Welfare Mothers Challenge Judge’s Go-to-Work Orders

A San Diego Superior Court judge is exceeding his authority and causing havoc for poor women by ordering mothers on welfare to find jobs and get off the public dole, the Legal Aid Society argues in a challenge to the jurist’s conduct filed Monday.

In a 30-page petition filed on behalf of five welfare mothers, the society contends that Thomas R. Murphy, presiding judge of San Diego’s Family Court, is running a private “workfare” program that is in “complete disregard” of state and federal welfare law.

Murphy’s program is illegal, the society maintains, because it creates extra conditions for welfare eligibility--conditions that neither the state nor federal governments themselves require of aid recipients.

The petition asks the 4th District Court of Appeal to abolish Murphy’s so-called “job-search program” and declare it a violation of state and federal law. The Legal Aid Society also is seeking a stay prohibiting Murphy from issuing any more job-search orders until the legal challenge is resolved.

Cites State Civil Code

Murphy could not be reached for comment Monday. But, in an interview earlier this month, the judge said he finds authority for his policy in a section of the California civil code that requires parents to provide for their children. He contends that, by merely receiving welfare checks, parents on aid are not meeting their statutory obligation to support their offspring.

“I ask these parents on aid, and most of them are women, whether there is anything emotionally or physically wrong with them or the child that would prevent them from working,” Murphy said in the interview. “If the answer is no, then I believe they are legally obligated to provide for their family.”

But Legal Aid attorneys argue that state law has traditionally defined parents’ “support obligation” as one requiring them to “meet the legitimate needs of their children, consistent with the resources available” to them. The welfare payments enable recipients to meet those needs and thus fulfill their obligation under the civil code, the attorneys argue.

Under Murphy’s policy, instituted about three years ago, any mother on aid who comes through his courtroom and meets his criteria can be ordered to look for work and get off of welfare. Many are there seeking divorces, others as witnesses trying to compel their former husbands to pay child support.

Under state law, welfare recipients with children under 6 are not required to work. But Murphy sets a different standard. If a given mother’s child has reached age 2 or is toilet-trained, the judge orders her to make five “job contacts” weekly until she finds employment.

As an alternative, a mother may enroll in a state program providing job training and education for welfare recipients who need it when their children turn 6 and they are required to find work.

Those who fail to comply with Murphy’s orders are labeled “non-cooperative” and may have their welfare grants cut.

Exceeding Jurisdiction

Legal Aid attorneys Anson Levitan and Colleen Fahey Fearn argue that, in conducting such a program and, in essence, creating his own standards for the receipt of welfare, Murphy is performing a role reserved for the state Department of Social Services.

“By ordering those petitioning for divorce and women appearing as child-support witnesses to conduct job-search activities, and then seeking to remove them from . . . (welfare) if they fail to do so, the Superior Court exceeds its jurisdiction by interfering” with the state agency given authority over the welfare system, the attorneys wrote.

They also argue that Murphy has created a “job-search program that is unique to San Diego County and contrary to the principle of establishing statewide uniformity through the single state agency.”

Moreover, Murphy’s critics contend that there is no precedent in California law allowing the judge to compel a custodial parent to look for work. Even if he had such authority, the attorneys point out, Murphy fails to consider “relevant factors” such as earning capacity and a woman’s ability to afford child care in issuing his job-search orders.

Each of the five women challenging Murphy’s policy--Stacey Cope, Teresa Jacobo, Mona Asuncion, Karen Anderson, and Theresa Schommer--are single mothers on welfare who received orders from the judge during the past year.

Cope, 20, is raising her 3-year-old daughter, Ashley, on $535 a month plus $87 in food stamps. Cope says she would rather work than remain on welfare but lacks the skills to obtain a job that pays enough to cover child care. Like other mothers in similar circumstances, Cope is reluctant to go off of aid because she will lose her Medi-Cal benefits.

Although the appeal court could decline to review Murphy’s policy, Fearn said the Legal Aid Society is optimistic that the justices will agree to consider the challenge because Murphy himself has urged them to do so.

A former family law attorney, Murphy, 52, was appointed to the El Cajon Municipal Court by then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. in July, 1980. Five years later, Gov. George Deukmejian elevated him to the Superior Court.

The Legal Aid Society of San Diego represents low-income clients who cannot afford to hire their own attorney. The society is being aided in the challenge by the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, which matches attorneys willing to take cases on a pro bono basis with needy clients.