193 Cal. App. 4th 201
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dajohn McCormick was denied general assistance (GA) by Alameda County while his family, though not receiving cash CalWORKs aid due to the MFG rule, did receive non-cash CalWORKs benefits (food stamps, Medi-Cal) and SSI for the mother.
- The CalWORKs MFG rule freezes cash support when a new child is born, potentially leaving the family with no cash aid while other CalWORKs benefits remain.
- Alameda County treated Dajohn as a CalWORKs recipient for GA purposes, despite the absence of cash aid, and denied GA under former regulation section 9-2-0.1.
- The trial court held that MFG caused ineligibility for GA as a result of the family’s CalWORKs status, effectively punishing the child for the mother’s actions.
- The court reversed the GA denial, finding that the county could not deny GA where subsistence needs were unmet and where MFG did not provide actual cash relief; the invalidity of the rule denying GA to MFG children was found.
- Regulations were later revised, but the court’s ruling addressed the substance of GA eligibility and the interaction with MFG and CalWORKs
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CalWORKs eligibility (even without cash aid) count as “support” for GA? | McCormick (Zeno) argued GA cannot be denied because the family receives non-cash CalWORKs benefits. | County treated Dajohn as CalWORKs-supported due to eligibility, thus precluding GA under section 17000. | GA cannot be denied on the basis of non-cash CalWORKs eligibility; regulation invalidated. |
| Is the MFG rule compatible with section 17000’s relief obligation when no cash aid is received? | Dajohn should receive GA as the MFG rule leaves subsistence unmet when no cash aid is provided. | MFG rule and related regulations justify limiting GA once CalWORKs eligibility applies. | Section 17000 requires relief and support; denying GA under MFG where subsistence is unmet is unlawful. |
| Are county regulations denying GA to MFG children invalid? | Regulation 9-2-0.1 improperly narrows GA eligibility for MFG children. | Regulation reflects statutory discretion to determine eligibility. | Former section 9-2-0.1 invalid; GA must be provided where subsistence needs are not met. |
| Do statutory exemptions to GA apply to this MFG scenario? | Exemptions do not cover MFG cases where cash aid is not provided. | Exemptions may apply in other CalWORKs-related contexts. | Exemptions do not justify withholding GA for Dajohn; MFG case falls outside the enumerated exemptions. |
| Is Hunt or Mooney controlling in requiring actual relief rather than theoretical resources? | The resources must be real; theoretical eligibility cannot deny GA. | Courts may balance resources and obligations within statute. | Ga cannot be denied based on theoretical resources; MFG context requires actual subsistence relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 984 (Cal. 1999) (limits on county GA obligations; subsidized medical care not a substitute for GA)
- Mooney v. Pickett, 4 Cal.3d 669 (Cal. 1971) (emphasizes that employability is not a guaranteed source of relief; GA must consider actual subsistence)
- Bell v. Board of Supervisors, 23 Cal.App.4th 1695 (Cal. App. 1994) (invalidates reduction of GA benefits based on illusory in-kind aid)
- Sneed v. Saenz, 120 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal. App. 2004) (discusses MFG and GA interplay and proper subsidy levels)
- Arenas v. San Diego County Bd. of Supervisors, 93 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. App. 2001) (invalidates overbroad statutory/ordinance exclusions from GA)
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 15 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1997) (emphasizes the residual role of GA and statutory objectives)