Judge Has 2 Weeks to Act on Work-Order Challenge

The 4th District Court of Appeal has given Superior Court Judge Thomas Murphy until Dec. 29 to respond to a legal challenge seeking to block him from ordering mothers on welfare to get off aid and find jobs.

In the challenge filed last month, the Legal Aid Society of San Diego argues that Murphy’s practice of ordering mothers of small children to get off public assistance is an abuse of discretion and a violation of state law.

Murphy, the presiding judge of San Diego County Family Court, claims that he has authority to issue the orders under a section of the state civil code that requires parents to provide for the raising of their children.

Private Attorney Hired

Earlier this month, an attorney in private practice, David Niddrie, was hired to represent the judge because the county counsel’s office would have a conflict of interest. The county counsel is charged with representing the Department of Social Services, which administers the state’s welfare program and follows guidelines that conflict with Murphy’s views.

Niddrie asked the Court of Appeal to extend his deadline for responding to the Legal Aid challenge, and Legal Aid attorneys agreed on one condition: that Murphy stop issuing the controversial orders pending the appellate court’s ruling on the matter.

Anson Levitan, one of two Legal Aid lawyers handling the case, said Murphy agreed to the request. But Tuesday, Levitan said Legal Aid received complaints from four women who received job-search orders from the judge.

Concerned about those reports, Levitan said, he telephoned Niddrie.

Created Some Confusion

“He said that Murphy had entered the orders but had stayed them,” meaning the women need not comply if the judge loses his case before the appellate court. “We responded that we hope Murphy will make it very clear to people that they are not bound by the orders, because it has created some confusion among some of our clients.”

Niddrie could not be reached for comment Wednesday, and Murphy has declined to discuss the matter until the appellate court has decided the issue.

Under Murphy’s policy, a woman on welfare who appears in his courtroom--whether for a divorce, a child custody hearing or any other legal matter--is often ordered to look for a job and get off the public dole. The Legal Aid Society, which is handling the case on behalf of five welfare recipients, contends that the policy conflicts with state and federal welfare guidelines, which allow mothers to receive aid without working until their children turn 6.

After Niddrie files his response to the challenge, Murphy’s opponents will file an answer. The court is expected to decide the case shortly thereafter, Levitan said.