State v. Benard, No. Fa 98-0263612s (May 7, 1999)
This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6492 (State v. Benard, No. Fa 98-0263612s (May 7, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The petitioner has standing to appeal the final decision of the magistrate. The appeal was timely filed. This court has jurisdiction to decide this appeal in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes §
The decision of the magistrate was in error in accordance with applicable law. This court hereby adopts the reasoning of Judge Gruendel in State v. Hariston, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. FA 98-0626107S (February 10, 1999) as follows:
Two portions of Section
Connecticut General Statutes, Section
46b-215 (a). For the purposes of the statute, a person owing a duty of support is the obligor, while the person to whom the duty of support is owed is the obligee. Connecticut Public Acts, June 18, 1997 Special Session, 97-1, Section 2 (13) and (14). [footnote omitted] Secondly, the statute authorizes the state to commence proceedings to obtain support from an obligor. It provides:Proceedings to obtain such orders shall be commenced by service on the liable person or persons of a verified petition with summons and order . . . of the husband or wife, child or any relative or the conservator, guardian or support enforcement officer, town or state, or any selectman or the public official charged with the administration of public assistance of the town, or in AFDC support cases . . . the Commissioner of Social Services.
Connecticut General Statutes, Section
46b-215 (a) (emphasis added).The statute does not limit the authority of the Commissioner of Social Services to commence an action to obtain support from an obligor to cases in which the child being provided support is in the custody of a person appointed by a court. "Courts cannot, by construction, read into statutes provisions which are not clearly stated." Houston v. Warden,
169 Conn. 247 ,251 (1975).
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is sustained, the decision of the magistrate reversed, and the matter remanded to the Family Support Magistrate Division for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.
Dunnell, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-benard-no-fa-98-0263612s-may-7-1999-connsuperct-1999.