In Case Brought on Behalf of CA's Poor, ACLU Wins Changes to Punitive 'Family Cap' Welfare Rule

September 15, 2000 12:00 am

Media Contact
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States


LOS ANGELES, CA — State welfare “reform” policies that sought to prevent families on welfare from having more children will be less punitive and capricious as a result of a settlement approved by the court yesterday, in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of poor women and children statewide.

The lawsuit challenged the state’s application of a “family cap” policy, called the Maximum Family Grant rule, to welfare families without giving them proper advance notice.

“The stated purpose of the Maximum Family Grant rule was to influence welfare families to delay having more children,” said Clare Pastore, staff attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the groups that filed the case. “But without clear advance notice, the rule wasn’t even consistent with its own dubious premise that poor families base childbearing decisions on welfare benefits — it was simply punitive.”

The lawsuit, filed by the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the ACLU of Southern California and the National Center for Youth Law, focused on the rights of parents and teens receiving welfare (now called CalWORKs), to fair warning about the family cap policy.

The Maximum Family Grant (MFG) rule denies benefits to any baby born to a family that is already receiving welfare. It applies to adult parents who have a second child, but it also applies to teens who have their first child while living in a family on welfare.

“More than any other group in our society, poor women and children live the results of other people’s rhetoric and social experimentation based on unfounded stereotypes,” said Rocio Cordoba, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. “They understand through hard, real-life experience how laws can be used unfairly to express society’s hostility.”

The lawsuit challenged the state’s failure to warn families about the implications of the MFG rule for teen parents. The facts of the individual plaintiffs’ cases highlight the injustice of penalizing teen parents who had never heard of the MFG rule, by denying aid to their newborn babies. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit included four young parents struggling to finish high school, and to feed, clothe and house themselves and their babies, on as little as $305 per month.

The settlement provides relief to young parents and their children currently suffering from the unfair effects of the MFG rule, by restoring benefits to their children. In the future, teens that have babies after receiving proper notice will still be subject to the MFG rule, but only until they become adult heads of households.

The settlement also requires the state to improve its notices to families about the MFG rule, so that heads of families will understand and explain the impact of the rule on teens living at home.

“This case involved serious issues of economic survival and basic human dignity,” said Martha Matthews, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. “As a result of the settlement, thousands of children will receive desperately needed aid, and families will have fair warning about the MFG rule in the future.”

The case is Nickols v. Saenz.

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release