## Facts

- Indiana administered the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program and required TANF households to assign child-support rights to the State.
- Indiana adopted a “family benefit cap” under Ind. Code § 12-14-2-5.3(b), excluding most children born at least ten months after initial TANF eligibility from the household’s TANF needs and grant calculation.
- Despite excluding these “capped” children from benefit calculations, Indiana still required them to assign their child-support rights to the State.
- As a result, capped children received no additional TANF cash assistance based on their presence in the household, yet their child-support payments were diverted to the State to offset TANF expenditures for the family.
- A certified class of capped children (through their mothers as next friends) sued the Indiana FSSA Secretary in her official capacity, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment) and federal TANF law.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on largely undisputed facts.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s requirement that capped children assign their child-support rights to the State, while providing no TANF benefit attributable to those children, constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether federal TANF law authorizes or requires assignment of child-support rights from children who are excluded from TANF benefit calculations and do not actually receive TANF assistance.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the State’s motion.
- The court held that requiring capped children to assign their child-support rights to the State, without any compensating TANF benefit or other compensation, was an unconstitutional taking.
- The court concluded that federal TANF provisions did not require Indiana to impose assignment obligations on children who were not actually receiving TANF assistance.
- The court entered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged assignment policy as applied to capped children.

## Legal Principles

- Court-ordered child-support payments owed to a child constitute a protectable property interest under state law and may trigger Takings Clause scrutiny when the State compels assignment for governmental reimbursement.
- A compelled transfer of an identifiable property interest to the government for a public purpose requires just compensation; absence of any corresponding benefit to the property holder weighs in favor of finding an unconstitutional taking.
- Prior approval of child-support assignment in public-assistance programs does not control where the affected children receive no assistance attributable to them and the State retains the child support without a direct benefit to the child.
- Under the Penn Central framework, substantial economic impact, frustration of reasonable expectations to receive child support, and the character of the action as targeted appropriation can support a finding of an uncompensated taking.
- Federal TANF assignment requirements apply to individuals who actually receive assistance; a state cannot justify broader assignment demands as federally mandated when the affected children are excluded from receipt of benefits.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Indiana could not finance TANF expenditures by diverting capped children’s child-support payments when those children received no TANF benefit based on their presence; the policy effected an uncompensated taking and was permanently enjoined, and federal TANF law did not require the State to impose the challenged assignment obligation.


Williams ex rel. Ricard v. Humphreys, 125 F. Supp. 2d 881 (S.D. Ind. 2000)