County of Alameda v. Agustin

Filed 9/24/07 County of Alameda v. Agustin CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

The trial court found that defendant Benjamin D. Agustin is the father of Caitlin Manuel and ordered him to make past and future payments for her support. Defendant contends that the states provision of child collection support services to Caitlins mother and the order requiring child support payments violated federal law, which bars the provision of any state or local public benefit to aliens not residing legally in the United States. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The County of Alameda (County) apparently filed a complaint against defendant to determine his paternity of Caitlin and for an order of child support. Although the record does not contain a copy of the complaint, the docket sheet for the proceeding indicates that such a complaint was filed on June 10, 2005.

In January 2006, defendant sought dismissal of the Countys action, arguing that a pending federal lawsuit deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and that the action violated federal law because Caitlins mother, Joanne Manuel, is an alien who is not residing legally in the United States. In an order dated January 18, 2006, a commissioner denied the motion and directed defendant to undergo a paternity test. Based on the results of the paternity test, the commissioner found that defendant was the father of Caitlin and recommended that he pay $396 in past child support and continuing child support of $44 per month.

Defendant thereafter filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, repeating his arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter and that an award of child support was improper under federal law. At a hearing on May 15, 2006, the trial court denied the motion and adopted the findings and recommendations of the commissioner. On June 26, 2006, a judgment regarding parental obligations was entered requiring defendant to pay past and future child support in the amounts recommended by the commissioner.

The record contains none of the evidence presented below other than the paternity test report and a declaration submitted by defendant. In the declaration, defendant states that Manuel is not a  qualified alien  for purposes of title 8 United States Code section 1641(b), but his declaration does not contain any explanation for the conclusion or evidence to support the claim.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant does not challenge the trial courts conclusion that he is Caitlins father, nor does he contend that the trial court abused its discretion when setting the amount of child support. His sole contention on appeal is that the courts award violates his constitutional rights because federal law prohibits the grant of a public benefit to aliens who are not legal residents.

Even if defendants contention were correct as a matter of law, we would be required to deny the appeal for lack of evidentiary support. Although the trial court held a hearing at which both defendant and Manuel presented sworn testimony, the transcript of this hearing was not included in the record. The only evidence in the record suggesting that Manuel is not a legal resident is defendants statement in a declaration that Manuel is not a qualified alien for purposes of federal law.[1]

Defendants declaration provides no foundation for his asserted knowledge of Manuels residency status, nor does it explain the basis for his legal conclusion that she is not a qualified alien. In the absence of such a foundation and explanation, the mere statement of a legal conclusion is insufficient to establish the factual contentions that underlie that conclusion. (See LeFlore v. Grass Harp Productions, Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 824, 836837.) Because there is no evidentiary basis in the appellate record for the factual premise of defendants legal argument, the argument must fail.

Defendants contention also fails as a matter of law. Defendant argues that the Countys provision of child support collection services to Manuel, as well as the child support payments themselves, constitute a type of State or local public benefit whose provision to aliens not residing legally in the United States is barred by title 8 United States Code section 1621 (hereafter section 1621). Our task in interpreting these statutes is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. [Citation.] (Bernard v. Foley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 794, 804.) In so doing, we look first to the statutes words, as these  generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.  [Citation.] (Ibid.) In interpreting that language, we strive to give effect and significance to every word and phrase. (Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1284.)

The statutory provision on which defendant relies, section 1621, states that an alien who is not [] . . . a qualified alien . . . [] . . . [] . . . is not eligible for any State or local public benefit (as defined in subsection (c)).[2] Section 1621(c) defines State or local public benefit to mean any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government ( 1621(c)(1)(A)) and any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government. ( 1621(c)(1)(B).) A list of the types of aliens who constitute qualified aliens is provided in section 1641 of title 8 of the United States Code.[3]

Neither child support payments nor child support collection services constitutes a grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of a State or local government, as required by section 1621(c)(1)(A). Nor do they fall within the list of specific benefits in section 1621(c)(1)(B), which includes retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, [or] unemployment benefit[s].

The issue is therefore whether child support payments or child support collection services constitute a similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government. ( 1621(c)(1)(B).) Child support payments clearly do not fall into this category. They are not provided . . . by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government. Rather, they are payments made by private individuals. The fact that the County might assist in their collection does not change the private source of the payments. (See Campos v. Anderson, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 788.) Accordingly, child support payments are not public benefits for purposes of section 1621(c)(1)(B). (See similarly City Plan Dev. v. State, Labor Commr (Nev. 2005) 117 P.3d 182, 190 [the payment of prevailing wage rates by a contractor to workers under a public contract is not a local public benefit for purposes of section 1621].)

Child support collection services present a closer question. Unlike child support payments, these services are a benefit provided . . . by an agency of a State or local government, as required by the section 1621(c)(1)(B). Under the language of the statute, the provision of such services to a person not residing legally in the United States is therefore barred by section 1621 if such services are similar to the benefits expressly listed in section 1621(c)(1)(B). We therefore consider whether child support collection services constitute a similar benefit.

The purpose of section 1621 is to reduce the incentives for illegal immigration by denying publicly financed social welfare benefits to aliens not residing legally in the United States. The enactment of that federal legislation was fueled by concerns regarding a rising unauthorized immigrant population in the United States. (Doe v. Wilson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 296, 301.) In enacting [section 1621], Congress declared national policy continued to be that aliens in the United States not depend on public resources to meet their needs; that the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States; that compelling government interests required enactment of new rules to assure that aliens be self-reliant consistent with national immigration policy; and that the federal government has a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits. [Citation.] (Ibid.)

The benefits specifically listed in section 1621retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, [or] unemployment benefit[s]are all either direct income support payments or services intended to meet the daily needs of disadvantaged persons. Significantly, such payments and services are continuing, or potentially continuing benefits, intended to provide ongoing public support for the recipients for as long as required. Child support collection services are quite different. Far from fostering dependence on public support, these services are intended to help recipients support themselves by ensuring that all parents bear their fair share of the burden of supporting their children. Indeed, when properly provided, child support collection services return to the local agency considerably more funds than they cost. (See Blessing v. Freestone (1997) 520 U.S. 329, 334335.) Further, such services are ongoing only if it is necessary continually to compel payments from a resolutely deadbeat parent; ideally, the services terminate with the award of child support. Accordingly, because they provide no continuing public assistance to recipients, child support collection services create little or no incentive for illegal immigration. For this reason, child support collection services are not similar to the benefits expressly listed in section 1621(c)(1)(B), and their provision is not prohibited by that statute.

A case employing similar reasoning is Rajeh v. Steel City Corp. (2004) 813 N.E.2d 697, in which the court concluded that benefits from the state workers compensation fund did not constitute a State public benefit for purposes of section 1621. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned, Workers compensation is not a similar benefit to those listed. The listed benefits are either means for the government to assist people with economic hardships until they are able to financially manage on their own, such as welfare and food assistance, or they are an earned benefit, such as retirement. On the other hand, workers compensation is a substitutionary remedy for a negligence lawsuit. . . . [] . . . [] . . . Additionally, as stated previously, the other main purpose of the workers compensation system is to promote a safe and injury-free workplace. [Citation.] Since employers are ultimately responsible for paying workers compensation claims, through insurance premiums or self-insuring payments, they are more likely to keep their workplaces safe for all employees. To refuse to allow illegal aliens injured on the job to recover from the Workers Compensation Fund, would be to encourage the hiring of illegal aliens and downgrade workplace safety. None of the State public benefits listed in [section] 1621(c)(1)(B) share these unique characteristics. (Rajeh,at p. 707.)

Defendant relies in part on Blessing v. Freestone, supra, 520 U.S. 329, in which the Supreme Court considered whether a group of mothers had standing to compel the state to provide effective child support collection services. In the process of considering this issue, the court discussed at length the child support collection services that federal law requires each state to provide before it can participate in the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. (Id. at pp. 333334.) While Blessing makes clear that such child support collection services are indeed social services provided pursuant to a cooperative federal-state welfare program[] (id. at 333), Blessing does not even consider, let alone decide, their status as public benefits for purposes of section 1621. As discussed above, section 1621 does not bar the provision of all social services to aliens who are not residing legally, but only the provision of services or benefits similar to those expressly listed in section 1621(c)(1)(B). As discussed above, we conclude that child support collection services are not similar benefits, and their provision to aliens who are not residing legally is not precluded by section 1621.

III. DISPOSITION

The trial courts judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Margulies, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Marchiano, P.J.

_________________________

Swager, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

[1] Although defendant contends in his reply brief that Manuels immigration status was undisputed in the trial court, there is no confirmation of this in the record on appeal, which contains no indication of the parties respective positions on this issue.

[2] Defendant also relies on a similar provision of California law, Welfare and Institutions Code section 10001.5. Because defendants state law argument has already been rejected in Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 788, we do not address it further. We note, however, that section 10001.5 was declared preempted by section 1621 in federal litigation. (League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (C.D.Cal. 1997) 997 F.Supp. 1244, 1255.)

[3] Because, as noted above, we have no information about Manuel, there is no way to determine whether she fell within one of these categories (or even, for that matter, whether she is an alien).