Bennett v. White
United States Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
671 F. Supp. 343 (1987)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Under the Social Security Act, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) (defendant) required Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to assign to DPW the recipients’ right to collect child support. In securing child-support payments, the DPW and the Family Court Domestic Relations Branch (FCDRB) were required by regulation to (1) assign the right to collect support back to the recipient upon the cessation of benefits; (2) notify the recipient of the agencies’ continued collection of payments for three months after the cessation of benefits; (3) obtain the recipient’s authorization if the agencies collected support payments for longer than three months; (4) return to the recipient the support payments collected during the three-month period; and (5) promptly pay to the recipient any support collected in excess of the court-ordered amount. A review of a sample of cases showed that DPW and FCDRB failed to comply with the regulatory procedures. DPW took an average of over 164 days from the date of benefit termination to reassign the support payments back to recipients. Additionally, FCDRB continued to collect support payments for more than five months without notifying the recipients or obtaining authorization. Rather than returning the payments directly to the families, FCDRB remitted the payments to DPW, in some cases holding the payments for over one year. DPW then took an average of 280 days to authorize the refunds. DPW also delayed payment of excess child support in many cases. Mary Bennett and Michaeline Forsythe (plaintiffs) were former AFDC recipients for which the FCDRB continued to collect support payments after the cessation of benefits. The FCDRB remitted the payments to DPW, who retained the payments for an extended period. Bennett and Forsythe sued John White, Jr. (defendant), the DPW secretary, contending that DPW’s failure to comply with the procedures violated federal regulations, the Takings Clause, and the Due Process Clause. DPW and FCDRB claimed that their procedures complied with legal requirements but acknowledged the possibility of errors in certain cases.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hannum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.