*1 now In the case their own conclusions. instance, for the us, except before KELLEY, Appellee, Carrie had offered defendant recitation on to the stewardess supply narcotics DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL IOWA no we have Rapids, flight into Cedar SERVICES, Appellant. probable cause saying
hesitancy in No. 55129. warrant could of the for the issuance be found. Supreme Court of Iowa. April except the appears else
Nothing officers, who as police conclusions sur they the defendant had
serted that his for several weeks
veillance This “suspicious.” conclusion were
actions They entirely unsupported facts. everything that was they knew stated
also files; issue but cannot police the writ secretly It can issue know.
on what information communicated
only on his own makes
issuing officer who then probable meet cause. We
determination of despite repeatedly
this same situation pointed out must
many times we have what diligent The most dedicated shown. unavailing if the evi
investigatory work thereby be used
dence uncovered cannot a conviction. came secure State
perilously such fate close to here.
We sustain the issuance
writ of the factual recitation because
concerning the conduct of defendant Rapids.
his it flight We hold Cedar
reasonable traveling to conclude that one
on an airliner who offers narcotics to the may
stewardess have on his such narcotics
person among Supported effects.
by the statements of an official of the prob
airlines this was sufficient to furnish basis,
able cause. On and on that alone,
basis we hold the resulting search and proper.
seizure were
VI. We have assign- considered each
ment of error relied on for reversal. We
hold judgment of the trial court was
correct and should be affirmed.
Affirmed. concur, All except RAWLINGS, Justices
J., who dissents. *3 Turner, Atty. Gen., and
Richard C. Atty. Williams, Sp. Asst. Lorna Lawhead Gen., appellant. for Waterloo, for appel- Canning, Donald H. lee.
UHLENHOPP, Justice. appeal in this The determinative issue his living is whether stepchildren in obli- Iowa has the same support as a them. gation natural Kelley Mrs. has four children Carrie grandchild. and one Prior December family question consisted Kelley re- of these six Mrs. individuals. ceived child the four children from her in the amount former husband monthly), public (all figures $195 dependent assistance the form of aid to four (ADC) children for herself shown, in an children amount separate grandchild ADC grant for the (The grandchild’s grant was not ter- $76. by Department minated So- be considered.) and will not cial Services Kelley (her December Mrs. On appear) then surname ceremonial- does not ly Kelley. married Mr. Thereafter family consisted of the seven individuals. claims, Kelley Department Kel- earned net at the and Mrs. Mr. $501.63 ley denies, Kelley time in this he that the hearing matter but income Mr. expense stepchildren had income-connected for trans- “resource” of his portation in computing and union dues He considered amount $44.87. divorced, previously had been grant. married and ADC and his own seven children were with deciding case, In we confine ourselves former paid wife. He her child situation which a ($217 hearing), at time of and she $247 with the received in addition in an amount does not stepparent’s claim shown. He also had numerous debts could be considered in other situations payments. which he made some him, the absence of actual contributions successfully and could not so claim in the *4 Upon learning of marriage the of Mr. face regulations presently of which we will and Kelley, investigat- Mrs. a caseworker consider. 45 (ii) C.F.R. 233.20(a) (3) § ed grant Kelley the to and her Mrs. (0, 233.20(a) (3) (&). (vi) Department’s four children. Under the regulations, the Kelley needs of Mrs. We are confronted legal with several the four children computed $320, were at problems. applicable Iowa, What law is — of Kelley’s which Mrs. former husband federal, or both? Can the income of a paid $195, leaving remaining need of applicable be considered under Then in regula- accordance with its $125. obligation law? What does tions, Department the considered Mr. Kel- stepparent have under Iowa law? Must ley’s reduced, $501.63, which it Department, the in steppar- considering a pursuant to regulations, by the the sum of income, ent’s allow deduction of the for his expense, income-connected $44.87 parent’s ap- To debts? what result does support payment, his child $247 plication legal principles lead us in for his living family. in allowance the $64 the case at ?bar $145.76, This left inwas excess of Applicable I. Originally, Congress Law. remaining Kelley the need of of Mrs. $125 created a grant-in-aid program under which and the four children. States could programs establish to aid Accordingly, the local needy caseworker recom- families with children and obtain mended grant termination of the to Mrs. federal assistance in financial accordance Kelley and the four children and gave no- with prescribed The States formula. tice not, that the Department proposed course, to ter- required were establish minate grant. Kelley the programs, Mrs. took an ad- they but did and de- appeal ministrative and obtained assistance sired cost-sharing, federal' had to through counsel the guidelines Black Hawk Coun- follow set out in the federal ty Legal held, Aid Society. hearing A was in regulations promulgated statute and the by Kelley attended and Mrs. by Mr. and their Depart- thereunder the United States counsel, Education, and the facts brought Health, were out. ment and Welfare hearing, grant 601-610; After the terminat- (HEW). 45 C. U.S.C.A. §§ (Payments pending ed. have continued seq. F.R. Part 203 et federal stat- appeal in the courts.) provides ute for termination federal by cost-sharing if a State does not abide Kelley appealed Department’s Mrs. guidelines. 42 U.S.C.A. Code, order to district court. See program Iowa established an ADC (“The 239.7 district court shall review statute, Department So- the Iowa department’s decision determine its un- promulgated regulations cial Services The district court legality.”). reversed. 239; Code, der ch. that statute. present appeal by Hence the Depart- HEW Dept’l Rules 928-933. 1971 Iowa judgment. ment from district court that the Kelley charges also Mrs. approved program Iowa the Unit- are invalid under regulations sharing the Iowa Iowa have been ed States and charge, Manifestly as to that Iowa statute. cost. think apply we statute. We Iowa present litigation involves chal Kelley in that if Mrs. is successful considera dispute over entitled lenge part, in whole or she stepparent who tion of the income of a judgment requiring fed family. addition to living with the In to the reference compute grant her without rel regulations eral and statutes and Iowa in fact Kelley’s income part of Mr. stat ADC, Iowa has substantive ative to support of the applied to the gen utory regarding and common law thus hold that Iowa substantive We stepparents to obligation
eral ascertaining applied difficulty law is to stepchildren. We have no sup obligation general lat problem regarding choice-of-law port; obliga federal statute and body ter substantive law—the applied testing stat Clearly, are to generally. stepparents tion ute least to federal regulations, But the at as subject applicable. law on that to be as Iowa statute is question puzzling funding; more choice-of-law body applied testing the Iowa of law—the federal former *5 wheth proceed, therefore, to consider the fed We regulations regarding statute and con er the of a can be grant-in-aid program eral vis-a-vis reg statute and sidered under the federal regulations regarding Iowa statute and under ulations statute. program. Iowa ADC B,e Stepparent’s Can II. Income Consid- disputes Most of sort arise in the this presence stepfather in the ered? The of reg- federal statute and courts. state family some “man in house” or other against ulations there tested the Fed- are in a desire has resulted a collision between statute, Constitution, regulations. eral in- require person apply such a regulations If statute are state or support spouse and chil- come usually granted found wanting, the relief dren with whom he and a desire lives injunction against an of state use federal needy in see that children fact receive granting funds against or further of fed- support. state, or, plan eral if the funds to state unconstitutional, against continuation of aspects in Two of involved ADC plan. Wyman, Rosado v. 397 397 U.S. cases this of a fam- eligibility of kind: the 1221-1223, 420-423, at at 90A 1207 S.Ct. ily any ’ of group for ADC the amount 25 at L.Ed.2d 442 460-461. an Comprehen- ADC of eligible requires sion of understanding the case A constitutional challenge not involved aspects. both here, Kelley charge but part does in Mrs. (a) Eligibility. eligibility depends that the do regulations Iowa statute and child,” square “dependent of a federal existence statute who is defined thus can such a chal- U.S.C.A. She make § (a): lenge in ju- the Iowa administrative and tribunals,
dicial and in event fed- such eral regulations ap- statute and are to The term “dependent child” means a plied. But if she in that needy is successful child deprived has (1) who been challenge, injunction is the parental relief support by or care reason against use of federal funds? death, We need continued absence from the ' home, decide that interesting question because physical or incapacity or mental of the result we reach on the parent, of a any is living merits. who [in
1Q7 (2) specified may to children on a regular basis be cal- of several homes] (Italics culated”). age], is within certain [who
added.) Turning to the Iowa and regu- statute require eligibility, lations on appears statute that a find we them to be deprived child more of the care or favorable ADC clients than the requirements. federal parent. of his own The statute uses A par- “substitute “stepmother” “stepfather” appear term or where ent” does not recognized to be intended, any form in relationship eligibility such uses the Iowa as to but family “parent” term 606(a). here. The Iowa statute fol- U.S.C.A. ADC. Code, 1971, counterpart, lows the federal states, prob- Various confronted with the 239.1(3): stepfathers living lem of and other men families, by attempted with ADC statute A “dependent needy child” means a enlarge “parent” the term age] to include child a certain has who been [within parent stepfather deprived parental support substitute such as a or and care death, other man the house. The United States reason of continued absence from home, Supreme attempts incapacity ruled out un- physical Court mental or less substitute was “an indi- parent, or unfitness either and who specified vidual who owed to any the child state-im- several [in posed duty legal support.” King v. (Italics added.) homes]. Smith, 392 88A U.S. S.Ct. statute, this Under 20 L.Ed.2d 239.1(4) promulgated of Social Services (1971 (o) of its Iowa Dept’l King decided, After promul- HEW 929): Rules gated regulations delineating the “state-im- posed legal duty support” in the deprived If child is *6 parent situation in 45 203.1(a): C.F.R. § parent, presence a natural the care of stepparent in the of an able-bodied home A plan State for aid and services to disqualify a for aid does not child needy families with children children, provided the child dependent provide must the determination eligibility fac- in other is need meets whether a deprived child has been of added.) (Italics tors.
parental support or care . . . will only be made in relation to the child’s Certainly itself is not the Iowa statute adoptive natural or parent, in or relation the terms contrary to federal law—it uses to a stepparent child’s iswho ceremonial- stat- “parental” “parent” as the federal ly married to adop- the child’s natural or ute does. tive parent and is legally obligated to the child under State law of eligi regulation Is on general applicability requires step- which bility limiting “parent” to a nat the term parents to support stepchildren to the parent contrary or the ural to federal law same extent that adoptive natural or par- statute? think The com We not. ents are required to support their chil- monly “parent” accepted definition of does (Italics dren. added.) the text of not include unless regulation upheld Black, in Lewis v. the statute indicates otherwise. Law Martin, 397 U.S. 558-559, Dictionary 90A (4th ed.). S.Ct. The statutes here otherwise, 25 L.Ed.2d (“an obli- for do indicate where Con gation to support under Assembly state law must gress and the Iowa General of ‘general applicability’ to make in “stepfather” “stepmother” that obli- meant this gation in reality a solid assumption legislation, used that word. More which over, estimates actually legislation of funds purpose available of the is to finding ineligibility a needy able basis for of needy More children aid children. availability of income assuming for presence of a aid if
will receive . . the considera- family ineli- the State. . parent render the [I]n does in estab- steppar- and resources though tion all income gible even of altogether, lishing eligibility the amount computing financial is considered ent’s income only net payment, assistance amount of the aid. of available, actually for cur- income as is proceed to the background, we With this con- basis will be regular rent a use on grant, amount aspect, other sidered, only the par- the income here. really problem is this in paragraph (a) ent described available be considered section will for pertinent, (b) far as Amount. So household absence children in the provides federal statute 42 U.S.C.A. § (Italics proof actual contributions. 602(a) (7): added.) plan A for aid and services State Martin, 90 S.Ct. 397 U.S. See Lewis v. needy must families with children 1282, 25 L.Ed.2d agency provide that the . State law, shall, need, Thus under federal resources con- determining take into considered, the a income child are to income resources any sideration other is parent a child if it a a resource of any (Italics added.) . . child. . child, income avail- available statute, par- Under this the income of a parent child are able to if the a child ent is considered “resource” of a child equated living together, and “actually income available if, parent general law regular current on a use basis.” 45 C.F.R. state, duty stepparent has a 233.20(a) (ii) (italics (3) (c) added). If duty parent. aof coextensive with the the family living together, income of parent is considered to chil- “available” spe deal Iowa statute does not dren under 21. C.F.R. 233.20(a) (3) cifically point but contains this (vi) (b) (“In family groups living together, to the federal general provision similar spouse is considered avail- Code, 1971, (“In deter statute. 239.5 able spouse for his and income of a assistance, coun mining amount of is considered available for children under ty into consideration board shall take *7 21.”). “stepparent” equated Then a to is any child”—italics income and resources of “parent” a in a limited situation—if the added). statute itself does the Iowa Hence test previously quoted from 203.1(a) of not federal law. contravene regulation federal is met: “a child’s stepparent is ceremonially who to married about the Iowa What adoptive child’s natural or parent and regulations? 239.1(4) (o) further Section is legally obligated support to child un- Dept’l 929): Rules (1971 states Iowa der State general applicability law of which stepparent to ability of a financial requires stepparents support stepchildren to it is be as a resource and considered adoptive same extent that natural or property to be that income and noted parents required support are to their chil- given to be the same stepparents is dren.” The same section to goes on 203.1 parents. consideration as that of state in (b) subsection :
(b) The family, inclusion in the or the Department Other rules of the are to the presence home, in Manual, Employees’ a same “substitute effect. Iowa parent” or any Dep’t “man-in-the-house” in- (1970) (“his Soc. Servs. V-5-29 dividual other than para- one in described income [stepparent’s] and resources shall graph (a) of this section is accept- given an not the same consideration and treat-
199
Iowa
Stepparent’s Obligation Under
parent”),
III.
V—5-
ment as that of the natural
actually
connection,
Department
considers
De-
Law.
In this
(same).
43-44
stepparent’s
only in a limited
income
state
regulations also
that
partment’s
situation —when the
family are
and the
(or stepfather)
father
actual
together
children are living
he is
family group unless
considered
—unless
family,”
stepparent appear.
contributions
estranged from
“absent and
(Indeed,
if
that is the limit to which even
estranged
he
and he is
absent
parent’s
natural
income can be considered.
secure em-
merely to
is “out of the home
family only-
(3),
(c),
45 C.F.R.
233.20
233.20(a)
(ii)
from his
ployment
separated
§§
(vi)
Consequently, that
(a) (3)
(b).)
V-
living arrangement.”
on the basis of a
are
5-9,
really
only
we
to which
Manual, supra.
extent
Employees’
stepparent’s
inquiry
in
into a
concerned
our
Department’s regulation
Testing
Iowa law.
obligation
support under
law,
think
(0) against federal
we
239.1(4)
that
stepparent’s obligation
is a
What
ap-
regulation
would be over-broad
limited situation?
plied
apparently
to some
within its
cases
terms.
In the
actual contribu-
absence
sup
have
statute on
We
a uniform
tions,
regulation
only
applied,
can
port obligations,
applies
it
to intrastate
concerned,
far as
funds
so
federal
are
Code, 1971,
252A;
situations.
ch.
v.
Davis
stepparents coming within
203.1(a)
Davis,
262,
But
246 Iowa
statute. The Iowa decisions make clear While we arbiters of the meaning stepchil if a with his statute, Iowa reasoning (in parentis), obligated dren he loco Supreme United States Court interpreting v. them. Minor Heirs of Bradford the federal having statute cor- Bodfish, 681; Weiser, responding Iowa Gerdes v. language leads us to 39 the same 591, 42; result 54 Iowa 7 v. that Court N.W. Menefee Ches reached. The stat- Iowa ute, ley, 1038; 55, 98 like the Iowa 66 N.W. Holmes federal counterpart, requires McKim, 245, 329; v. 109 Iowa 80 N.W. take into consideration Boozel, 85; Boozel v. 185N.W. any “resources 193Iowa child.” We think that Eaves, Robinson statute, 203 Iowa 210 N.W. in order to have a 578; Rule, Rule v. Iowa reliable basis assuming stepparent’s 629; Adoption Cheney, In re N.W. child, income is fact a resource of a 685; 59 N.W.2d Mason v. if, can be considered un- *8 752; Zolnosky, der 251 Iowa 103 N.W.2d substantive generally, Iowa law the stepparent Simpkins Simpkins, v. 256 Iowa 129 has the same obligation sup- to 723; Beasley port Beasley, N.W.2d see the child v. 159 as a parent. Applied natural Thus, (Iowa). step 449 to such N.W.2d when a only, cases the regulation Iowa parent stepchildren living together, and valid under the statute; beyond such stepparent the support obligation has a cases regulation the Iowa applied cannot be general Iowa under law applicability, in the absence of actual contributions. And obligation that is coextensive with a so we natural approach the core of the case: what parent’s obligation. a The con stepparent’s obligation support un- stepparent’s sideration of a income in that der substantive Iowa law? 200 parent a debts of either situations deduction of plus
situation is therefore valid— stepparent. or con a stepparent makes actual in which the step the not live with tributions but does speci those laws do It is that true regard immaterial that children. it as We provide fy not deductible items do the at may power have common stepparent a As to a natural for deduction debts. his family and terminate to the law leave least, not parent, reason for con at stepchildren, for support obligation to his a sidering debts is manifest. Consider Department then ceases consideration family consisting of needy and indebted actual con in the absence of his income parent who children and a natural several obligation in that as to his tributions. But ADC, par earning wages. Without situation, Code, 252A.2(3), see §§ have to be used to ent’s income would Weiser, 252A.3(1), 54 Iowa and Gerdes granted If ADC were oc (“We 7 have no N.W. family without consideration question to whether determine the casion debts, parent’s income because compelled to been the defendant could have pay would released to off the income be family his take his wife’s child into sub Thus would in effect debts. ADC own.”). it maintain as payment But the sidize the of creditors. children, purpose is to aid ADC regard Depart We also be creditors. The ADC situation cannot step or parent that a ment’s rule valid equated separate main to divorce parent is out not to be considered case in which the debts of the tenance family away secure em merely if he is parents alimony in setting are considered ployment living ar or on the basis of support payments. and child Undoubtedly the rangement. to an in- the situation different as Is spouse support his remains liable to stepparent earning The income? debted Depart stepchildren in that situation. for us is to decide natural inclination requirement stepparent be ment’s that the though question as we were on the merits family is estranged absent and from the argument An can writing prevent subterfuge reasonable one may have in- stepfather be made whereby a parent enjoys he even ac- curred his debts before family benefits of the but seeks to avoid quainted argu- An ADC mother. responsibilities. indebted also made that if an ment can be marry mother without man cannot an ADC stepparent’s support do We not think having his taken consideration into obligation is less than that of natural grant, with her ADC connection parent because latter remains liable tempted together couples will live to contribute of a child who however, argument, unmarried. latter stepparent. with a Even a natural man applied can unindebted also advantage allowed of outside mother; together they and an ADC live provisions support. for his child’s Am. they his income and unmarried have both 174; Parent & Child 81 at Jur.2d ADC, they marry, whereas if stand Parent & at 21(c) Child C.J.S. lose ADC. IV. Stepparent’s Depart- Debts. The
ment
parents
regu
contends that
But we do
write
parents
debts,
expressly authorizes
frequently
lations. Our statute
have accumulated
Further,
large
promulgation
departmental
reg
often in
amounts.
rules
that while
*9
Code,
ulations.
review
specify
federal and Iowa laws
239.18. Our
§
may
items
this
is limited to
of
be
from
case
determination
deducted
239.7.
determining
“legality”
the amount
to
of those
available
§
family,
provision
Department’s regulations
and rules
those laws make no
The
lacking in
regulation
that it is so
and
deductions
specifically authorize various
essentially arbitrary.
reason that it is
income,
provision for
make no
from
but
parent
of either a natural
deduction of debts
And this is
in 73
Public Ad-
stated
C.J.S.
Dept’l Rules
stepparent.
or
1971 Iowa
ministrative Bodies & Procedure
at
Manual,
929; Employees’
at
239.1(4) (o)
424:
V-5-43,
Are
supra, V-5-29,
V-5-44.
point val-
Department’s regulations
validity
on this
The test
of an admin-
regulation
or
id?
istrative rule
is not what
done,
might
done,
be
but what
be
can
question
Essentially the
is whether
it,
only
and
in a
will
clear case
arbitrary
regulations
and unreasonable.
are
say
court
and
interfere
that such a rule
testing
judicial
As to
of administrative
regulation
or
is invalid because it is un-
in 2
regulations,
is stated
this
Am.Jur.2d
reasonable or because it is in excess of the
Law 304 at 132-133:
Administrative
authority
agency
of the
promulgating it.
Moreover, an
regu-
rule or
administrative
requirement of reasonableness
clearly
lation must
illegal,
plainly
be
or
regulation means no
an administrative
palpably
and
law,
inconsistent with
or
regulation
more and
less than that the
no
clearly in conflict with a statute relative
upon
grounds—
reasonable
must be based
subject matter,
the same
as
such
is,
by good
supported
be
that
it must
statute it
implement,
seeks to
in order
rules
The reasonableness of
reasons.
for
the court
declare it
on such
void
therein,
exemptions
regulations,
ground.
relationship
by their
is determined
statutory
designed to
scheme
It is
an
where
administrative rule
supplement, protect,
enforce. Rea-
or regulation
completely
without a
of the
sonableness
determined in view
basis,
rational
wholly,
where it
legislation,
stated
objectives
clearly,
palpably
arbitrary,
that
purpose
regulation
is within the
court will
that it
say
invalid
such
the statute it
reasonable.
.
reason.
An
large range
administrator has a
Schneberger
also
See
v. State Bd. of Social
choice in determining what
or Welfare,
228 Iowa
The by ADC. permitted not be stepfather should that a income to apply his grant law, an ADC federal and We hold pri- to his than discharge of debts rather properly terminated Department any than family more
mary duty support, grant. ADC do permitted should be a natural father Reversed. so. RAWLINGS, except concur All Justices Moreover, grant is part an ADC HARRIS, dissent. JJ., who MASON family- the whole expenses of the common heating, and utilities—and housing, as (dissenting). RAWLINGS, Justice Thus lump sum. in a grant all Department of Social I submit Iowa family in- person marrying into ADC is ar- (o) 239.1(4) Regulation Services of the benefits evitably receives some unreasonable, I. re- therefore bitrary and coming funds the undifferentiated spectfully dissent. family. into the (cid:127) HARRIS, join in this JJ., MASON regula Again, the dissent. dominant are in line with one tions employ all available this law: theses of King v. is used.
resources before ADC
Smith, S.Ct. 392 U.S. pattern (“The 20 L.Ed.2d clearer. not be legislation
of this could be made to locate Every effort is to West, WEST Eleanor Paul Allen Juanita persons le payments from secure Appellees, support a deserted gally obligated to child.”). might not write such might we While BRODERICK & BASCOM ROPE COMPANY, Appellant. ours, authority up-we
regulations were the by promulgated hold the as No. 54525. the matter was com- Department to which Supreme Court of Iowa. by legislature. mitted April 13, 1972. family is V. Result Here. This Department prop living together, and the
erly stepfather’s considered
without his deduction of debts. adjust- made correct
ments in accord with its support paid by
child the children’s natural properly
father was into taken consider-
ation, payments as were child support Kelley children,
made Mr. for his own expenses connected earning his in-
come, and allowance for him Manual, Employees’ supra V-
5-9, V-5-32, V-5-33, V-5-40, V-5-41, V-5- V-5-44, V-5-46, Kelley is Mr. V-5-^9.