general group. G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). Group 2 is the group for various employees, including those whose regular and major duties require them to have the care, custody, instruction or other supervision or of…defective delinquents wayward children…. Citing this provision, Mr. Forbes seeks to reclassify his service as a case work manager from Group 1 to Group 2, which is more advantageous for the purpose of calculating retirement benefits. group generally depends on his or her duties when he or she retires. An employee’s 369 Mass. 488, 494 (1976). In some Maddocks v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, circumstances, an employee who has served in more than one group may receive retirement benefits pro-rated among groups. G.L. c. 32, § 5(2)(a). That is what Mr. Forbes seeks to do. In its prehearing memorandum, SBR brought to my attention that Massachusetts has eliminated the terms and At the start of the hearing, “defective children” “wayward children.” my first question to SBR was whether youth in care were delinquents or DYS’s “defective under G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). SBR answered yes. wayward children” The statutory provision for G.L. c. 123, § 113, see In re Arthur “defective delinquents,” 358 Mass. 780 (1971)(interpreting statute), was repealed in 1970. St. 1970, c. 888, Chinouinard, § 4. The definition of was repealed in 1973. St. 1973, c. 1073, § 6. The term “wayward child” was eliminated from G.L. c. 120, § 21 in 1996. St. 1996, c. 23. “wayward child” The language in Chapter 32 was not amended to reflect the elimination of these terms. As far as I know, no statute, specific court decision, or general principle of statutory construction provides that references to and now mean youth “defective delinquents” “wayward children” care. under DYS’s In fact, the elimination of the terms and “defective delinquents” “wayward children”
general group. G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). Group 2 is the group for various employees, including those whose regular and major duties require them to have the care, custody, instruction or other supervision of…defective delinquents or wayward children…. Citing this provision, Mr. Forbes seeks to reclassify his service as a case work manager from Group 1 to Group 2, which is more advantageous for the purpose of calculating retirement benefits. An employee’s group generally depends on his or her duties when he or she retires. Maddocks v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 369 Mass. 488, 494 (1976). In some circumstances, an employee who has served in more than one group may receive retirement benefits pro-rated among groups. G.L. c. 32, § 5(2)(a). That is what Mr. Forbes seeks to do. In its prehearing memorandum, SBR brought to my attention that Massachusetts has eliminated the terms “defective children” and “wayward children.” At the start of the hearing, my first question to SBR was whether youth in DYS’s care were “defective delinquents or wayward children” under G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). SBR answered yes. The statutory provision for “defective delinquents,” G.L. c. 123, § 113, see In re Arthur Chinouinard, 358 Mass. 780 (1971)(interpreting statute), was repealed in 1970. St. 1970, c. 888, § 4. The definition of “wayward child” was repealed in 1973. St. 1973, c. 1073, § 6. The term “wayward child” was eliminated from G.L. c. 120, § 21 in 1996. St. 1996, c. 23. The language in Chapter 32 was not amended to reflect the elimination of these terms. As far as I know, no statute, specific court decision, or general principle of statutory construction provides that references to “defective delinquents” and “wayward children” now mean youth under DYS’s care. In fact, the elimination of the terms “defective delinquents” and “wayward children”
Forbes%20%28Peter%29%20v.%20State%20Bd%20of%20Retirement%20-%20Decision%20-%2012-23-2016.docx