In Garcia v. Swoap (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 903, the PMB system was declared invalid inasmuch as it failed to take account of the recipient's present needs: "Such a system not only ignores the currency requirements for the consideration of income, but also the practical economic realities facing AFDC families, who, living at bare subsistence levels, cannot be expected to budget sporadic income for a payment period two months in the future." ( Id. , at p. 913.) In so holding, the court emphasized that the provision for supplemental payments does not cure the defects in the PMB system: "Subdivision (e) of section 11004 is clearly worded to protect the children in these situations, while regulation EAS 44.315.8 is designed to alleviate the problem and is not mandatory. We emphasize this point because it is believed that Prior Month Budgeting is a helpful and, if properly applied, reasonable method for computing welfare grants. The regulation should be amended so as to provide payments to protect the children. If this were accomplished, the PMB system would then comply with federal regulations. Fn. omitted." ( Garcia v. Swoap, supra , at p. 912.) "The vagaries in the existing PMB system . . . cannot be alleviated simply by the application of an emergency payment or supplemental payment provision. Fn. omitted." ( Id. , at p. 914.) The Court confronted the abovementioned problems wrought by "prior month budgeting" system (PMB) and held the regulation imposing that system to be invalid as currently constituted. The court found that the regulation violated federal and state law requiring that aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) payments reflect the current needs of aid recipients. ( Id. at pp. 912-913.) In Garcia, the Court held that the primary flaw in prior month budgeting was that it provided for payments which were computed without consideration of the current needs of the recipients. ( Garcia v. Swoap, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d 903, 913, 914.)