## Facts

- Former AFDC recipients assigned child support rights to Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare (DPW) as a condition of receiving benefits; DPW and the Philadelphia family court’s domestic relations unit collected and processed support.
- After AFDC benefits ended, federal rules required reassignment of support rights to the former recipient, notice of continued collections, limits on post-termination collections without authorization, return of support collected during the post-termination period, and prompt payment of excess support.
- Plaintiffs alleged DPW and related officials routinely failed to meet these requirements on a program-wide basis.
- In sampled cases, DPW averaged over 164 days after AFDC termination to reassign support rights back to recipients.
- Collections frequently continued more than three months after benefits ended, often without adequate notice or authorization.
- Collected support was often forwarded to DPW rather than paid to families, and DPW sometimes retained funds for extended periods; DPW averaged roughly 280 days to authorize refunds, with longer delays in some cases.
- Named plaintiffs experienced continued post-termination collections and delayed or withheld refunds of support owed to them.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of Title IV-D requirements and the Constitution (takings and procedural due process).

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania’s reassignment, notice, collection, and distribution practices after AFDC termination violated Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and implementing regulations.
2. Whether the State’s retention of post-termination or excess support, and failure to pay interest on delayed refunds, constituted a taking without just compensation.
3. Whether inadequate accountings and notice/opportunity to contest refund amounts or nonpayment violated procedural due process.

## Decision

- The court resolved cross-motions for summary judgment by granting relief in part to plaintiffs and in part to defendants.
- The court held that Pennsylvania’s administration did not comply with Title IV-D requirements as implemented by federal regulations, given systematic delays and distribution failures.
- The court ordered prospective remedial measures to bring reassignment and payment practices into compliance and to improve notice/accounting procedures.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ theory that the Constitution required payment of interest on improperly retained support as a compensable taking, and granted defendants summary judgment on that aspect.
- On due process, the court recognized a protectable property interest in certain support funds after AFDC termination (once the State’s reimbursement interest was satisfied) and required limited procedural improvements, but declined to impose broader constitutional duties untethered from the statutory framework.

## Legal Principles

- States participating in Title IV-D must comply with federal requirements governing post-AFDC reassignment of support rights, limits on continued collections, and timely distribution of support owed to former recipients.
- Systemic administrative delay and practices that effectively defeat federally required timing and distribution obligations may warrant declaratory and injunctive relief to secure compliance.
- Former recipients have a protected property interest in child support amounts owed to them after termination of public assistance and satisfaction of the State’s reimbursement claim.
- Procedural due process may require sufficient notice and a meaningful method to contest the handling, amount, or nonpayment of support funds in which recipients have a recognized property interest.
- The Takings Clause does not automatically create a constitutional entitlement to interest on delayed distribution of welfare-related support funds where the dispute is governed primarily by statutory and regulatory obligations.

## Conclusion

The court required Pennsylvania to correct Title IV-D administration failures involving delayed reassignment and refund/distribution of child support and to provide improved notice and accounting procedures, while declining to constitutionalize the program by recognizing a takings-based right to interest on delayed payments.


Bennett v. White, 671 F. Supp. 343 (E.D. Pa. 1987)