Statement by Steve Ralston re: Complaint Filed with HEW
Press Release
January 31, 1966

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 3. Statement by Steve Ralston re: Complaint Filed with HEW, 1966. 384803ae-b692-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/05737371-00d0-465d-82e1-ab32efa0ea79/statement-by-steve-ralston-re-complaint-filed-with-hew. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
10 Columbus Circle New York, N.Y. 10019 - JUdson 6-8397 NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund PRESS RELEASE President Hon. Francis E. Rivers Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg Statement of Steve Ralston, Assistant Counsel NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Hotel Willard, Washington, D. C. Monday, January 31, 1966 10 AM We today filed the attached complaint and petition with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare through its Secretary, John W, Gardner; Ellen Winston, United States Commissioner of Welfare; Alanson Willcox, General Counsel and Lisle Carter, Jr. Although we are presently focussing on Arkansas and Georgia, the patterns and policies under attack are common to many southern and northern states and the District of Columbia. We are seeking to reverse an evolving trend where-by states use welfare assistance as a means of practicing racial discrimina+ tion, Untold thousands of children are being affected daily. The interest of the individual complainants arises from their having been denied welfare payments or threatened with such denial under the "substitute parent" policy. Under their "substitute parent" policies, Arkansas and Georgia deny welfare assistance to families with dependent children on the assertion that the families now include a so called "substitute father." This is a semantical gimmick which redefines the word "parent". The unique feature of the "substitute parent" as defined in Georgia and Arkansas is that he need not have any iegally imposed or voluntarily assumed duties and responsibilities to the children whatsoever, He is not necessarily required by law to supply support; the reguiatiens call for no evidence to show that he has voluntarily assumed support of the children, He does not have custody over the children. He does not have any responsibility for the welfare, guardianship or education of the children. He may not be living inthe same home, He may not eve have any interest in the children, (more) Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 Ss Statement Steve Ralston -2- January 31, 1966 Nevertheless, he is defined as a "parent" and the children are d declared (under the policies complained of) to be ineligible for AFDC aid on the ground that they are not "deprived of parental support." The semantical gimmick through which thousands of needy Eelidren are denied eligibility to AFDC is accomplished by redefining the word "parent" in a manner inconsistent with its common and ordinary meaning, its general legal usage in the United States and in the States of Arkansas and Georgia, and in a manner anconsistent with the meaning of "parent" as used in Title em of the Social Security Act. The irony of the matter is that the purpose of Title IV (of the Social Security Act) is to encourage care of dependent children, in their own homes, by enabling each state "to furnish financial assistance and rehabilitation services." These services are specifically for needy dependent children who have been deprived of the support of a parent, All youngsters affected by the “substitute father" policy have been deprived of the support of their natural or adoptive parent. They are not receiving support from other sources. Title IV also seeks to aid parents or relatives, with whom the children are living, to help maintain and strengthen family life. ‘It further seeks to help such “parents or relatives to realize the capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with maintenance of continuing parental care and protection...." The states in question are striking at the remaining vestige of stability of many Negro families, which have already endured crippling blows. In contradictory fashion, both Arkansas and Georgia assert that the purpose of their welfare programs is to allow children to grow up in a setting of their own family relationships. (more) - Statement Steve Ralston -3- January 31, 1966 Violation of Federal Standards We submit that the "substitute parent" policies of the States of Arkansas and Georgia violate provisions of Title IV of the Social Security Act. The policy imposes unconstitutional conditions upon receipt of public aid in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Social Security Act nor the Constitution require Arkansas and Georgia to provide AFDC programs. Wisely, however, both states have undertaken such programs. With equal wisdom and propriety under law, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) has long held that eligibility conditions imposed by a state on its AFDC programs may not exclude persons on an arbi- trary and irrational basis. However, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands similar justification of classifications in oy state programs of financial assistance. et Where a state chooses to grant assistance to some neeay citi- zens and not to others, there must be a reasonable and not arbitrary basis for distinguishing each class of citizens, Further, there must be reasonable and not arbitrary standards for determining which individual falls within each class. Right of Privacy The "substitute parent" policies interfere w. to privacy and free association of welfare clin which frustrates both the purposes of the AFDC a * protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. When a needy mother whose husband is dead, di rced, or has oer deserted wishes to develop a friendship with an ued ed man, she must consider a series of difficult personal dggistons which are completely unknown by other citizens. (these are Listed on pages 23 and 24 of the petition and complaint.) (more) »4, Statement Steve Ralston -4- January 31, 1966 ees, The needy mother without a husband is then caught in an impossible dilemma. She may try to conduct a secret relationship, al her grant, and live as if she were a criminal; or she may ; ships E & And, she will still run the risk that the man, who Pe not supporting her, will nevertheless be adjudged a "“substiture f father," or that he will abandon the friendship, or both € Personal Humiliation Whimsical and purely arbitrary denials are inevitable paces the "substitute parent" policies. This occurs despite any con- tention that the respondent states might advance asserting that these are not the intended results of the policies. Under a policy (Arkansas) which sets as evidentiary guide-~ lines "frequent visits by the man to the home" or "frequent appearances of the man and mothe r in public as a couple" and ‘chen requires the mother to disprove that she is offering the "privileges of a husband" to the man involved--it is inevitable that gossip of neighbors or nasty suspicions of caseworkers will determine fundamental rights. Under a policy (Georgia) where a family is ineligible for aid if aman "visits frequently for the purpose" of sexual intercourse, once again gossip and mere suspicion will inevitably rule -- particularly in light of the burden placed on the mother to disprove the gossip and suspicion. Federal courts have stated again and again that "discrimi- nations are not to be supported by mere fanciful conjecture. They cannot stand as reasonable, if they offend the plain standards of common sense." Statement -5- January 31, 1966 The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has also made its position clear in this regard. As a result of furor raised when thousands of Negro and white children were cut off welfare roles in Louisiana in 1960----a variation of this theme----the Department issued its "Flemming Ruling" which prohibited states from denying needed aid to children on the ground of allegedly “unsuitable home" conditions without providing some alternate plan of aid to the children. te The "substitute parent" policy is simply a device to- the requirements of the "Flemming Ruling." Our Request In conclusion, we are asking HEW to grant a hearing s we may prove the truth of our assertions. Or, we are asking EW to issue a regulation saying the "substitute parent" policies - f these statesare in conflict with federal standards and must be changed or the states will face cut off of federal funds. =30=