Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Miller v. Wisconsin Dept of Health & Social Servs.
95CV2488 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dane County Mar. 25, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51147
Description
Children of AFDC Applicant Whose Husband Works in Another County Are Not Deprived of Parental Support
Abstract
The court has affirmed the decision of the Wisconsin Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) to deny AFDC benefits to
petitioner. After receiving AFDC benefits in Racine County, where
her husband is employed, petitioner moved to Dane County and
applied for benefits. DHSS denied her application after finding
that her children were not deprived of parental support. On appeal,
petitioner argued that her husband was an absent parent as defined
by the Social Security Act and its implementing regulations and
that DHSS incorrectly counted him as a member of her household. The
court found that DHSS’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence. Petitioner’s husband has sent her money and visited
the family twice since they left Racine County, sends the children
money for clothes, shoes, and toys, and is named as an emergency
contact on the children’s school enrollment forms. The court
also noted petitioner’s testimony that she can count on her
husband to help with any problems with her children and his
statement that he feels responsible for the children while they are
in Dane County. The court rejected petitioner’s assertion
that DHSS required total cessation of parental contact to support a
finding of deprivation of parental support and found that the
hearing examiner correctly articulated the purposes of the AFDC
statute. The court also rejected the assertion that the hearing
examiner merely looked at what her husband could do and failed to
evaluate whether he was actually providing care and support.
