Commissioner of Social Services v. Zarnetski
168 A.3d 646
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Commissioner of Social Services (DSS) filed a support petition on behalf of mother Christine Bassett asserting Travis Zarnetski was the acknowledged father of a Massachusetts-born child. A Massachusetts birth certificate listed Zarnetski as father.
- At the family support magistrate hearing Zarnetski testified he signed a paternity acknowledgment at the Massachusetts hospital and placed his name on the birth certificate; Bassett corroborated.
- DSS could not produce a copy of the Massachusetts written acknowledgment; Massachusetts offices required a fee and no copy was located.
- The magistrate directed DSS to obtain the acknowledgment and dismissed the support petition without prejudice when DSS failed to produce it.
- Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning an out-of-state acknowledgment must be entered into evidence before the magistrate proceeds. DSS appealed.
- The Appellate Court reversed: statutes do not require production or filing of an out-of-state acknowledgment where paternity is not contested and testimonial plus birth-certificate evidence is sufficient to proceed to support determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSS was required to produce the out-of-state written acknowledgment of paternity before the magistrate could proceed | Statutes (§§46b-172, 46b-215) do not require production or filing of the acknowledgment; summons/service suffice and paternity was not contested | Magistrate and Superior Ct: out-of-state acknowledgment must be entered into evidence before proceeding | Reversed — statutes do not require production/filing; summons and uncontested admissions plus birth certificate suffice to proceed |
| Whether an out-of-state acknowledgment must be filed to be effective in Connecticut | Acknowledgment need not be filed to be valid; §46b-172 gives full faith and credit to out-of-state acknowledgments | Implicit requirement that proof (copy) be produced for magistrate | Held: No filing/production requirement; legislature removed filing mandate and out-of-state acknowledgments receive full faith and credit |
| Whether dismissal for failure to produce acknowledgment contravenes public policy favoring child support enforcement | Requiring written acknowledgment when paternity uncontested frustrates policy to secure child support without unnecessary difficulty | Court below treated evidence requirement as necessary to protect procedural integrity | Held: Dismissal contravened public policy; testimonial admissions + birth certificate were sufficient to protect child-support interests |
| Remedy: Whether the case should be dismissed or remanded for support calculation | DSS sought reversal and remand for hearing on amount of support | Defendant had no substantive contest to paternity or support calculation at that stage | Held: Case remanded to magistrate for a hearing to determine amount of child support; judgment for plaintiff directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723 (state policy: strong preference to ensure children receive parental support)
- Ventura v. East Haven, 170 Conn. App. 388 (statutory construction principles)
- Colbert v. Carr, 140 Conn. App. 229 (admission of paternity can make paternity "not at issue")