Steve Ralston and Charles H. Jones Statement

    10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019 
JUdson 6-8397 

Legal Defense and Educational F. und 
PRESS RELEASE 
President 

on. Francis E. Rivers 
Director-Counsel 

Jack Greenberg 
Statement of Steve Ralston and Charles H. Jones, Jr.y 
Assistant Counsels, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fundy Incs 

Hotel Willard, Washington, D. C. 
Thursday, February 3, 1966 11 A. M. 

We today announce the filing of 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, by 

denial of Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). 

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 legally 

imposed or voluntarily assumed duties and responsibilities to the 

children whatsoever. 

He is not necessarily required hy law to supply support; the 

regulations 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 

in the same home. He may not even have any interest in the 

children. (more) 
Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 coe 



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 

AEDC aid on the ground that they are not "deprived of parental 

support." 

The semantical gimmick through which thousands of needy 

children 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 inconsistent with the meaning of "parent" as used in 

Title IV, 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 

erippling 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) 

St 

N
R
 

n
e
a
r
 

R
e
t
)
.
 



+ ¢ 

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. 

xe 
Neither the Social Security Act nor the Constitution require 

sas and Georgia to provide AFDC programs. Wisely, however, 

: bee ates 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 

state programs of financial assistance. 

Where a state chooses to grant assistance to some needy 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 with the rights 

to privacy and free association of welfare clients in a manner 

which frustrates both the purposes of the AFDC program and the 

protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

When a needy mother whose husband is dead, divorced, or has 

deserted wishes to develop a friendship with an unrelated man, 

she must consider a series of difficult personal decisions which 

are completely unknown by other citizens. (these are listed on 

pages 23 and 24 of the petition and complaint.) 

(more) 



Statement Steve Ralston ~4- January 31, 1966 

The needy mother without a husband is then caught in an 

impossible dilemma, She may try to conduct a secret relationship, 

endanger her grant, and live as if she were a criminal; or she may SF 

abandon her effort to develop male friendships altogether; or she 

may strip herself and her male friend of every last vestige of 

dignity by reporting constantly on the intimacies of her friend- x. 

ship. Z 3 

And, she will still run the risk that the mart who is not 

supporting her, will nevertheless be adjudged a "cubstiture 

father," or that he will abandon the friendship, or both. 

Personal Humiliation 

Whimsical and purely arbitrary denials are inevitable under 

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 then 

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 Steve Ralston -5- January 31, 1966 

2 € 

he Department of Health, Education and Welfare has also 

ts position clear in this regard. As a result of furor 

“when thousands of Negro and white children were cut off 

WE troles in Louisiana in 1960----a variation of this same 

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. 

Cine “substitute parent" policy is simply a device to avoid 

the requirements of the "Flemming Ruling." 

Our Request 

In conclusion, we are asking HEW to grant a hearing so that 

we may prove the truth of our assertions. Or, we are asking HEW 

to issue a regulation saying the "substitute parent" policies of 

these statesare in conflict with federal standards and must be 

changed or the states will face cut off of federal funds. 

=oos