In Re Joe P. Ramirez, Jose Presiado Ramirez. County of Santa Clara v. Joe P. Ramirez, Jose Presiado Ramirez

795 F.2d 1494 55 USLW 2179 , Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,293 In re Joe P. RAMIREZ, Jose Presiado Ramirez. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Appellant, v. Joe P. RAMIREZ, Jose Presiado Ramirez, Appellees. No. 84-2612. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 1985. Decided Aug. 4, 1986. Gloria F. DeHart, Dist. Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Mary S. Reiss, Phillips & Reiss, Burlingame, Cal., for appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before TANG, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, * District Judge. OPINION TANG, Circuit Judge: 1 The County of Santa Clara (the "County") appeals from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's decision that a parent's debt to the County for reimbursement of Aid for Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") payments made to his spouse for the support of their two minor children is dischargeable in bankruptcy. The County made the AFDC payments during a period when Mr. Ramirez was under no support order nor any dissolution decree or separation agreement requiring support. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 Jose and Yolanda Ramirez were married in…

The County of Santa Clara (the “County”) appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a parent’s debt to the County for reimbursement of Aid for Families with Dependent Children (“AFDC”) payments made to his spouse for the support of their two minor children is dischargeable in bankruptcy. The County made the AFDC payments during a period when Mr. Ramirez was under no support order nor any dissolution decree or separation agreement requiring support. We affirm.

L BACKGROUND

Jose and Yolanda Ramirez were married in February 1973 and subsequently parented two children. In July 1977 they separated, but without a dissolution decree or court order for alimony or child support.

In December 1979, Mrs. Ramirez requested AFDC from the County. As a condition of eligibility for aid she was required to assign to the County any accrued rights to support from Mr. Ramirez which she had in behalf of herself or her children. Cal.Welf. & InstCode § 11477(a); 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a)(26).

In September 1980, the County filed an action against Mr. Ramirez pursuant to section 11350 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code seeking reimbursement for…

dissenting:

The question before us is whether, in the absence of a court support order, Mrs. Ramirez had any rights to child support in her own behalf or in behalf of her children that had accrued at the time she applied for and received AFDC. If she did, then the child support obligation was assigned to the County under section 602(a)(26) of Title 42 of the United States Code and is not dis-chargeable by virtue of section 656(b) of the same Title. Because it is clear that under California law a child has a right to support that can be assigned, and because the legislative history of sections 602(a)(26) and 656(b), as well as the plain language of section 656(a), indicate that the rights to be assigned under section 602(a)(26) include child support obligations that have not yet been reduced to the form of a judgment, order, or agreement, I respectfully dissent.

I.

Congress specifically stated in the Social Services Amendments of 1974 that “[a] debt which is a child support obligation assigned to a State under section 602(a)(26) of this title is not released by a discharge in bankruptcy under Title 11.” 42 U.S.C. § 656 (b). Section 602(a) provides:

The legislative histories of…