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
Smyth v. Rivero
No. 00-2453 (4th Cir. Feb 21, 2002). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51346
Description
Needy Children Born Out of Wedlock Challenge Virginia’s Cooperation Requirements
Abstract
The parties have moved for summary judgment in this class action
against the Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS) paternity
identification policy. Plaintiffs, poor mothers and their children
born out of wedlock, allege that DSS disqualifies them from
receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children unless the mother
can provide the first and last name of the child’s father or
of all men with whom she has sexual intercourse who may be the
father. This requirement applies even when the mother does not know
the full name of the father of her child and has no way of finding
out. Plaintiffs allege that DSS’s policy places an
insurmountable barrier between their families and the minimal
assistance they need to survive. Granting a preliminary injunction,
the district court held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on
the merits because DSS’s absolute paternity identification
policy contradicts the plain language of the applicable regulation,
45 C.F.R. § 232.12(b). Subsequently the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) granted DSS’s request for a waiver
of section 232.12(b)’s requirements, provided that the state
"establish criteria for cooperation in those instances where
it determines that the applicant/recipient cannot reasonably be
expected to know the identifying information relating to the
child’s father." DSS’s revised policy’s
exceptions to the absolute paternity identification requirement are
for cases when (1) the child’s mother lacks the mental
capacity to identify the father or (2) the child was conceived as a
result of an undocumented rape and the mother does not know the
father’s identity. Plaintiffs argue that DSS’s revised
policy still unfairly discriminates against children born out of
wedlock who do not know their fathers’ identities,
contradicts the definition of cooperation at 45 C.F.R. §
232.12(b), and is irrational and discriminatory in violation of
their right to equal protection. Before DSS implemented the HHS
waiver, according to plaintiffs, the policy violated Title IV-A of
the Social Security Act and its implementing regulations.
Additional Information
Files
- Defendant's Requests for Admission (16pp.);
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification as a Class Action (2pp.);'
- Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (8pp.);
- Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (3pp.);
- Motion for Preliminary Injunction (3pp.);
- Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (36pp.); 51346
- Order (Regarding Discovery) (2pp.);
- Defendant's Interrogatories Propounded to Plaintiff Victoria Smyth (36pp.);
- Defendant's Request for Production of Documents Propounded to Plaintiffs Victoria and Angela Smyth (6pp.); 51346
- Plaintiffs' Initial Requests for Admission from
- Order (1p.);
- Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs' Initial Request for Admissions and Documents from Defendant (62pp.); 51346
- Plaintiff Victoria Smyth's Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (13pp.);
- Plaintiff Patricia Montgomery's Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories (12pp.);
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents Propounded to Plaintiffs Victoria and Angela Smyth (4pp.);
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents Propounded to Plaintiffs Patricia and Casey Montgomery (3pp.);
- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Memorandums in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction (and Amended Motions Book) (83pp.);
- Objections to Defendant's Requests for Admission (2pp.);
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and for Pretrial Order Concerning Witnesses and Exhibits (5pp.);
- Answer (9pp.);
- Opinion
- Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (16pp.);
- Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (27pp.);
- Order (on Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification) (2pp.);
- Memorandum Opinion (10pp.);
- Order (Sealing Exhibits) (1p.);
- Stipulation and Order of Dismissal (1p.).
- Supplemental memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
- Defendant's memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
- Order (to Schedule Expedited Discovery) (2pp.);
