Zamora and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2018] AATA 309
•9 February 2018
Zamora and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 309 (9 February 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/2447
Re:Veronica Zamora
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Anna Burke, Member
Date:9 February 2018
Place:Melbourne
The Tribunal:
(a) pursuant to s 43(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“AAT Act”), sets aside the decision under review; and
(b) remits the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration of the applicant’s entitlement to the age pension in accordance with a direction from the Tribunal pursuant to s 43(1)(c)(ii) of the AAT Act that Mrs Zamora meets the requirements of s 24 of the Social Security Act 1991, as she is not a member of a couple.
.....[sgd]...................................................................
MemberSOCIAL SECURITY – age pension – member of a couple – separated but living under the same roof – ability to pool resources – decision set aside and remitted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Act 1975
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999; ss 63, 80 & 118(13)Social Security Act 1991; ss 26, 27(3) & 94(1)
Cases
Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 25 ALD 27
Re Weyman and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2012] AATA 139
Re Philip and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 135
Re Rendell and Anor and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2004) 83 ALD 381Re Attiwill and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2013) 134 ALD 215
Secondary Materials
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Anna Burke, Member
9 February 2018
INTRODUCTION
Mrs Zamora (the applicant) is seeking a second tier review of the decision made by the Secretary, Department of Social Services (the respondent) to refuse to grant the applicant an age pension.
On 16 August 2016 Centrelink found that Mrs Zamora was a member of a couple and could therefore not assess her eligibility for an age pension without information about her husband Mr Carlos Zamora, from whom Mrs Zamora has separated. Centrelink is the service provider for the Department of Social Services.
The application was heard on 14 December 2017. Mrs Zamora was represented by her grand-daughter, Ms Stefani Kelly. Ms Belinda Lewis, government lawyer in the Freedom of Information and Litigation Team, Department of Human Services appeared for the respondent. Mrs Zamora gave evidence under oath.
THE ISSUES IN CONTENTION
The issues in contention are whether Mrs Zamora:
a)is a member of a couple; and
b)whether there are special reasons to treat her and the other person as not being a member of a couple.
BACKGROUND
Mrs Zamora, who is now 68 years of age, is of Chilean background and resides with her husband in their family home in Dandenong which they jointly own. Mrs Zamora continues to work due to financial necessity but has found this more and more difficult following her recent cancer diagnosis and treatment. Mrs Zamora receives significant financial assistance from her grand-daughter.
On the 4 August 2016 Mrs Zamora made an application for the age pension and submitted a Relationship details – Separated under one roof form.
On 8 August 2016 Centrelink requested additional information from Mrs Zamora in respect of her financial details.
On 16 August 2016 Centrelink determined that Mrs Zamora was a member of a couple and therefore her claim for the age pension would have to be assessed taking into account her partner’s income.
On 1 September 2016 Centrelink again requested additional information from Mrs Zamora in respect of her partner’s details for them to proceed with her claim.
On the 8 September 2016 Mrs Zamora submitted a Partner’s details form on which she indicated that her husband refused to complete the form as they were no longer a couple.
On 20 September 2016 Centrelink rejected Mrs Zamora’s claim for an age pension as they had not received a reply to letters that had been sent to her requesting further information be provided.
On 23 September 2016 on internal review, a departmental Authorised Review Officer (ARO) found that Mrs Zamora was a member of a couple finding that:
Whilst you no longer have a sexual relationship and that personal support may have changed over the years all other aspects that determine a marriage like relationship continue to exist between you and your husband, which goes beyond the ties that exist between people who do nothing more than to share accommodation.
Every relationship is unique and it is common for couples to have independent lives and social circles and still be considered members of a couple. Your history, the nature of the household which derives the benefits of pooling of resources and responsibilities, social aspects and financial commitment imply a longevity to your relationship and an ongoing commitment between the two of you. There is no indication to sever the relationship on a permanent basis.
There is nothing beyond the assertions of you and Carlos, to demonstrate there is no member of a couple relationship and so the decision under review is affirmed.
On 15 March 2017 the Social Security and Child Support Division of the Tribunal (AAT1) affirmed the decision of the ARO that Mrs Zamora was a member of a couple and is to be regarded as being partnered for the purpose of determining her rate of age pension. Hence information about Mr Zamora would need to be obtained if Mrs Zamora’s claim for an age pension is to be processed. Mrs Zamora did not appear at the AAT1 hearing. Her granddaughter Ms Kelly provided evidence under affirmation on her behalf and no information was provided by Mr Zamora.
On 21 April 2017 Mrs Zamora sought a review of the AAT1 decision by this division of the Tribunal, stating after talking to your office, I was advised to put in an objection to ask a higher rep what further evedance [sic] we can provid [sic].
Relevant Legislation and Issues
Section 43 of the Act provides that a person is qualified for an age pension if:
(1) A person is qualified for an age pension if the person has reached pension age and any of the following applies:
(a) the person has 10 years qualifying Australian residence;
(b) the person has a qualifying residence exemption for an age pension;
…
Centrelink has not made a determination about Mrs Zamora’s eligibility for an age pension as she failed to provide information in respect of her husband Mr Carlos Zamora.
Section 1064 sets out the method of calculation of an age pension and it specifies that a member of a couple receives a lower rate of payment than that of a person who is not a member of a couple:
1064 Rate of age, disability support, wife pensions and carer payment (people who are not blind)
(1) The rate of:
(a) age pension; and
…
is, subject to subsection (2), to be calculated in accordance with the Rate Calculator at the end of this section.
…
1064‑A2 Where 2 people are members of a couple, they will be treated as pooling their resources (income and assets) and sharing them on a 50/50 basis (see points 1064‑E2 and 1064‑G2 below). They will also be treated as sharing expenses (e.g. for rent) on a 50/50 basis (see section 1070V).
Module B -- Maximum basic rate
1064‑B1 A person’s maximum basic rate depends on the person’s family situation. Work out which family situation in Table B applies to the person. The maximum basic rate is the corresponding amount in column 3.
Table B – Maximum basic rates Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Person’s family situation Rate per year Rate per fortnight 1. Not member of couple $8,114.60 $312.10 2. Partnered $6,767.80 $260.30 3. Member of illness separated couple $8,114.60 $312.10 4. Member of respite care couple $8,114.60 $312.10 5. Partnered (partner in goal) $8,114.60 $312.10
Section 4 of the Act defines a member of a couple:
Member of a couple—general
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of this Act if:
the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary’s opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3)), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis;…
For the purposes of determining whether or not a person is a member of a couple, s 4 of the Act goes on to stipulate that the following matters should be considered:
Member of a couple—criteria for forming opinion about relationship
(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), subparagraph (2)(aa)(ii) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:
(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and
(ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and
(iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and
(iv) the basis of any sharing of day‑to‑day household expenses;
(b) the nature of the household, including:
(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and
(ii) the living arrangements of the people; and
(iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;
(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other; and
(ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and
(iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, joint social activities;
(d) any sexual relationship between the people;
(e) the nature of the people’s commitment to each other, including:
(i) the length of the relationship; and
(ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and
(iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and
(iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage‑like relationship or a de facto relationship.
Under section 24 of the Act the Secretary may determine a person is not a member of a couple for a special reason in a particular case:
24 Person may be treated as not being a member of a couple (subsection 4(2))
(1) Where:
(a) a person is legally married to another person; and
(b) the person is not living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis; and
(c) the Secretary is satisfied that the person should, for a special reason in the particular case, not be treated as a member of a couple;
the Secretary may determine, in writing, that the person is not to be treated as a member of a couple for the purposes of this Act.
THE TRIBUNAL’S CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
Evidence before the Tribunal
The evidence before the Tribunal included documents provided pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents”, and the applicant’s application for review and additional information provided by Mrs Zamora. Mrs Zamora provided evidence under oath at the hearing and her grand-daughter provided supplementary information to assist Mrs Zamora, particularly as English is her second language. The Tribunal found Mrs Zamora to be a credible and reliable witness and her command of English language was sufficient for the purposes of the hearing.
Section 1064 of the Act provides a method for the calculation of a person’s entitlement to the age pension based on them being single or partnered. As Centrelink has determined that Mrs Zamora is a member of a couple they cannot assess her eligibility for an age pension without information from Mr Zamora, information Mr Zamora is refusing to provide as he does not consider himself to be in a relationship with Mrs Zamora.
Mrs Zamora has sought to be considered as separated under the one roof for the purposes of determining her eligibility for an age pension. She described her relationship with Mr Zamora as akin to flatmates and stated that their relationship ended several years ago.
Mrs Kelly advised the Tribunal she had encouraged her grandmother to apply for the age pension as she was struggling in the paid workforce due to her ill-health and her grandfather provided no financial support to her grandmother.
Mrs Zamora advised the Tribunal she was struggling financially and that she would not have sought benefits from Centrelink if her health had not deteriorated, preferring to remain in the paid workforce as she had for many years. Mrs Zamora was unable to proceed with her application for the age pension because her husband would not provide any information and she advised she is currently in significant financial distress.
There is significant case law in respect of where a couple remain legally married to each other and continue to reside in the same residence but do not identify as a couple. Subsection 4(3) of the Act provides factors which the decision-maker must consider when determining whether a person is a member of a couple. The Tribunal has endorsed on numerous occasions the principal that the factors on the list in subsection 4(3) are relevant, but not exhaustive. The overall picture of the relationship must be considered and each factor must be considered in the context of the evidence as a whole.
The respondent contended that Mr and Mrs Zamora were a couple at the date of Mrs Zamora’s application for the age pension. That their relationship is akin to a married couple apart from the fact they do not share a bedroom. They held themselves out as a married couple including attending social events together, they own a property as joint tenants which has a joint mortgage over it and whilst they do not have joint bank accounts, at the time of the application they were on the same Medicare card, shared household chores and living expenses.
The respondent accepted that there was no evidence of a sexual relationship between Mr and Mrs Zamora, nor any emotional support, noting Mrs Zamora relied heavily upon her children and grand-daughter.
The Federal Court in Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 25 ALD 27 stated at 32-33:
…listing the 10 subject matters that had been identified in that case by counsel for the applicant as matters against which a relationship should be evaluated. …
(1) What are the living, eating and sleeping arrangements in the household between the applicant and the other party?
(2) Do the applicant and the other party have a sexual relationship?
(3) Do the applicant and the other party have a social relationship?
(4) What third parties (particularly children) are residing in the house and what is the relationship between each third party and the applicant and the other party?
(5) What are the financial arrangements between the applicant and the other party? For example, are resources within the household pooled and household expenses shared?
(6) Do the applicant and the other party hold themselves out as living separately and apart?
(7) Do the applicant and the other party have a genuine belief that they are living separately and apart?
(8) Does the existing relationship give rise to any moral, social or legal rights between the applicant and the other party?
(9) Finally, what is the relationship between the applicant and the other party and does it contain any degree of permanence?
It is not suggested that this list is exhaustive nor will each of these subjects fall to be considered in every case. It must also be emphasised that a particular answer to a single subject will rarely, if ever, supply a final solution. The responsibility of the fact-finding tribunal is to have regard to all the material facts of each case, treating the matters listed above only as indicators. The Tribunal will make its determination whether a particular man and woman are or are not living separately and apart only after assessing the totality of the evidence and other material that is before it.
It should, of course, be clearly understood that no tribunal is required, in every case, to compile something in the nature of a checklist and then to proceed slavishly to comment on each item in the list. The personal circumstances of people vary substantially. The responsibility of the tribunal is to extract from the evidence and other material that is before it those items of information that are properly classified as material to its deliberations. If the Tribunal performs that task it will only address those issues that are personal to the decision that is under review; it will then be able to state its findings on material questions of fact with appropriate references to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.
Mrs Zamora advised the Tribunal that she and her husband continue to reside in the family home as financially she had little alternative and did not believe she should have to move out to be separated. She and her husband had separate bedrooms and bathrooms, she cleaned her room and bathroom but not his that she shopped and cook for herself and would occasionally share a meal with her husband if she had prepared extra and he was home at dinner time. She stated that she paid all the expenses in the household, her husband paid the mortgage and there was no pooling of resources. She relied heavily upon her granddaughter for financial support as her husband provided her with no financial assistance and since being diagnosed with cancer has been unable to continue in full-time work.
Mrs Zamora further advised the Tribunal that her family knew she and her husband were separated but she had not publicly declared their separation as it was fundamentally nobody else’s business. She stated at the hearing that basically her husband was not a bad person and she did not want the little ones (grandchildren) to consider him a bad person. She is very family orientated, has little social life outside her family of 5 generations, rarely goes out with her husband except to family events and she did not attend other functions her husband went to separately. She considered their relationship to be akin to housemates.
In Weyman and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2012] AATA 139 Senior Member Isenberg stated in relation to the principle of being a member of a couple (at [74]):
It is trite to say that no two relationships, however described, are the same. Each matter is to be considered on its merits and the Tribunal needs to flexible [sic] in its approach: SRWW and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 495. The ‘list’ in s 4(3) of the Act is not exhaustive and no guidance is given as to the weight of any factor; they are common-sense indicators: Cullinane and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 789. The total picture of the relationship that emerges from the factors must be weighed and the test is an objective one: Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and WAP [2000] AATA 7. Having said that, what the legislation tells me to consider in determining whether the parties are a couple for the social security purposes, does not always reflect how the parties themselves see their relationship…
Mrs Zamora, and her grand-daughter Ms Kelly, provided evidence that there was no pooling of resources between herself and her husband. She further stated that the couples’ only shared asset was the family home which they have been unable to sell. Mrs Zamora could not afford to buy her husband’s share of the family home nor could she afford to rent separately and was unable at present to move in with any of their children. Further, Mrs Zamora was adamant she should not be forced from their family home.
Mrs Zamora provided a statement from her husband dated14 August 2017 which states:
I, Carlos Zamora…certify that Veronica Zamora and I were married for many years but we have not been in a relationship for over 2 yrs [sic]. We share the same house but do not share the same bed. I come and go as I please and have a separate bank account.
At the hearing the respondent indicated that the issue in contention was the ownership of the joint property and the ability to pool resources. The respondent having accepted that the other criteria outlined in subsection 4(3) of the Act, and reiterated in the Federal Court, indicated that Mrs Zamora was no longer a member of a couple, referring to Re Philip and Secretary, Department of families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 135, where the Tribunal stated at [31-33]:
In Holt and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] AATA 143, the Tribunal identified the question as being whether, for practical reasons, a member of a couple could not reasonably be expected to enjoy the benefit of pooling of resources that usually occurs in marital relationship.
In Kazmierczak and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] FCA 1084, the Federal Court agreed, and said the case law confirms that:
... there is a particular focus under the Act on the practical ability of the resources of the partner being available for pooling with the resources of the person holding the pension.
...
It stands to reason that if for some legal or other practical reason the partner member of the couple cannot be treated as sharing income and assets then there is ground for exercising the discretion under s 24 so as not to treat the holder of the pension as a member of a couple who is capable of sharing resources.
The fact that members of a couple maintain financial independence does not mean they do not gain some benefit of pooling of resources, because sharing rent and household expenses is a form of pooling of resources. The fact that Mr Phillip and Ms Price do not share income and assets does not mean that he has nothing to pool, or that he obtains no benefit from Ms Price pooling her resources with him to the extent that she does. Nor is he left without any means of supporting himself.
Various decisions cited by the respondent indicate that where the pooling of resources is driven by financial necessity rather than choice the Tribunal has considered that this supports the position that they may not be a member of a couple and referred to Re Rendell and Anor and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 711, where the Member said:
After a consideration of all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is of the view that financial necessity is the cornerstone of the relationship. It is the sharing of their resources that enables the applicants to survive monetarily. In the opinion of the Tribunal an arrangement based on mutual affordability of housing and material welfare does not of itself correspond to a marriage-like relationship. More is required.
Furthermore, in Re Attiwill and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2013] AATA 148 the Senior Member said at [26]-[27]:
As will be apparent from my discussion of the evidence above, I have found Ms Attiwill and Ms Hermann’s situation a particularly difficult one to assess. As I have already observed, at face value, there are a number of aspects of their relationship which would appear to suggest they continue to be members of a couple. However it is also apparent that they are currently in an extremely precarious financial position which leaves them with few choices. They each acknowledged that they were in arrears with the mortgage on their house and therefore at risk of losing the house they jointly owned. However they explained that neither of them had the financial or social resources to seek out alternative accommodation, or otherwise extricate themselves from their current predicament.
The picture which emerged from the evidence was in effect one of the two of them being forced to co-habit due to financial necessity and the absence of any alternative for either of them. Equally, whilst they are currently sharing financial resources, again this was taking place largely out of necessity as, if the bills were not paid they would both suffer the consequences of this. Similarly, although they were sharing a bedroom, again, the evidence established that this was out of necessity due to the absence of available space in the house. This in turn was due to the poor state of mental health of each of them, in combination with having come into possession of excess furniture which they had not yet had the wherewithal to sell or otherwise dispose of.
The Guide to Social Security Law relevantly provides:
2.2.5.50 Discretion to Treat a Person as Not Being a Member of a Couple for a Special Reason
Summary
SSAct section 24 enables a delegate to decide that there is a 'special reason' NOT to treat a person as a member of a couple (1.1.M.120). This is a discretionary area of law and only applies in limited situations.
A person is a member of a couple under the SSAct if they are living with another person as their partner, where both people are over the age of consent (applicable to the relevant state or territory), are living together on a permanent or indefinite basis, are not in a prohibited relationship (subsections 4(12) and 4(13)), and are either:
·legally married, OR…
In situations where the department considers that there is a special reason in the particular instance, and it would be unfair to administer the rate of payment, or income and assets test provisions that apply to couples, the Secretary can determine, under the provisions of section 24, that the person should not be treated as a member of a couple.
Act reference: SSAct section 4(12) to section 4(13) Prohibited relationship
Explanation
Case law provides some direction as to the purpose of this legislation. Section 24 discretion exists to deal with unfair, inequitable and/or unjust anomalies.
Section 24 is intended to be the option of last resort, and should only be applied when all other reasonable means of support have been explored and exhausted.
When section 24 is applied, the person is deemed NOT to be a member of a couple and is treated as a 'single' person for all purposes of the SSAct. As a result, the person is paid the single rate of payment and only their individual income and assets are included in the assessment of the rate of their payment.
…
All circumstances must be taken into account
The discretion to treat a person as NOT being a member of a couple should be exercised ONLY where a full consideration of all the circumstances relevant to the individual's case would make it unjust or unreasonable not to do so.
It is appropriate that the decision maker strike a balance between the individual circumstances of the person and the circumstances of the couple. In the case of Boscolo and Secretary, Department of Social Security, the Federal Court found that the decision maker must make the decision with reference to the circumstances of the person seeking the discretion, rather than the position of the couple. HOWEVER, the Federal Court also noted that this does not prevent the decision maker from considering all relevant circumstances, including the position of the couple as it relates to the individual. It is also important to review the partner of the person who has had section 24 applied as part of the process.
The couple's circumstances should be compared to a couple in similar circumstances but for whom the special circumstances to apply section 24 do not exist. There must be some degree to which circumstances are outside the couple's or individual's control and cannot be changed.
Explanation: If it is reasonably within the individual or couple's control to improve their circumstances without section 24, generally this should be explored first.
Three questions that need to be considered as part of the assessment while looking at the full circumstances of the case are:
·Is there a special reason to be considered in this couple's circumstances?
·Is there a lack of being able to pool resources for the couple as a result of the circumstances?
·Is there financial difficulty as a result of the couple's circumstances?
Is there a special reason to be considered in this couple's circumstances?
This discretion can ONLY be exercised 'for a special reason in the particular case'. In general, the circumstances must be unusual, uncommon, abnormal or exceptional. It is the context which generally determines whether the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special.
Is there a lack of being able to pool resources for the couple as a result of the circumstances?
Members of a couple in ordinary circumstances will pool their resources and share their expenses, making it cheaper for them to live than if they were 2 single people. A significant body of case law has established that the inability to pool resources for their mutual benefit is a special reason to exercise the discretion in section 24.
Generally, section 24 would NOT be appropriate where a couple is able to, but chooses not, to pool resources or where one or both members of a couple choose not to access a source of support which they could contribute to the pool. Consideration should be given to whether either member of the couple has access to any social security or other support that has not been explored or realised. Generally a person would be expected to claim any benefits to which they are entitled.
The Tribunal accepts Mrs Zamora’s evidence that she was not able to pool resources with her husband at the time of her initial claim, beyond their arrangement whereby Mr Zamora pays the mortgage and Mrs Zamora pays the household expenses. This arrangement is in place due to financial necessity which, as is outlined in Rendell and Attiwill, is not enough to correspond to a marriage-like relationship. Whilst they were still living together, they were eating and sleeping separately; they had no sexual relationship; they had no social relationship beyond that of family functions; there were no third parties living in the house; their financial arrangements were separate; they had a genuine belief they were separated under the one roof; their shared major asset was the joint ownership of the property they live in; and finally there was no degree of permanency to the relationship. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mrs Zamora and Mr Zamora live separately under the one roof.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal finds that taking all the circumstances into account, special circumstances exist in this particular case and that the extreme financial difficulty faced by Mrs Zamora, compounded by her ill health, means that she is not currently able find alternative accommodation to the property she currently occupies with her husband. Mrs Zamora was unable to force her husband to provide information to Centrelink which would assist in her application for the age pension and should not be denied access to a benefit to which she may be entitled.
The Tribunal finds that Mrs Zamora, whilst still being married to her husband and residing in the family home, is no longer a member of a couple.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and remitted to the decision-maker for reconsideration of the applicant’s entitlement to the age pension in accordance with a direction from the Tribunal pursuant to s 43(1)(c)(ii) of the AAT Act that Mrs Zamora meets the requirements of s 24 of the Social Security Act 1991.
I certify that the preceding 41 (forty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Anna Burke, Member
.....[sgd]...................................................................
Associate
Dated: 9 February 2018
Date of hearing: 14 December 2017 Advocate for the Applicant: Ms Stefani Kelly Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Belinda Lewis
Department of Human Services
2
9
0