Margaret M. Barron, Etc. v. Betty Bellairs, Etc., Richard H
Margaret M. BARRON, Etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Betty BELLAIRS, Etc., Defendant, Richard H. Harden, Etc., Defendant-Appellant; Christine SPELLERS, Etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Betty BELLAIRS, Etc., Defendant-Appellee, Richard H. Harden, Etc., Defendant-Appellant
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The judgment enjoining the enforcement of the child support averaging policy, now superceded by the Child Support Recovery Act, is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss that portion of the proceedings as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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(past income for 6 months may not.be averaged to determine eligibility for welfare if current income is unstable)
-
(Georgia “child support averaging policy” which provided that when the income of an AFDC family was unpredictable, its previous years income could be used to determine monthly income)
-
(new Georgia welfare statute enacted prior to entry of injunctive relief)
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.