

8. Pursuant to Section 2640(a), defendants are not required to exclude those children who are receiving Social Security benefits.

9. Defendant Heckler issued interim regulations on September 10, 1984 to amend 45 C.F.R. § 206.10 by adding the following:

“For AFDC only, in order for the family to be eligible, an application with respect to a dependent child must also include, if living in the same household and otherwise eligible for assistance:
* * * * * *
“(B) Any blood-related or adoptive brother or sister.”

10. Defendant Blinzinger implemented the Secretary’s regulation through issuance of Section 2581 of the Indiana AFDC Manual:

“AFDC may only be awarded to an eligible dependent child(ren) under age 18 for whom an application must include if living in the same household and otherwise eligible for assistance:
* * * * * *
“(b) Any natural or adoptive brother or sister.
“This includes an half-brother or half-sister who would be categorically eligible.”

11. Mikel Shonkwiler and Brenda Shonkwiler were married in Indianapolis, Indiana, on November 17, 1979.

12. At the time of Brenda Shonkwiler’s marriage to Mikel Shonkwiler she had, and currently has, custody of two minor children by a former marriage, namely, Jason Adams and Jessica Adams.

13. James L. Shonkwiler was bom of the marriage of Mikel Shonkwiler and Brenda Shonkwiler on April 28, 1982.

14. Mikel Shonkwiler and Brenda Shonkwiler were granted a dissolution of marriage on June 11, 1984.

15. James L. Shonkwiler is presently two years old and resides with his mother, Brenda Shonkwiler.

16. Mikel Shonkwiler pays to Brenda Shonkwiler for support of James L. Shonkwiler the sum of Three Hundred Sixty Dollars ($360.00) per month pursuant to The Agreement Regarding Child Custody, Support, Education and Property Settlement incorporated in the Decree of Dissolution, dated June 11, 1984, filed in the Superior Court of Marion County, Room No. 5, Cause No. S583-1517.

17. James L. Shonkwiler is currently covered by his father’s group health insurance, Policy No. 11051, with Golden Rule Insurance. Due to recurring ear infections, James L. Shonkwiler visits a physician approximately one time per month for the prescription of antibiotics. The insurance covers these costs and James L. Shonkwiler’s father, Mikel Shonkwiler, pays all medical expenses for his son not covered by the insurance, in addition to the support payments. The costs for such medical treatment, including the physician and prescriptions, average approximately Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month.

18. Effective November 1, 1984 Brenda Shonkwiler’s AFDC grant was increased from One Hundred Ninety-two Dollars ($192.00) to Two Hundred Fifty-six Dollars ($256.00) per month due to the inclusion of rent payments in the calculation of AFDC. This constitutes the assistance for Brenda Shonkwiler and the two half-siblings of James L. Shonkwiler, Jason Adams, and Jessica Adams.

19. In November of 1984 Brenda Shonkwiler received a letter from the Marion County Department of Public Welfare stating that James L. Shonkwiler would be added to the AFDC assistance unit and that an appointment should be arranged *1016 with her caseworker in order to discuss the effect of the addition of James L. Shonkwiler.

20. In a telephone conversation with Catherine Brewer, a caseworker, Brenda Shonkwiler stated that she would not keep the scheduled appointment because she had no intention of adding James L. Shonkwiler to the AFDC assistance unit.

21. Although the Shonkwiler household AFDC benefits were terminated because Brenda Shonkwiler did not keep her appointment, if James L.

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

Related

In Re Ashanti Goldfields Securities Litigation
184 F. Supp. 2d 247 (E.D. New York, 2002)
Buening v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services
556 N.W.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1996)
Rosado v. Bowen
698 F. Supp. 1191 (D. New Jersey, 1987)
Bowen v. Gilliard
483 U.S. 587 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Gorrie v. Bowen
809 F.2d 508 (Eighth Circuit, 1987)
Baldwin Ex Rel. Baldwin v. Ledbetter
647 F. Supp. 623 (N.D. Georgia, 1986)
Gibson v. Sallee
648 F. Supp. 54 (M.D. Tennessee, 1986)
Ardister v. Mansour
627 F. Supp. 641 (W.D. Michigan, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
628 F. Supp. 1013, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shonkwiler-v-heckler-insd-1985.