## Facts

- California’s Old Age Security Law provided need-based public assistance to needy elderly persons.
- Welfare & Institutions Code sections 12100–12101 required certain adult children of aged assistance recipients to reimburse the government for part of the aid paid, using an income-based schedule.
- Civil Code section 206 imposed a general duty on children (as well as parents) to support a poor person unable to maintain themselves to the extent of their ability.
- Two elderly aid recipients and their adult sons filed a class action challenging the reimbursement scheme as unconstitutional under equal protection.
- A son alleged the county ordered him to pay a monthly amount toward his elderly mother’s support despite limited household income and retirement savings goals.
- Plaintiffs contended the statutes unfairly shifted welfare costs from the general public to a narrow group (adult children of recipients) and operated as an impermissible wealth-based classification.
- The superior court issued a statewide temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the reimbursement provisions.
- State officials sought extraordinary writ relief to set aside the statewide injunction and to defend the statutes’ constitutionality.

## Issues

1. Whether the relatives’ responsibility statutes requiring adult children to reimburse public assistance for aged parents violate state or federal equal protection by arbitrarily imposing welfare costs on a discrete group.
2. Whether the scheme creates a suspect wealth-based classification or otherwise triggers strict scrutiny rather than rational basis review.
3. Whether the statutory scheme is constitutionally supported by the traditional family support duty reflected in Civil Code section 206, notwithstanding prior case law addressing narrower applications.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Welfare & Institutions Code sections 12100–12101 against the equal protection challenge.
- The Court held the classification was not a suspect wealth classification and did not implicate a fundamental right; rational basis review applied.
- The Court found legitimate governmental objectives, including reinforcing familial support obligations and reducing public welfare expenditures.
- The Court determined the income-based contribution schedule was rationally related to those objectives.
- The Court granted writ relief and directed that the statewide injunctive restraint against enforcement not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Wealth, standing alone, is not treated as a suspect classification for equal protection purposes outside limited contexts; strict scrutiny is not triggered merely because obligations vary with income.
- When no suspect class or fundamental right is involved, a welfare-financing classification is valid if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- The state may rationally allocate some public-assistance costs to legally recognized family support obligations, including duties reflected in Civil Code section 206.
- Administrative feasibility supports use of a graduated, income-related schedule; imperfect line-drawing does not make a welfare classification unconstitutional under rational basis review.

## Conclusion

California’s requirement that certain adult children reimburse the government for aid paid to aged parents survives equal protection review because it is grounded in established family support duties and is rationally related to legitimate fiscal and policy goals, so statewide judicial restraints on enforcement were unwarranted.


Swoap v. Superior Court, 516 P.2d 840 (Cal. 1973)