466 A.2d 812 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1983
This is an appeal from a paternity action in which a jury found the defendant to be the father of a child, Jason, born to the plaintiff on October 16, 1972.2 After the trial, the state intervened and sought reimbursement from the defendant, pursuant to General Statutes
The question raised is whether there was an adequate factual basis in the record for the conclusions reached by the trial court and whether payments of AFDC benefits to a mother for her own support create a presumption that such payments were also necessary for the proper maintenance of the child.
In its memorandum of decision, the trial court stated: "The determination by the state that [the plaintiff was eligible for AFDC would not satisfy [the state's] burden of proof that support for the mother was necessary for the maintenance of the child. There are many mothers who work and are able to support themselves while the child is between the ages of
A conclusion that the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof is reviewable and may, be successfully attacked if the record reasonably discloses that the court relied on matters not in evidence or not properly in evidence as a basis for its conclusion. Velsmid v. Nelson,
Our examination of the transcript and the record before us discloses nothing which supports the court's findings as to the ability of mothers with young children to support themselves or the reasons for the termination of the plaintiff's Social Security benefits. Therefore, a conclusion that the state failed to sustain its burden of proof for those reasons, may not stand. Moreover, we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that "[t]he determination by the state that [the plaintiff] was eligible for AFDC would not satisfy [the state's] burden of proof that support for the mother was necessary for the maintenance of the child."
In Rodriguez v. Vowell,
Thus, we conclude that the fact that the plaintiff was found to be eligible for AFDC benefits, in and of itself, created a presumption that her support was necessary for the proper maintenance of her child.
It is well recognized that the words "support and maintenance," as employed in
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
In this opinion BIELUCH and COVELLO, Js., concurred.