ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 TAG: 9606260050
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LESLIE TAYLOR STAFF WRITER
NOTE: Below
The state of Virginia has been barred temporarily from denying welfare benefits to two women who cannot identify the fathers of their children.
U.S. District Judge James H. Michael Jr. issued an injunction Tuesday that requires the state to resume Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments to the women until a lawsuit contesting the policy has been decided.
The Virginia Poverty Law Center, an advocacy group for the poor, filed the suit on behalf of three anonymous welfare recipients whose AFDC benefits were cut off because they couldn't provide information the state requires to identify their children's fathers. One recipient withdrew from the case last week because she feared her anonymity could not be protected.
"In this case, one need not search long to find irreparable injury to plaintiffs," Michael wrote in his ruling. "They are poor enough to have qualified for public assistance. They rely upon AFDC benefits to sustain themselves.
"Most importantly, plaintiffs have children, who will suffer through no fault of their own without government aid.
"Although the public has a very significant interest in welfare reform that discourages irresponsible behavior, the more immediate and pressing need is to help the children, not to punish them and their parents."
Michael refused to certify the case as a class action, which means his ruling affects only the two women - one who lives in Christiansburg and the other in Smyth County. His injunction does not prevent the state from enforcing its identification policy with other welfare recipients.
"We are pleased ... Virginia's efforts to identify the fathers of Virginia's children will not be brought to a halt while this matter is in litigation," said Mark Miner, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office. Complying with the limited injunction will cost taxpayers $500 a month; it would have cost the state $90,000 a month if the injunction applied to everyone, Miner said.
Earlier this month, the state agreed to reinstate the women's AFDC benefits through the end of this month. The state must now continue those benefits until the case has been decided. A trial date has not been been set.
At a hearing in Charlottesville on Monday, Michael seemed agitated by the state's desire to bring the welfare debate into its arguments in support of the policy.
When Elizabeth Riopelle, an assistant attorney general, explained the ideological reasons for the policy in court, he stopped her.
"I'm not going to get into this welfare mess," he said. "That is not before this court. I don't care about public opinion, and I shouldn't care."
But the state contends that, because of the policy, a large number of children now know who their fathers are.
"A significant number of women decided to 'fess up and let us know who the fathers are," Riopelle said. "We would lose all the ground we've gained in people who have come forward and told us who the fathers are."
The policy requires an AFDC applicant or recipient to provide the first and last name of the father or of all individuals with whom they have had sexual intercourse who could be the father. Except in cases of verified rape, that information must be provided even if the applicant or recipient has good cause for refusing to cooperate.
The law center alleges that the new policy violates federal regulations that require AFDC applicants and recipients to cooperate in identifying fathers and defines cooperation as "attesting to lack of information, under penalty of perjury."
Last year, President Clinton granted Virginia a waiver from federal welfare regulations. That waiver gave the state the ability to sanction as it saw fit women who could not identify the fathers of their children - whether it meant reducing benefits or cutting them off entirely, said Michael Kharfen, a spokesman with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
"It's always been the state's determination as to what is cooperation," he said. "The only federal issue is whether a state has the authority to do a full sanction. We do not deal with what was cooperation."
Thirteen states have some policy to establish paternity, Kharfen said. Not all of them include sanctions. Ohio and Oregon give one-time cash bonuses to mothers who have given information leading to the identification of fathers, he said.
Clinton last week announced an executive order requiring mothers on welfare to identify the fathers of their children. His order defined cooperation as giving the name, address, Social Security number, place of employment and names of relatives. It also included "good cause exceptions" that would be up to a state to define, Kharfen said.
"Some examples would be fear of domestic violence, or it could have been a rape and they are unable to identify the father," he said.
The Christiansburg woman lost a portion of her benefits because she could not identify the father of her 6-year-old son. She at first identified her ex-husband as the father. Blood tests concluded he was not the father, according to the lawsuit.
The woman identified another man who could have been the father. Blood tests concluded that he was not.
The only other possibility was a one-night stand with a man she knew only as "Mark." She had no other information about him.
The Smyth County woman's application for AFDC was turned down because she could not identify the father of her 13-year-old daughter. When her daughter was conceived in July 1982, the woman was drinking and had sexual relations with several men.
Attorneys for the Virginia Poverty Law Center could not be reached for comment Tuesday. David Rubinstein, the law center's executive director, said he did not want to comment on Michael's ruling until he had an opportunity to review it in detail.
LENGTH: Long : 102 linesby CNB