Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Insofar as the state imposes a correlative liability upon the adult children of "parents in need," it does so without discriminating between such children on the basis of wealth. The state selects the children to bear the burden not on the basis of wealth, but on the basis of parentage. Since these sections do not discriminate on the basis of wealth, it creates no suspect classification based on wealth.
Plaintiffs, two recipients of aid to the aged and their adult children brought a class action seeking to enjoin defendants, state officials, from requiring adult children to reimburse the state, pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 12100 and 12101, for aid to the aged extended to their parents. The superior court issued a statewide temporary restraining order enjoining defendants. Defendants sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the superior court from enforcing its restraining order.
Did the superior court properly enjoin defendants from requiring adult children to reimburse the state for aid to aged extended to their parents?
The court let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue as prayed for by defendants. The court held that an adult child of a recipient of aid to the aged under the Old Age Security Law, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 12000 et seq., could constitutionally be required to reimburse the state. The court held that Cal. Civil Code § 206 provided a rational basis for upholding relatives' responsibility against the challenge that such statutes arbitrarily charged welfare costs to one class in society and thereby denied equal protection of the laws.