Search the Shriver Center
Entire Site Poverty Law Library Clearinghouse Review

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that Nebraska’s family cap was not intended to apply to families without an adult with the capacity to work. Plaintiff children from families receiving public assistance claimed that the family cap did not apply to families without a self-sufficiency contract. Under Nebraska’s family cap provision, “[a]ny child born into the recipient family after the initial ten months of participation in the program shall not increase the cash assistance payment” to that family. Defendants interpreted “participation in the program” to refer to the receipt of cash assistance. Plaintiffs argued that families headed by an adult who had been found to be incapacitated and unable to engage in employment or training were not participants in the program because they did not have self-sufficiency contracts with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. The trial court agreed and enjoined defendant state officials from enforcing the family cap under those circumstances. On defendants’ appeal, the supreme court found that defendants’ interpretation of the family cap did not serve any of the legislature’s expressed purposes of welfare reform: to remove disincentives to work, to promote economic self-sufficiency, and to support individuals and families in moving from public assistance to economic self-sufficiency. The court noted that, to the extent that the family cap served to promote a transition from public assistance to economic self-sufficiency, there was little to be gained in applying the family cap to families who receive non-time-limited assistance because self-sufficiency was unrealistic. Furthermore, such an application did not advance the legislature’s intent to continue regular assistance and support for individuals and families with disabilities and undermined the goal to protect dependent children. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that Nebraska’s family cap was not intended to apply to families without an adult with the capacity to work. Plaintiff children from families receiving public assistance claimed that the family cap did not apply to families without a self-sufficiency contract. Under Nebraska’s family cap provision, “[a]ny child born into the recipient family after the initial ten months of participation in the program shall not increase the cash assistance payment” to that family. Defendants interpreted “participation in the program” to refer to the receipt of cash assistance. Plaintiffs argued that families headed by an adult who had been found to be incapacitated and unable to engage in employment or training were not participants in the program because they did not have self-sufficiency contracts with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. The trial court agreed and enjoined defendant state officials from enforcing the family cap under those circumstances. On defendants’ appeal, the supreme court found that defendants’ interpretation of the family cap did not serve any of the legislature’s expressed purposes of welfare reform: to remove disincentives to work, to promote economic self-sufficiency, and to support individuals and families in moving from public assistance to economic self-sufficiency. The court noted that, to the extent that the family cap served to promote a transition from public assistance to economic self-sufficiency, there was little to be gained in applying the family cap to families who receive non-time-limited assistance because self-sufficiency was unrealistic. Furthermore, such an application did not advance the legislature’s intent to continue regular assistance and support for individuals and families with disabilities and undermined the goal to protect dependent children.