comply with the Illinois Department of Public Aid Categorical
Assistance Manual § 408.3 and 1259.1, that they are now
eligible for aid. This notice is to be directed to those
individuals refused aid during the two years immediately
preceding the date of this decree. The defendant is further
instructed to compute the amount wrongfully withheld from each
of those individuals denied aid and to remit such amounts to
This case is yet another example of an unfortunate
situation, the resolution of which has split federal panels
across the country. Compare Meyers v. Juras, 327 F. Supp. 759
(D.Or. 1971) (Kilkenny, C. J., dissenting); Doe v. Shapiro,
302 F. Supp. 761 (D.Conn. 1969) (Claire, J., dissenting) appeal
dismissed, 396 U.S. 488, 90 S.Ct. 641, 24 L.Ed.2d 677 (1970),
with Saiz v. Goodwin, 325 F. Supp. 23 (D.N.M. 1971); see also,
Woods v. Miller, 318 F. Supp. 510 (W.D.Pa. 1971).
Since the basic issues have been covered in at least three
other cases, our comments, in dissent, will not be extensive.
We would say, however, that the decision in this case is not
clearly mandated by statute, for the legislative program
seemingly has two essentially equal, and in this case somewhat
conflicting, goals: the support of needy and dependent
children and the fostering of various state plans to develop
a welfare recipient's means of support.
No one likes to see a poor child suffer for the misfeasance
or nonfeasance of its mother. At the same time, if a mother is
going to exercise her privilege to receive welfare payments
from the state for her child, then it would seem she should
exercise her responsibility to assist the state in its
efforts, required by federal law, to obtain support for her
child. See Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 321-322, 91 S.Ct. 381,
27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971). Indeed, what other or more reasonable
way is there for the state to fulfill its obligation under
42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(17)(A) to identify the father of the needy
child in order to obtain support for it?
Basically, then, a judgment must be made of the competing
legal and social factors present in this situation. Our
opinion is that the state's approach is not violative of any
congressional directive. The state government and the people
it represents have a legitimate interest in minimizing rising
welfare payments. Wyman v. James, supra at 318-320, 91 S.Ct.
381. The challenged state tactic of requiring the name of the
absent father, where known by the recipient mother, seems
reasonably calculated to achieve the goal of obtaining support
for the otherwise dependent family. Nor are the Constitutional
challenges fatal to the state's program. The most serious issue
raised concerns the problem of self-incrimination. However, any
information which was elicited under the threat of losing
welfare payments could not be considered voluntary, and would
be inadmissible in a subsequent prosecution for adultery, for
We conclude that the state's request for the putative
father's identity is a limited and practical disclosure
requirement, "a reasonable administrative tool; that it serves
a valid and proper administrative purpose for the dispensation
of the AFDC program; (and) that it is not an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy. * * *" Wyman v. James,
supra at 326, 91 S.Ct. 381; Saiz v. Goodwin, supra; Doe v.
Shapiro, supra, 302 F. Supp. at 768-771 (Claire, J.,
MAROVITZ, District Judge (dissenting).
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.