ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION AFFIRMED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the
appeal of Elizabeth Arledge ("Appellant") from a decision of the Fair Hearing Committee of the
South Carolina Department of Social Services ("Department") which revoked Appellant's benefits
under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") program on the ground that Appellant
had not provided sufficient documentation of the father's identity. A hearing was conducted on
October 30, 1997, at which time oral arguments were heard on the merits of the appeal. For the
reasons stated herein, the decision of the Fair Hearing Committee is affirmed.
The Department is the state agency charged with administering the AFDC program, as
provided for in Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, in the State of South Carolina. Appellant
began receiving AFDC benefits through the Lexington County office in late 1996. In April, 1997,
Appellant received a letter from her caseworker informing her that her AFDC file would be closed
due to her failure to comply with the statutory requirements and DSS policy which required her to
provide certain minimum information regarding the identity of the father of her child. The Appellant
requested a fair hearing which was held on May 30, 1997. At the hearing, Appellant acknowledged
that the only information she had regarding the father was his first name. The Fair Hearing
Committee issued a decision on June 30, 1997, upholding the revocation of AFDC benefits.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing the findings and conclusions of an agency, the Administrative Law Judge
Division is limited to determining whether substantial rights of the Appellant have been prejudiced
because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are clearly erroneous in
view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, or the decision is
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)(e)-(f) (Supp. 1996). In accordance with the foregoing
provision, the Department's decision may only be set aside if unsupported by "substantial evidence."
"'Substantial evidence' is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one
side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable
minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order
to justify its action." Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981).
DISCUSSION
In this case, the Fair Hearing Committee concluded that the Department acted properly in
determining that Appellant's AFDC benefits were properly revoked. I find that this determination
is supported by the substantial evidence in the record. [T]he applicant must provide, at a minimum, the following on an
absent parent or putative father, or both:
(1) the first and last name . . . and
(2) at least two of the following items on each named:
(i) date of birth;
(ii) social security number;
(iii) last known home address;
(iv) last known employer's name and address;
(v) either of the absent parent's parent's name and address.
Failure to provide this information shall result in a finding of
ineligibility of benefits for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
unless the applicant or recipient asserts, and the department verifies,
there is good cause for not providing this information. Good cause
includes documentation of incest, rape, or the existence or the threat
of physical abuse to the child or custodial parent.
S.C. Code Ann. § 43-5-65(a) (Supp. 1996) (emphasis added).
The language of the statute clearly indicates that absent a good cause determination by the
Department, the AFDC benefits cannot be given to an individual not in compliance. The evidence
in the record, and the admission of the Appellant, demonstrate that the Appellant is unable to satisfy
the statutory requirement. The examples of good cause listed in the statute are not all-inclusive, but
the severity of the examples suggest something more than mere lack of knowledge, as demonstrated
in this case on the record.
Furthermore, the Department clearly followed the sanction guidelines provided in their
AFDC/FS Policy Manual. These sanctions became effective on January 2, 1997, and were the
policies at the time of the determination to revoke AFDC benefits and the subsequent hearing. The
manual states that for failure to provide sufficient information to establish paternity or failure to
provide requested information and documentation the sanction "will be the removal . . . from the FI
budget and Medicaid eligibility." AFDC/FS Policy Manual § 4.18.02, Rev. No. 97-1 (1997).
I therefore find that the decision of the Fair Hearing Committee is supported in view of the
reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record of this case.
ORDER
Based upon the record and the applicable law, the Order of the Fair Hearing Committee is
AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
November 14, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
