42-407 EVIDENCE OF RESIDENCE INTENTION

.1 Applicant or Recipient Physically Present in State

The written statement of the applicant or recipient is acceptable proof to establish their intention of establishing residence unless the statement is inconsistent with the conduct of the person, with other information known to the county, or with other statements on the SAWS 2 Plus, SAR 7, or recipient mid-period reports.

.2 Absence from the State

.21 If an applicant or recipient does not respond, within 30 days, to the monthly county inquiry of residence (Section 42-406), it shall be presumed that they do not intend to maintain California residency and aid shall be discontinued at the end of the month in which timely and adequate notice can be given.

.22 If the applicant or recipient responds to the inquiry, and advises the county that they do not intend to return to California, aid shall be discontinued at the end of the month in which timely and adequate notice can be given.

.23 If the applicant or recipient responds to the inquiry and advises the county that they intend to maintain their California residency but they remain out of state for 60 days or longer, their continued absence is apparent evidence of their intent to have changed their place of residence to a place outside of California subject to Section 42-407.24. Such absence in itself is sufficient evidence to support a determination that the applicant or recipient has established residence outside of California. Therefore, their intent to return must be supported by one or a combination of the following:

.231 family members with whom the applicant or recipient lived, currently live in California.

.232 the applicant or recipient has continued maintenance of their California housing arrangements (owned, leased or rented).

NONLINKING FACTORS OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY

.233 the applicant or recipient has employment or business interests in California.

.234 any other act or combination of acts by the applicant or recipient which establishes their intent to reside in California.

.235 even if the recipient's intent to reside in California is supported by .231 through .234, it may still be established that the recipient does not have the intent to reside in California if any of the following situations occur and are significant enough to negate the evidence that supports California residence:

a. The applicant or recipient has purchased or leased a house out of state since leaving California.

b. The applicant or recipient has been employed out of state since leaving California.

c. The applicant or recipient has obtained an out-of-state motor vehicle driver's license since leaving California.

d. The applicant or recipient has taken any other action which indicates their intent to establish residence outside of California.

.24 Receipt of an aid payment at an address outside of California for two consecutive months or longer, after the county inquiry of residence per Section 42-406, shall not be apparent evidence of the applicant's or recipient's intent to have changed their place of residence to a place outside of California where they clearly show:

.241 they have not, by act or intent, established residence outside of California; and

.242 their return to California was prevented by illness, displacement due to a state or federally declared disaster, or an emergency.

.25 If a recipient who fails to establish .241 and .242 and whose aid is terminated due to continuous absence reapplies for aid, payments shall be restored if all other eligibility criteria are met and the recipient is able to prove both of the following:

.251 their permanent residence in the state of California.

.252 they have not established permanent residence in any other state.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 11100, 11105, and 11265.2, Welfare and Institutions Code; Senate Bill (SB) 991, Chapter 1285, Statutes of 1989; Assembly Bill (AB) 607, Chapter 501, Statutes of 2017; and WRL vs. McMahon, Case No. 268972 (Sacramento Superior Court), October 31, 1990.

NONLINKING FACTORS OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY