47 Conn. Supp. 42 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 2001
Reporter of Judicial Decisions
On June 19, 2000, the department filed a motion with the Probate Court requesting reconsideration and opening of the decree that was denied by Judge Landgrebe on the same day. Two days later, the court granted the aforementioned assistant attorney general's motion for appeal from probate. The appeal was timely brought to *44
this court on July 25, 2000, pursuant to General Statutes §§
The petitioner claims that General Statutes §
As to the latter statute, §
Moreover, the application form completed and filed by the petitioner appears, in and of itself, to recognize the interest of the department in certain termination proceedings as that form, just under the name, place of birth, and date of birth of the child, contains a box to the right of which is the following: "The minor child is presently or was formerly the recipient of state assistance." On each application, the petitioner typed an "X" *48 in that box, thus acknowledging receipt by her children of state financial assistance.7
The petitioner correctly points out that the present case involved a termination of parental rights application and does not involve a support petition. The department, however, counters that §
The department also points to certain statutory duties and obligations imposed upon the commissioner thereof relative to families who have received state financial assistance. Section
In the case of In re Bruce R.,
Referring to the federal and state policy on the matter of child support, Justice Norcott echoes the opinion of the Appellate Court: "Indeed, to interpret the current statutory scheme to permit a trial court to forgo consideration of the financial condition of the parents would ignore the clear federal and state policies that indisputably mandate that, in all but the most extreme cases, children should be maintained and supported by their parents. [B]oth state and national policy has been, and *52 continues to be, to ensure that all parents support their children and that children who do not live with their parents benefit from adequate and enforceable orders of child support." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 209.
Referring to legislative and judicial efforts in Connecticut and throughout the country "to hold parents to their financial responsibility to support their children"; id., 213; the court concluded: "Therefore, trial courts should grant consensual petitions only in those rare situations where, after considering the totality of the circumstances, including the financial condition of the parents, granting that petition truly would be in the best interest of the child." Id., 214.
Citing General Statutes § 17-83e (now General Statutes §
As the department asserts in its brief, §
In stressing the importance of the holding in Watts, the department refers to chapter V of the Connecticut Probate Practice Book entitled "Appeals from Probate" which cites Watts as a prime example of aggrievement within the context of the §
"The test is whether there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest of the appellant has been adversely affected. Department of Income Maintenance v. Watts, [supra,
The interest that the department has in the present case that qualifies it to claim aggrievement and to have *56 the standing to bring this appeal is a direct pecuniary one. Its legally protected right to seek reimbursement of the TANF benefits from the petitioner would be injuriously affected if the termination of her parental rights were to remain in effect.
The petitioner urges this court to interpret narrowly the holding inWatts and confine the same to the facts and the particular benefits paid to the ward in that case. If this court were to do so, such action would amount to a difference without meaningful distinction and would thwart the clearly expressed intent and purpose of that decision. Pursuant toWatts and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court finds that the department is an aggrieved person within the meaning of §
The petitioner's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The case is ordered to trial.