Court Expected to Stall Welfare Cuts : Benefits: Appeals court indicates it will maintain general relief while a trial is held to consider a county plan to drop some from welfare roles.

Nearly 2,000 San Diego welfare recipients appeared likely to win a continued reprieve from San Diego County’s attempt to end their monthly benefits, after an appellate court indicated Thursday that it favors keeping them on general relief while a trial on the issue is conducted.

Though the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal did not issue a formal ruling, two of the three judges on the panel left the clear impression that they would order a Superior Court trial on precedent-setting legal questions raised by the county’s approach to ending general relief welfare payments for able-bodied adults.

“They’re going to stay (the county’s plan) to allow it to go trial,” said Ian Fan, the county attorney who was afforded little time to outline his arguments at Thursday’s hearing before Justices Howard B. Wiener, Charles W. Froelich Jr. and Gilbert Nares.

Such an order would mean at least a two-month extension of benefits for the 1,940 people who faced losing monthly welfare checks of as much as $291 because of the county’s effort to plug its budget deficit, now pegged at about $30 million.

The judges suggested remanding the case to Superior Court Judge Judith Haller for a trial in 60 to 90 days, a timetable that Fan said he could meet. But Legal Aid attorney Anson Levitan, who filed the class-action lawsuit, told the justices it could take him six months to be ready for a trial if statistical data on employment and sociological studies requested by the judges were required.

Fan conceded there is now little likelihood the county will save any money on the general relief program during the current fiscal year, which ends in June. The cuts, made final by the Board of Supervisors in January, were designed to save $6.2 million annually by eliminating able-bodied adults from the rolls after three months of payments.

The last-resort general relief program supports about 6,000 indigent adults without children who qualify for no other form of public assistance except food stamps, which provide up to $111 monthly in cash. Most recipients are men, and about 20% are homeless, according to county statistics.

The state requires the county to provide the benefits but does not contribute to them.

The county’s effort to end the payments to “employables” is part of a national trend toward ending or reducing welfare payments for adults without physical or mental impairments that prevent them from holding jobs.

The San Diego cuts were scheduled to start Feb. 1. Haller granted Legal Aid attorneys a temporary restraining order Jan. 30, but on Feb. 14 refused to permanently prevent the county from ending the payments while a trial was held. Levitan appealed the case to the 4th District Court of Appeal, and Wiener temporarily overruled Haller on Feb. 21, blocking the cuts.

Legal Aid lawyers claim that state law and a 1971 California Supreme Court decision prohibit counties from discontinuing welfare payments to an entire class of people, simply because they are deemed “employable.”

In the midst of the recession, when even skilled workers are having difficulty finding jobs, the elimination of benefits for people completely dependent on them would cause tremendous hardship, Levitan has argued.

The county contends that Proposition 13, which limits local government’s ability to raise revenue, has changed the rules of policy making. No longer can a county simply levy new taxes when more money is needed for welfare recipients or other increasing county expenses, Fan said.

The county also claims that welfare is becoming a way of life for some recipients, noting that several found jobs when they faced the threat of loss of payments. And the county contends that, by offering three months of payments, it is limiting the duration of benefits, not cutting off an entire class of people.

While the court is not “unsympathetic” to the county’s fiscal plight, Wiener told Fan, “we need a record that would establish that the fiscal problems have reached a point where drastic decisions are necessary.”

A trial, which would be closely watched by other counties throughout the state, would be the first test of the time-limited approach, Fan said. It also would examine what the county considers a conflict between the state law requiring payment of benefits and another section of the same welfare code that defines welfare as a way of encouraging self-reliance, Fan said.

The hearing quickly came to an end when both Wiener and Nares indicated that they were likely to vote to keep the payments going while they order a trial.

“I think there’s a statistical likelihood that this court would be sympathetic to the notion of a status quo, i.e continuing to enjoin (the county from enacting the cuts) for as long as 60 days,” Wiener said.

Alluding to the same subject, Nares told Fan, “I think you can take a hint.”