See more articles on this suit by The Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC TV, and the Mercury News.

November 24, 2011 - In a lawsuit filed November 23, 2011, in Alameda County Superior Court, Hartley & Ayers v. Lightbourne, two girls, 14 and 19 years old, are asking the Court to call an immediate halt to California’s illegal practice of forcing children to repay the old welfare debts of their parents or guardians.

Both girls were children when their guardians were supposedly overpaid CalWORKs cash benefits. One of them was not even born when most of the money was originally paid out. Yet despite the unfairness and illegality of holding children accountable for the debts of their parents or guardians, the California Department of Social Services (DSS) is now forcing the plaintiffs to repay the money.

The result is that the plaintiffs, like the estimated tens of thousands of people in the same position, are being driven further into poverty and robbed of the chance to become self-sufficient.

One of the petitioners, Irene L., 14, is being raised by her great-grandfather, Clarence Ayers, in Fresno County. Mr. Ayers gets $334 per month in CalWORKs aid to pay for Irene’s needs. The county was threatening to cut Irene’s grant to repay almost $3,000 mistakenly paid to her mother in 1996-1998. “I don’t understand how the county can come after Irene for a debt that happened when she wasn’t even born,” said Ayers, who is also a party to the suit. “She is being punished for something she never did, and we already don’t have enough money to pay for her basic living expenses.”

The mother of petitioner Jamie Hartley, 19, was mistakenly given too much CalWORKs money about three years ago. Now DSS is seeking to pay itself back by garnishing Jamie’s wages and her tax refund – money she needs to buy college textbooks and pay off debts. “I have no idea how I can get through school while paying my mother’s debts,” she said. “I never knew this problem existed until the state started coming after me.”

“To saddle young people with the debts of previous generations is both illegal and immoral,” said Antionette Dozier of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the attorneys  representing the petitioners. “These children are not responsible for these debts and, just when they are trying to overcome the disadvantages of growing up in poverty, it is wrong to demand it.”

“Indentured servitude was abolished a long time ago,” said Public Interest Law Project attorney Patti Prunhuber, who also represents the petitioners. “Our clients are two of potentially thousands of young people being targeted by DSS for debt collection. We want the court to tell DSS that this illegal practice has to stop right now.”

The lawsuit asks the court to require DSS to throw out any regulations that allow state or county agencies to seek debt repayments from current or former CalWORKs children, and to force welfare agencies to issue reimbursements for overpayments illegally collected.

About the Public Interest Law Project and the Western Center on Law and Poverty

The Public Interest Law Project (http://www.pilpca.org) and the Western Center on Law and Poverty (www.wclp.org) are prominent public interest law firms focusing on, among other pursuits, impact litigation and advocacy on behalf of disadvantaged Californians.

Dan Pearlman has served on PILP’s Board since its inception in 1986. Elected chair in 2011, Dan exhibits great passion for PILP’s work and lends his valuable knowledge and insight in furthering our mission. Following his service with the Peace Corps in Liberia, Dan spent a summer working with the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee where he developed his interest in public interest law. Dan worked to further low-income housing rights of low-income persons for many years at the National Housing Law Project.

Subsequently, he served on the Boards of the California Reinvestment Committee and California Housing Partnership. Noting that PILP has had “an incredible number of very important successes in helping to serve poor folks in California,” and that its “longer term future looks very good,” Dan hopes to see PILP continue to work toward the improvement of housing and poverty law throughout the state.   PILP is proud to highlight Dan’s leadership on the Board.

Dan is one of the original PILP Board Members and was elected Chair in 2011.
After working in Mississippi in the summer of 1964 with the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee, Dan devoted his volunteer work and career as a public interest attorney, advocate and consultant to Civil Rights work and to helping low income people and their advocates in their pursuit of social and economic justice. Dan was a legal services attorney from 1968 to 1995 including 22 years with the National Housing Law Project where his work focused on developing and preserving housing for very low and low income households.

Mona Towatao, Vice-Chair

Mona Tawatao has been a regional counsel with Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) since October 1999. In this capacity, Mona directs and coordinates LSNC=s major land use and housing advocacy in its 23 county service area and has litigated a number of cases that preserved and improved existing affordable housing or led to the development of new housing units for lower income households. Prior to joining LSNC, Mona worked for nine years at San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services (NLS) as a staff attorney and directing attorney where she focused on affordable housing development, tenants= rights and land use cases and school finance cases. From 1988 to 1990, she clerked for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Mona received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 1986. Mona received a Legal Aid Association of California Award of Merit in 2005 and a Reginald Heber Smith Award from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association in 2007. Mona is a visiting professor at UC Davis School of Law and also serves on the board of the Equal Justice Society and the Advisory Editorial Board of the Clearinghouse Review.

Irma Herrera, Treasurer & Secretary

Irma Herrera joined PILP’s board in 2010. She currently works as a journalist covering legal and social justice issues at San Francisco based New America Media. Her thirty-year career as a civil rights lawyer included serving as the Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates for 15 years. She was served a staff attorney at Washington State’s Evergreen Legal Services and with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She is the recipient of various awards including the American Bar Association’s Margaret Brent Award, awarded to women lawyer of distinction.

Miye Goishi

Miye Goishi joined the Hastings faculty in 1992 after 11 years of practice in the San Francisco Bay Area public interest community. She specialized in housing work at both Legal Aid of Marin and Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation. In 2008 she became the Director of the Civil Justice Clinic. She serves on the Board of Directors of two public interest organizations, the Child Care Law Center and the Public Interest Law Project.
Professor Goishi grew up in the East Bay community of Livermore and always knew she would return to the Bay Area after school to take advantage of its temperate climate and progressive politics.

William Hebert

William N. Hebert is a partner in the San Francisco office of Calvo & Clark. Mr. Hebert represents clients in business litigation, including class action defense, business torts (such as antitrust, trade secret litigation, and interference with economic advantage), patent and trademark infringement, false advertising and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Mr. Hebert has published numerous articles in the areas of antitrust and business torts, and he is contributing co-author of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law (Lexis Nexis, 2010), published by the California State Bar Section on Antitrust and Unfair Competition, for which he contributed chapters on the subjects of expert witnesses, injunctions, treble damages and void contracts. Mr. Hebert was elected to serve as President of the State Bar of California for the 2010-2011 term. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Legal Aid Society and a member of the Board of Trustees of Prospect Sierra School, where he chairs the Development Committee. He received his J.D. for the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1988 and an A.B. from Stanford University in 1983 (with distinction).

Barbra Williams-Diallo

Barbra W. Diallo is an Associate in Burke, Williams & Sorensen’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group, where she represents public and private sector management clients, including cities, counties, corporations, small businesses, non-profit entities, educational entities, and special districts. Ms. Diallo has extensive experience in complex civil litigation, including discrimination, employee misclassification, wage and hour violations, and other employment related liabilities. Ms. Diallo’s experience includes significant pre-trial law and motion practice, all aspects of discovery, advising on various employment matters, and conducting workplace investigations. Ms. Diallo received her J.D. in 2006 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where she served as the Notes Editor for the Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, Sub-regional Director for the National Black Law Students Association, and as a Teaching Assistant for Legal Writing & Research.

For more than a decade, Miye Goishi has lent her vision and expertise to the Boards of The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) and the Child Care Law Center (CCLC). On June 9, 2011, the Legal Aid Association of California honored Miye’s dedicated years of service at a San Francisco awards ceremony. Michael Rawson, Co-Director of the Public Interest Law Project, and Melissa Rodgers, Directing Attorney of the Child Care Law Center, presented Miye with the Award of Merit.

Miye Goishi is a long-time member of the Bay Area public interest community. She began her legal career specializing in housing work at Legal Aid of Marin and Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation. In 1992, after 11 years, Miye joined the UC Hastings faculty, and in 2008, became the Director of Hastings’ Civil Justice Clinic, where she has mentored countless students committed to public interest law and social justice work. Her students have greatly benefited from her wisdom.

As president of PILP’s Board for 15 years, Miye oversaw the founding of the organization and guided it from a two-attorney program to the seven attorney statewide support center it has become. Miye saw the crucial importance of cultivating a network of state-wide support centers to sustain and catalyze the efforts of local legal services offices. She and other PILP board members helped us chart our course to become the well-established and valued resource for local programs that we are today.

As member of the Child Care Law Center Board, Miye presided over one of the most tumultuous periods of that organization’s 25-year history. In late 2009, the recession forced CCLC to close. However, under Miye’s leadership, the organization not only reopened, but developed long-term strategies for sustainability and reasserted its role in the effort to provide affordable child care to low-income parents statewide. Miye’s judgment and determination united the Board and inspired confidence that CCLC would continue to thrive.

Miye Goishi has invested great time and energy in helping to direct and assist PILP and CCLC. It is a fitting tribute to Miye that these two organizations recently combined as co-counsel in a successful lawsuit, preventing last-minute, catastrophic cuts to child care subsidies that would have left the working families of more than 56,000 children without child care.  PILP treasures its friendship with Miye, and joins with the Legal Aid Association of California to applaud her work.

The Public Interest Law Project along with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley filed a brief of amici curiae in support of Sunnyvale.  The court of appeals, relying in part on the amicus briefing, held that inclusionary zoning requirements are not monetary exactions on development.  Significantly, the court acknowledged that the purpose of inclusionary housing—to ensure future housing development includes affordable housing—is a legitimate public purpose of local government.

PILP represented Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, California Coalition of Rural Housing, Southern California Association of Affordable Housing, San Diego Housing Federation and Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County.

Trinity Park LLP v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal.App.4th 1014 (2011).

Alameda County claimed it was obligated under federal tax law to report rent payments it made to GA recipients’ landlords from the recipients’ GA stipends even though it had been diverting a portion of GA recipients’ rent directly to their landlords for 20 years without making these reports.  In January 2009, when the County suddenly announced its W-9 policy The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) and Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA) asked that the County drop this unlawful and inhumane policy, and when it refused, filed suit. While the case was pending, the County revised its policy many times, eventually branding it as one of  ‘in kind aid’ and promising to offer shelter beds to GA recipients whom it forced into homelessness. Nearly a year after the suit was filed, and on the eve of trial, the County procured an opinion letter from the I.R.S. that it had the right to demand landlords’ W-9s.  But PILP argued that the I.R.S. letter should be given little weight, and that in any event, any tax reporting obligation could not justify slashing recipients’ aid based upon the conduct of their landlords.

On December 23, 2009, calling the grant cut “cruel,” the Honorable Frank Roesch of the Alameda County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate, ordering the County to abandon its W-9 grant cut.  The court found that no tax reporting obligation actually existed and the County had obtained its I.R.S. opinion letter based upon sworn representations that were “untrue,” and agreed with the petitioners’ argument that even if a reporting obligation had existed, the federal tax laws cannot override a county’s obligations under the California welfare statutes to provide last resort assistance.   The County appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that even if a tax reporting obligation existed, which it did not, “the County may not voluntarily implement a policy which conflicts with the mandates of the general assistance law.”  Furthermore, the Court said, “a policy which fosters homelessness is inimical to the very purpose of GA legislation.”

Cleary has statewide importance. Many other counties reduce or even deny GA recipients’ aid if their landlords do not supply their Social Security Numbers. With the publication of Cleary, they will presumably abandon these unlawful policies. More broadly, the decision reemphasizes that GA must be administered humanely, and declares that a policy that forces people who have homes to become homeless in order to receive any housing aid is inhumane and violates state law.

Cleary decision

Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker LLP joined PILP and Bay Legal after judgment was entered in the Trial Court, and provided invaluable wisdom on the appeal brief. Five long-time friends of PILP, Legal Services of Northern California, Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Homeless Action Center, Asian Law Alliance, and the California Tax Reform Association, joined in two very effective amicus briefs.  The amicus briefs were drafted by attorneys at Shearman & Sterling LLP and Dechert LLP. All of the amici, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Legal Aid Society of Orange County, CRLA and others joined in letters requesting publication of the decision, and the request was granted on June 17, 2011.

The trial court ordered all policies capping residential development removed from Pleasanton’s general plan and compelled the City to rezone sufficient developable sites to meet its lower income housing need.  The court also enjoined the City from issuing commercial building permits until it complied with the court’s order.  To settle the remaining claims in the suit, the City agreed to a settlement providing that it will adopt: a new housing element within a year to accommodate its affordable housing need, a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a resolution that it will not discriminate against affordable housing. Finally, the settlement ensures that at least 130 units of housing affordable to very low income households will be developed in a mixed use development.

The case has statewide importance as the ruling puts other jurisdictions on notice that local residential growth restrictions could violate the Housing Element Law. The Court of Appeal in 2008 had overturned the dismissal of the case by the previous trial court judge.  Significantly, the court found that the City’s growth cap had become inconsistent with the Housing Element Law when Pleasanton was allocated a share of the regional housing need that was impossible to accommodate under the cap.

Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, 164 Cal.App.4th 1561 (2008).)

Fifteen years later, PILP has more than tripled its staff, and now includes six permanent attorneys, a private firm fellow, a legal assistant, an administrator, and an accountant.  “The Public Interest Law Project has one of the most effective, creative and dedicated teams of public interest lawyers in the country,” says Bill Hebert, State Bar President and a PILP Board member.  PILP attorneys have litigated over 200 high impact cases, drafted key legislation, provided critical training and expertise in affordable housing and public benefits to legal services field programs throughout California, and produced results benefiting tens of thousands of low-income individuals and families.

PILP’s success is rooted in its close relationship with the legal services community. In almost all of its cases, PILP co-counsels with a local legal services program, most recently including  Bay Area Legal Aid, California Rural Legal Assistance, Legal Services of Northern California, Public Counsel and others.  PILP’s strength reflects the dedication, skill, and trust of the local legal services programs that PILP serves and views as full partners in executing its mission.

PILP’s success also is due to its strong relationships with major law firms such as Paul Hastings LLP, Bingham McCutcheon LLP, Morrison & Forrester LLP, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP.  The combined firepower of PILP, legal services programs, and private firms enables us to provide high quality representation to low-income individuals, families, and communities whose rights we vindicate.

To honor just a few of some of its valued partners, PILP took the opportunity at its anniversary event to acknowledge Paul Hastings LLP, Bay Area Legal Aid, and Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett for their distinguished leadership, service and commitment, and PILP’s client Parent Voices for its advocacy on behalf of affordable child care.  PILP also recognized its superb and committed Board members, several of whom have served since PILP’s inception.

From its modest beginning in 1996, PILP has become a powerful advocate for the disadvantaged, helping to ensure their access to justice after legal services programs’ hands were tied.  PILP’s 15^th anniversary celebration on May 18^th brought California’s public interest law community together to acknowledge our shared successes and common mission.   We thank all who attended, whether in person or in spirit.

The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) stepped in as lead counsel, partnering with the Child Care Law Center and several legal services programs throughout the state, to swiftly challenge the child care terminations. Representing Parent Voices Oakland and four low-income parents, PILP swiftly obtained an emergency order from the Alameda County Superior Court, keeping the child care in place until there was a further hearing.  A few days later, Judge Carvill issued an order requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to continue Stage 3 child care, until it notified families of their right to be screened for other subsidized childcare services. Link to Judge’s Ruling

After obtaining two favorable court orders, the parties  negotiated a court-approved settlement with CDE that extended the Stage 3 program through December 31, 2010 and required state-contracted child care agencies to inform families of their right to request a screening for any available child care alternatives. Many families were able to transition to other subsidized child care.  When interim funding was appropriated in February 2011, many more of the former Stage 3 families were restored to the program.

In late June, 2011, the parties reached a Final Stipulated Order of Settlement which restores child care services for the remaining parents who have successfully transitioned off welfare but whose wages are still too low to cover child care.  The final settlement ensures that all of the former Stage 3 families who lost child care services due to the Governor’s veto will have an opportunity to come back onto the program.

“This settlement gives California working families everything they sought in court,” said Patti Prunhuber of The Public Interest Law Project. “We are grateful that the turmoil unleashed by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s veto can finally be corrected and that children will be in safe, affordable child care while their parents are working.”

“We have achieved success in saving thousands of jobs for working parents and child care providers, but most importantly, we have assured that our number one priority, child care for children, has been upheld,” said Corean Todd, a member of Parent Voices Oakland. This court case not only helped our Parent Voices Oakland members but all parents on a state wide level.  Child care keeps children learning and parents earning.”

The Public Interest Law Project co-counseled with the Child Care Law Center,  Western Center on Law & Poverty, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, Public Counsel Law Center, and Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

OAKLAND, CA – Ending a six-month court case sparked by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s elimination of vital child care funding, the State of California agreed this week to ensure that working families will continue to have child care assistance. The ground-breaking settlement preserves child care for parents who have successfully transitioned off welfare but whose wages are still too low to cover child care.  The settlement affects the families of 56,000 California children who had been told they would lose their child care last October.

Governor Brown and the Legislature have both proposed budgets earlier this year that included funding for the program, but a final budget has not been passed. The terms of the settlement apply regardless of the budget outcome. The settlement agreement, signed by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Wynne Carvill on June 22, provides an opportunity for parents who lost Stage 3 child care to come back onto the program now.

“This settlement gives California working families everything they sought in court,” said Patti Prunhuber, an attorney at the Public Interest Law Project, the lead counsel for Parent Voices Oakland, the group that filed the case. “We are grateful that the turmoil unleashed by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s veto can finally be corrected and that children will be in safe, affordable child care while their parents are working.”

Last October and November, the Alameda County Superior Court issued two emergency orders temporarily halting the termination of child care, and ordering the state to notify families of their right to be screened for other child care programs. However, that did not end the controversy. Parents had already received notices telling them that their child care was ending on November 1^st. “Thousands of families were left confused as to whether they would still have affordable care for their children,” said Melissa Rodgers, an attorney with the Child Care Law Center, a co-counsel in the case.  “We know for a fact that many families who lost their Stage 3 child care have never come back. We want them to know that they have the right to come back to Stage 3 now.”  The Dept. of Education has agreed to have child care agencies conduct meaningful outreach efforts to find and restore child care services to former Stage 3 families who fell out of the system. Child care agencies will be trying to locate families in the coming weeks for re-enrollment.

“We have achieved success in saving thousands of jobs for working parents and child care providers, but most importantly, we have assured that our number one priority, child care for children, has been upheld,” said Corean Todd, a member of Parent Voices Oakland. “We hope that our efforts help parents nationwide to understand how important, integral, and powerful their voices are in the planning and implementation of change. This court case not only helped our Parent Voices Oakland members but all parents on a state wide level.  Child care keeps children learning and parents earning.”

The suit was brought by the Public Interest Law Project, the Child Care Law Center, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, Public Counsel Law Center, and Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

Stipulated Order of Final Settlement 6.22.11

————————————————————————————————————

Contacts:

Patti Prunhuber, Public Interest Law Project, (510) 891-9794 ext. 125, pprunhuber@pilpca.org; Stephen Ronfeldt, ext. 127, sronfeldt@pilpca.org

The Public Interest Law Project provides crucial litigation and advocacy support to local legal services and public interest law programs throughout California. (http://www.pilpca.org)

Melissa Rodgers, Child Care Law Center, (415) 558-8005, mrodgers@childcarelaw.org

The Child Care Law Center is a national nonprofit legal services organization that works to make affordable, good child care available to families and communities. (http://www.childcarelaw.org)