304 Conn. 317
Conn.2012Background
- May 25, 2000: a male child born to Okeke and Shockley, who were not married.
- Paternity acknowledged by both parents under § 46b-172; Shockley signed May 26, 2000, Okeke signed June 1, 2000; child named Nnamdi Ikwunne Okeke on the acknowledgment.
- Shockley later changed the birth certificate worksheet name; hospital changed the acknowledgment and worksheet names inconsistently to Nnamdi Okeke Shockley and Nnamdi Ikwanne Shockley-Okeke.
- Official birth certificate lists Nnamdi Ikwanne Shockley-Okeke with paternity shown on the certificate.
- April 13, 2007: Okeke filed for amendment of his son’s birth certificate under § 19a-42(d)(1) to remove mother’s name based on acknowledged paternity.
- Administrative denial: (1) no court order under Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 19a-41-9; (2) more than 30 days since birth and not a custodial parent; (3) paternity already shown on birth certificate; (4) acknowledgement did not indicate name change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 19a-42(d)(1) authorizes amendment when paternity is already shown | Okeke argues the statute requires amending to align with the acknowledgment. | Commissioner asserts § 19a-42(d)(1) only allows changes if paternity is not shown on the birth certificate. | No authority to amend under these facts. |
| Whether administrative regulations or court order are required to effect any amendment | Okeke contends statutory authority suffices for amendment. | Commissioner relies on § 19a-41-9 and procedural limits (courts order, clerical errors, 30-day rule). | Regulations and lack of court order preclude amendment; remedy via court action available. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Michaela Lee R., 253 Conn. 570 (2000) (importance of integrity of vital records; suitability of statutory remedies)
- Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166 (2007) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning governs)
- Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 285 Conn. 794 (2008) (deference limits in questions of law; de novo review for statutory construction)
- Stone-Krete Construction, Inc. v. Eder, 280 Conn. 672 (2006) (textual interpretation; no superfluous language in statutes)
- Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. Heffernan, 183 Conn. 194 (1981) (statutory interpretation principles; legislative intent)
- Tracy v. Scherwitzky Gutter Co., 279 Conn. 265 (2006) (statutory construction framework; prior scrutiny)
- Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 270 Conn. 778 (2004) (deference and analysis in agency interpretations)
- Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Cashman, 283 Conn. 644 (2007) (de novo review when statutory construction at issue)