*1 JODOIN v. JEFFREY ROBIN WALSH 17837) (SC Zаrella, Katz, Borden, Norcott, Js. Palmer and officially July 17, April Argued released *2 attorney Nagy, general, Robert A. assistant with Crean, attorney whom were Thomas P. assistant gen- brief, Blumenthal, attorney on the Richard eral, and, appellant general, (state). for the
Opinion in NORCOTT, appeal J. The sole issue this is whether which 2004, (P.A. 04-100),1 Public Acts No. 04-100 part: 2004, 04-100,provides in Public Acts No. relevant “Section 1. Subdi general statutes, (1) (2) (a) of section 17b-745of the visions and of subsection by repealed public following and the as amended section 70 of act are 1, 2004): (Effective in lieu thereof October is substituted family support “(a) (1) Superior magistrate have Court or a shall authority payment to make and enforce orders for of to the Commis- or, support cases, IV-D state sioner of Administrative Services to the and, by acting through agency, and the IV-D directed to the husband or wife twenty-one or, patient person and after if the or is on October [under yеars 1972,] age eighteen provided under the of or as otherwise in this subsection, any parent any patient person being supported by of or the to wholly institution, any state, part, under or in in a state humane or welfare by Department Services, program the of Social as the court administered family provisions support magistrate finds, or in accordance with the 17b-179, 17a-90, 17b-81, 17b-223, (b) subsection of section or section 46b- reasonably amended, 46b-130, as or to be commensurate with the ability any person unmarried, is financial such relative. such a If full- high residing parent, time school student and with the custodial such according parents’ respective abilities, to the shall continue if person support, person completes is in need until such such twelfth nineteen, Any grade whichever occurs. court or or attains the first order, family support upon magistrate called to make or enforce such an upon by relative, including a determination consented to shall one based ability light to insure that such order is reasonable of the relative’s pay. . . . (1) (2) (a) of subsection of section 46b-171 of “Sec. Subdivisions and general repealed following statutes are and the is substituted in lieu (Effective 2004): thereof October support a child parental obligation extended child, the court “(a) (1) is be the father of If the defendant found to charged family support magistrate to stand order defendant shall or child, of the with the assistance and maintenance of such with the familysupport financially able, as the court or if such is mother mother [said] (b) of magistrate finds, of subsection with the in accordance 17b-81,17b-223,17b-745, 17a-90, 17b-179, amended as or section section 46b-129, 17b-179, 17a-90,] act, as (b) of section section this [subsection reasonably act, 46b-215, amended, amended this be 46b-130 or as ability defendant, pay commensurate with the financial eighteen years periodically age of until the child attains the certain sum unmarried, provided in this subsection. such child as otherwise full- If residing parent, high such with the custodial time school student abilities, parents’ respective according shall continue if *3 completes support, such the child is until child such in need twelfth of age nineteen, grade or occurs. The court or attains the whichever of first pay family support magistrate to the shall order the defendant to such sum paid expense, complainant, or, has to the town if a town or the state such state, grant be, as for the same and or the the case and shall execution actions, together with of suit taxed as in other civil a reasonable costs attorney’s fee; may require become bound with suffi- and the defendant to surety support perform cient to such orders for and maintenance. general (b) (c) and statutes “Sec. 3. Subsections of section 46b-172 repealed following (Effective аre in lieu thereof Octo- and the is substituted 1, 2004): ber by agreement support payment periodic “(b) to the child of a sum An years age eighteen provided until the child attains the of or as otherwise subsection, provisions past together in this for for due with reimbursement support ability upon pay provisions based to with the of in accordance (b) 17b-179, 17a-90,17b-81,17b-223, subsection of section or section [subsec- 17b-179, 17a-90,]46b-129, amended, (b) of as or 46b- tion section section with[,] expense prosecution petition, of and reasonable of the when filed approved by judge Superior Court, of the or in IV-D a court] [said 46b-213v, support brought cases under 46b-212 and matters sections to inclusive, any family support magistrate time, a have force at shall the same effect, retroactively prospectively or with the terms of accordance support by court, agreement, an order of entered the and shall said as [that] subj providеd to manner be enforceable and ect modification the same as is unmarried, by law for of the court in such cases. such child is orders If high parent, residing the a school student and with custodial full-time respective abilities, support according parents’ continue to the such shall completes support, such child in need until such child the twelfth if of grade age nineteen, Past due or attains the whichever occurs. of first years preceding support in shall be to the next the such cases limited three Payments agreements support. filing date of the such to under such of cases, agreement petitioner, except support the in IV-D shall be made to unmarried until that child either “completes (b) 46b-231,payments as defined in subsection of section shall be made to Support designated agency. Bureau of Child Enforcement or its Such agreements support prescribed by written shall be on forms the Office to, of thе Chief binding Court Administrator and shall be sworn and shall be person executing on the the same whether he is an adult or a minor. any “(c) any signing acknowledgment paternity, At time after the of upon application any party, any judge interested the court or thereof any family support magistrate support brought or in IV-D cases and in matters 46b-213v,inclusive, summons, under signed sections 46b-212to shall cause a by family judge support magistrate, by such or the clerk of the court [said] by Superior Court, issued, requiring or a commissioner of the to be acknowledged appear place father to in court at a time and as determined ninety days summons, the clerk but not more than after the issuance of the why family support magistrate assigned to show cause the court or the judicial judgment district in IV-D cases should not enter for by payment periodic of the child of a sum until the child attains years age eighteen provided subsection, together or аs otherwise in this provision past upon ability with for reimbursement for due based pay (b) in accordance with the of subsection of section 17b- 17a-90, 17b-81, 17b-223, (b) 17b-179, or section of section [subsection 17a-90,] 46b-129, amended, 46b-130, provision section as for health coverage required by 46b-215, of the child as section as amended this act, expense and reasonable of the action under this subsection. such If unmarried, high residing child is school student and with the full-time parent, according parents’ custodial such shall continue respective abilities, support, such child is in need until such child if completes grade nineteen, or attains the whichever twelfth first *4 family support magistrate, support cases, occurs. Such court or in IV-D shall authority acknowledged subject also have the to order the father who is to plan past-due support incapacitated, for reimbursement of and is not to participate may include, in work activities whiсh but shall not be limited to, job search, training, experience participation job training work and in the retraining program pursuant and established the Labor Commissioner to section 31-3t. (1) (2) (a) “Sec. 4. Subdivisions and of subsection of section 46b-215 of general repealed following the statutes are and the is substituted in lieu (Effective 1, 2004): thereof October Superior “(a) (1) family support magistrate The Court or a shall have authority payment support against any to make and enforce orders for of person neglects necessary support person’s who or refuses to furnish to such spouse age eighteen provided or a child under the of or as otherwise subsection, person’s ability according support, this to such to furnish such notwithstanding unmarried, the of section 46b-37. such child is If high residing parent, school student and with the custodial full-time support according parents’ respective abilities, such shall continue nineteen, which attains age the grade the twelfth retroactively support to applies occurs,” first ever that act’s effective at the time of already in effect orders 2 state of Connecti plaintiff 2004. The date of October dis of the trial court appeals3 judgment the cut from family from decision the appeal the missing its child orders the terminating magistrate retroactive to the defendant, Jeffrey Jodoin,4 the against child, birthday of the minor Joshua Jodoin. eighteenth family statutes amended various Because P.A. 04-100 to a child unmarried to render the available child provided to that to a whose parents equal protection equal that the divorced, have we conclude to clause of fourteenth amendment the United the requires to construe P.A. 04-100 States constitution us minor apply retroactively. This child to entitles birthday and, his accord support beyond eighteenth judgment we of the trial court. ingly, reverse undisрuted The and following record reveals facts Robin procedural history. plaintiff, Walsh, named is the mother of the minor who was bom on Novem- child, acknowledged ber The defendant is the father In March, 1990, state, of the minor child. which support, completes child such is in need until such child the twelfth if nineteen, grade .’’(Empha- occurs. . . or attains the whichever first added.) sis (u) (1), (t) (3) § Pursuant Statutes is a to General 46b-231 the state party plaintiff plaintiff, of the named Robin Walsh. The state has on behalf appealed services; on see General Statutes behalf of enforcement 46b-207; acting § on behalf of Walsh. which appealed judgment Appellate The state from the of the trial court Court, appeal pursuant this court we transferred to General (c) § Statutes and Practice Book 65-1. 51-199 *5 participate proceedings We note did not in the that the defendant before appearance Appellate thе trial court file an with the Court or this court. Accordingly, comply requiring the defendant failed to with our order because 27, by appeal file a will be him to brief December this considered on only. the state’s brief and the record public had been providing assistance to Walsh for the support of the child, applied minor to the court for a support pursuant order to General Statutes to (Rev. 1989) (b).5 family support 46b-172 magistrate, § Hutchinson, Katherine Y. granted request the state’s pay and ordered the defendant to support continuing to as well arrearage Walsh, provide as to medical and dental insurance at a reasonable cost for the minor child.
Thereafter, November, family support the Lifshitz, Harris T. magistrate, granted appli- the state’s cation and appear ordered the defendant to in January, why to show cause he should not be held in contempt comply of court for failure to with thе court’s previous March, orders in the case. In 2005, at a hearing held on that the application, support enforcement offi- cer that, informed the court the minor child although years had turned the eighteen age, state would con- tinue to enforce pursuant order to P.A. 04-100 because he was still enrolled school. high (Rev. provides 1989) part: “(b) General Statutes 46b-172 in relevant any filing any acknowledgment paternity, At time after the with the court of upon application any any party, judge interested the court or thereof or any family support magistrate summons, in IV-D cases shall cause by signed him or the clerk or assistant clerk or assistant clerk of the family support magistrate support cases, court, decision in IV-D of said issued, requiring putative appear be father to in court at a time and place cause, any has, therein, why named to show if he the court or the family support magistrate assignеd judicial district in IV-D judgment by payment cases should not enter for of the child of a periodic years, eighteen together sum until the child attains the with provision lying-in expense, for reimbursement for accrued maintenance and expense acknowledg reasonable of the action under this subsection on the paternity previously prior judgment ment of with filed said court. The as paternity judicata shall be res as to that issue and shall not be reconsidered court, person seeking acknowledgment unless the review of the petitions superior judicial having hearing court for the district venue for a paternity years judgment on the issue of within three of such or within three years payments of October whichever is later. All such shall be family through superior made relations office of the court.” *6 however, that the order concluded, Lifshitz Magistrate minor law on the by operation had been terminated 8, birthday on November eighteenth child’s he order, to extend the he refused Accordingly, modify or to services to enforcement ordered as of the order reflect termination adjust its records to 8, 2004. of November of Magistrate from the decision appealed
The state to General Statutes pursuant court to the trial Lifshitz P.A. that the state claimed appeal, On (n).6 46b-231 person provides part: “(1) (n) A in relevant § 46b-231 General Statutes family support magistrate by is entitled aggrieved of a a final decision who is by way appeal judicial section. under this review by petition filing appeal a “(2) Proceedings shall be instituted for such family judicial of the superior district in which the decision court for the days filing of support magistrate than fourteen after was rendered not later Family Support assigned to the assistant clerk final decision with an the requested, or, rehearing later than fourteen Magistrate not Division if a In IV-D days filing thereon. a the notiсe of the decision after by copies accompanied case, petitions that be a certification such shall agency upon in subsection petition the IV-D as defined have been served the upon agency parties IV-D Service the (b) and all of record. of this section copy petition by mailing may by appellant the certified be made Attorney General in Hartford. office of the mail to the jury by Superior “(6) appeal Court without be conducted The shall as the and such additional evidence to the record and shall be confined Court, upon Superior permitted Superior be introduced. The has Court request, argument and receive written briefs. shall hear oral family support may Superior “(7) affirm the decision of Court Superior proceedings. The Court magistrate for further or remand the case appellant rights may modify if substantial of the the decision reverse or family support magistrate prejudiced the decision of the have been because statutory provisions; (B) in excess (A) or In violation of constitutional is: family support (C) upon statutory authority magistrate; made of the of the clearly by law; (E) procedure; (D) erroneous other error of affected unlawful reliable, probative, evidence on the whole and substantial in view of the by arbitrary capricious record; (F) abuse of discretion or characterized or or clearly of discretion. unwarranted exercise appeal pursuant Any under this “(8) court to an order entered original may of the order entered retroactive to the date subsection be family support magistrate. denied, Upon appeals be taxed in favor “(9) which are costs all such Superior Court, party prevailing but no costs at the discretion of against . . .” taxed the state. shall be applies retroactivеly to extend orders
04-100 already public had been entered before the act’s *7 effective date of October on this court’s Relying Smith, decision in D’Eramo v. 273 Conn. 872 A.2d 55-3,7 court, 408 and General Statutes the trial (2005), § Swienton, J., concluded that P.A. a 04-100 was substan- presumptively applied pro- tive in the law that change spectively only. The trial court further concluded that history there was in the text or nothing legislative P.A. 04-100 that indicated that had legislature apply public retroactively, intended for the act to not- purpose, equalize its which was to withstanding independent in need of support, treatment children parents’ of their marital status. trial Accordingly, court rendered the state’s judgment dismissing appeal.
Thereafter, the state moved for reargument, con- that the trial court’s construction of P.A. 04- tending equal protection 100 violated the clauses of federal and state constitutions a providing greater parents benefit to the children of divorced than to chil- parents. dren of unmarried The trial court denied the appeal motion for This followed. reargument. trial appeal, improp- On the state claims court erly apply concluded that P.A. 04-100 does not retroac- tively legislature of the fact that the had enacted light parity support. it to create all children entitled to among The state also claims that the trial court’s construction contrary equal protection violates the rights parents by children of unmarried disadvantaging them compared to children of who were married Although when those children were bom. we conclude provides: provision general statutes, General Statutes 55-3 “No of the previously state, imposes any of the not contained the statutes which obligation any person corporation, new on shall be construed to have a retrospective effect.” requisite legisla- insufficient evidence that there is of this sub- appliсation justify retroactive tive intent to that P.A. 04- conclude we nevertheless law, stantive only prospective retroactively because applies equal protec- continuing perpetuate would application unmarried children of respect with violation tion parents. ques raises a retroactively applies
Whether a statute review which our over statutory construction tion of Nowell, State plenary. See, e.g., of a application retroactive (2003). A.2d 76 “[T]he yet not law was new or revised only if the law occurs underlying events the relevant on the date that in effect *8 marks quotation (Internal occurred.” application its A.2d 633, 681, 888 Skakel, v. State omitted.) L. Ct. U.S. 127 S. denied, cert. 428 (2006). Ed. 2d retroactively prospec- or a apply
“Whether to
statute
in
legislature
the intent of the
tively depends upon
determine the
...
In order to
the statute.
enacting
rules of
intent, we utilize well establishеd
legislative
departure is Gen-
statutory
point
Our
construction.
provision
which states: No
55-3,
eral Statutes §
in the stat-
statutes,
previously
not
contained
general
on
imposes any
obligation
which
new
state,
utes of the
to have
corporation, shall be construed
any person or
to in the
referred
retrospective
obligations
effect.
. .
we
Thus,
law.
.
statute are those of substantive
presumed
uniformly interpreted
55-3 as a rule
have
substantive
affecting
intent
that statutes
legislative
only.
. . . The rule is
apply prospectively
shall
rights
impose
be unfair to
in the notion that it would
rooted
upon
changes
grounds
amendment
that
substantive
who
parties
maintained on
which an action
be
already committed
already transacted or who are
have
unless con-
cases, however,
...
In civil
litigation.
justice
otherwise,
sense and
dictate
good
siderations of
presumed
procedural
applied
it is
that
statutes will bе
retrospectively.
.
.
. Procedural statutes have been
traditionally
affecting remedies,
viewed as
not substan-
preexisting
tive
and therefore leave the
scheme
rights,
.
presumed
proce-
intact.
. .
we have
[Although
apply
dural or remedial statutes are intended to
retroac-
tively
expression
absent a clear
intent to
legislative
contrary
which,
provides
... a
in
but
form,
statute
remedy
actually
change
brings
changes
but
about
subject
applica-
substantive
is not
to retroactive
rights
precise
tion.
. . . While there is no
definition of either
law],
or
it is
procedural
generally agreed
[substantive
creates,
that a substantive law
defines and regulates
procedural
prescribes
while a
law
the methods of
rights
such
redress.”8
enforcing
rights
obtaining
(Citations
D’Eramo
omitted;
quotation
internal
marks
omitted.)
Smith, supra,
differently,
The relevant
of P.A.
which is a
law
governing
rights
substantive
of chil-
have an
parents,
dren of unmarried
effective date of
process
process
statutory
This
also is consistent with our usual
inter
*9
pretation,
objective
give
under which
fundamental
is
and
to ascertain
“[o]ur
apparent
legislature.
words,
...
effect to the
intent of the
In other
we seek
determine,
manner,
statutory
meaning
language
in a reasoned
the
of the
to
case,
question
applied
including
as
to the facts of
the
of whether the
[the]
actually
language
apply.
seeking
meaning,
does
...
In
to determine that
§ l-2z
first to
the
General Statutes
directs us
consider the text of
statute
relationship
If,
examining
itself and its
to other statutes.
after
such text
considering
relationship,
meaning
plain
and
such
the
of such text is
and
yield
unambiguous
results,
and does not
absurd or unworkable
extratextual
meaning
evidence оf the
of the statute shall not be considered.
. . . When
plain
unambiguous,
interpretive guidance
a statute is not
and
we also look for
history
enactment,
legislative
surrounding
and circumstances
its
policy
implement,
relationship
legislative
designed
the
it
was
to its
existing legislation
principles governing
general
and common law
the same
subject
(Internal quotation
omitted.)
Connecticut Ins.
. . . .”
matter
marks
Guaranty
State,
(2006).
Assn.
197
explic
state
act does not
public
the
1,2004, but
October
rendered
support orders
only to
itly
applies
whether
it
46b-84,9
§
Statutes
contrast,
In
General
that date.
after
94-61
(P.A.
Acts
No.
by Public
which, as amended
in
parental
obligations
similarly
extended
94-61),
apply
that it “shall
provides
cases,10 specifically
divorce
of mar
decree of dissolution
in
where the
only
cases
entered on or
annulment
or
separation
riage, legal
Thus,
(b).
46b-84
General Statutes
July 1,1994.”
after
part: “(a) Upon
provides
or subse
in relevant
§ 46b-84
General Statutes
entry
any marriage
of a
quent
or
or dissolution of
to the annulment
divorce,
parents
legal separation
of a minor child of
or
decree
respective abilities,
according
if
marriage,
to their
maintain the child
shall
Any postjudgment procedure afforded
maintenance.
the child is in need of
present
by chapter
future financial
secure the
906 shall be available to
periodic payment
party
for the
with a final order
interests of a
in connection
support.
of child
marriage
has attained the
“(b)
of the
who
If there is an unmarried child
parent,
high
age
eighteen,
and resides with a
is a full-time
school student
according
respective
abilities
to their
shall maintain the child
completes
as such child
in
of maintenance until such time
if the child is need
nineteen,
age
The
grade
whichever first occurs.
the twelfth
or attains the
only
apply
in
where the decree of
shall
cases
of this subsection
separation
marriage, legal
on
after
or annulment is entered
dissolution of
July 1, 1994. . . .”
10According
George Jepsen, P.A.94-61was intended “to encour
to Senator
by
addressing
legislature viewed as an
lads to finish school”
what the
frequently
by attorneys negotiating
in
unaddressed
settlements
issue
left
Sess., p. 1805;
Proc.,
Proc.,
see also 37 H.R.
divorce cases. 37 S.
Pt.
9, 1994Sess., pp. 3066-67,
Representative
Wollenberg
remarles of
William
Pt.
attorneys
(stating
failure to
that “we must do this
statute” because
bill,
commenting
agreement”).
In
this into the
“[work]
only
Jepsen emphasized
apply
and dissolutions
Senator
it was to
to divorces
Proc., supra, p.
July 1,
that were entered on or after
1994. See 37 S.
July 1, 1994,
legislature’s
date for P.A. 94-
choice of
as an effective
expanded
importance
this
child
61 indicated its view of the
By
July 1,
proceedings.
choosing
dissolution
as
benefit
the context of
applicability
date,
legislature
of the statute
effectivе
accelerated the
date of October 1. See State v.
three months over the default effective
Nowell, supra,
(legislature’s provision that Public Acts
Despite the remedial
that the
us to conclude
permit
insufficient evidence
retroactively, particu
apply
intended it to
legislature
by 55-3. See foot
set forth
larly
the limitations
given
that
however, well settled
opinion.
is,
It
note 7 of this
construe
possible, to
try, whenever
court should
“[t]his
may not
infirmity, but
a constitutional
statutes to avoid
by eschewing
plain
its
the statute
rewriting
do so
marks
State
quotation
omitted.)
language.” (Internal
390,
denied,
A.2d
cert.
244, 251,
210 Conn.
Snook,
Accordingly,
only vio-
apply prospectively
P.A. 04-100 to
construing
equal protection
clause of the fourteenth
lates
with
to the United States constitution14
amendment
unmarried
of children bom to
respect
rights
equal protection
that an
viola-
parents.
argues
The state
prospective only construction
tion occurs because this
inherent
in the
perpetuates the constitutional violation
P.A.
statutory
prior
that existed
scheme
equal protection clause,
amendment
The federal
of the fourteenth
provides
part:
in relevant
“No State shall
to the United States constitution
deny
any person
any
. . .
within its
make or enforce
law which shall
protection
jurisdiction
equal
of the laws.”
analysis
first, §
state’s
also mentions article
of the constitution
provides
part:
person
Connecticut,
in relevant
“No
shall be denied
which
equal protection
Although
.
that the
of the law . .
the state notes
protection
greater
than the federal
state constitution
afford citizens
separate analysis
any
constitution,
provide
such claim.
it does not
a
See,
principles.
Accordingly,
is limited to federal constitutional
our review
Health,
Batte-Holmgren v.
e.g.,
Public
Commissioner of
n.9,
(2007).
It is well
[s]tate
by denying
children
against
illegitimate
discriminate
children generally.
benefits accorded
them substantial
judicially
right
enforceable
posits
[0]nce
[s]tate
from their natu
of children to needed
on behalf
justifi
constitutionally sufficient
ral fathers there is no
to a child
right
such an essential
denying
cation for
not married its
its natural father has
simply because
535, 538, 93 S. Ct.
Perez,
Gomez v.
409 U.S.
mother.”15
This ban on discrimination
872,
“In view of the
favorably
ones,
than
United States
legitimate
less
[the
15
Supreme
example,
Court has held it
be
the United States
For
right
equal protection
a state to “create a
of action
of the
clause for
violation
aparent
illegitimate
wrongful
and exclude
death of
in favor of children for
right,”
“illegitimate children
such a
or to exclude
children from the benefit of
recovery
equally
sharing
in the
of workmen’s
. . . from
with other children
Perez,
parent.”
compensation
v.
the death of their
Gomez
benefits for
535, 537-38,
872,
(1973).
93 S. Ct.
Supreme Court has]
scrutiny
to a
level of
illegitimacy
heightened
based on
.
we have held that classifi-
[although
. .
[noting that]
suspect,
subject
arе not
illegitimacy
cations based on
scrutiny
scrutiny
applied
exacting
to our most
one ....
classification
to them is not a toothless
[A]
unless it bears
on
is unconstitutional
illegitimacy
based
particular
an evident and substantial
relation
.
to serve.
. .
designed
. . . interests
statute is
[the]
children
illegitimate
on
suits
[Restrictions
they
scrutiny to the extent
equal protection
will survive
to a
state interest.”17
substantially
legitimate
are
related
quotation
omitted.)
marks
omitted; internal
(Citations
L.
103 S. Ct.
Brown,
Pickett v.
462 U.S.
Habluetzel,
456 U.S.
Ed. 2d 372
see also Mills
(1983);
(1982)
Accordingly,
to res-
support
have constmed their
statutes
cases that
jeopardy under the United
cue them from constitutional
law.18 For
Supreme Court’s
case
illegitimacy
States
App. 590, 591,
in
23 Mass.
example,
Roe,
Doe
bom out
year
man,
a nineteen
old
(1987),
N.E.2d
in
home while
wedlock,
of
who lived
his mother’s
community
from the Probate
college sought
attending
support obligation
order
his father’s
extending
Court an
beyond
prescribed by
of
the relevant
eighteen
situation,
parents
in
but with
person
statute. A
a similar
birth and
who had been married at the time of his
sup-
received such
subsequently divorced, could have
sparse.
do, however,
point
law on
We
find
Connecticut’s case
this
Gianetti,
App.
Appellate
instructive the
Court decision in Moll v.
required
interpret
(1986),
204
support
for
orders
port
providing
under the statute
that there were no
Id.,
Noting
dissolution cases.
592.
case; id.,
n.3;
in the
problems
proof
paternity
of
that Gomez and the other
Supreme
the court concluded
proposition
person
for the
that a
Court cases stood
“constitutionally is entitled to the
bom out of wedlock
father,
from his
after
type
support
biological
same
and until he reaches
eighteen
attaining
as a child of divorced
would be
twenty-one,
.’’Id.,
in like
entitled to receive
circumstances
proposition
interpret
on this
The court relied
broadly
equity jurisdiction
enough
Probate Court’s
postmajority support
persons
for
bom
allow for such
Hartman,
see also Rawles v.
Id., 595;
out of wedlock.19
App.
931, 935-36,
(construing
Ill.
3d
dismissed the appeal state’s from the decision of the family support magistrate.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to sustain the state’s appeal.
In opinion BORDEN, this KATZ and PALMER, Js., *17 concurred.
ZARELLA, J., I concurring. Although agree with the majority, conclusion of the I do not all agree, for of the D’Eramo expressed my reasons concurrence in v. Smith, (Zarella, A.2d 408 (2005) J., history concurring), legislative of Public Acts No. 04-100 should be consulted (P.A. 04-100), to determine the intent. legislative Having concluded that P.A. provision 04-100 is substantive that contains language specifically retroactively no that it be directing applied, majority has no reason to consult extratex tual evidence of the intent. legislature’s See General N l-2z;1 Statutes see also General § Statutes 55-3.2evert § heless, fully I with agree majority’s constitutional analysis and ultimate conclusion that we cannot con marriage involving concerning cause of action for dissolution of orders children, jurisdictional formerly ground, absent, and established a under Superior agreement which the Court act where there is a written education, providing care, beyond for the maintenance or of a child eighteen.” Id., inapposite because, Hunter is unlike the present case, analysis present any equal protection therein did not implications respect rights other constitutional with of the child support. need of provides: meaning shall, § General Statutes l-2z “The statute in the instance, first be ascеrtained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship If, examining considering to other statutes. after such text and relationship, meaning plain unambiguous such of such text is yield results, does not absurd or unworkable extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.” provides part: provision General Statutes 55-3 in relevant “No general imposes any any obligation person statutes . . . which new on retrospective shall be construed to have a effect.” it uncon render way that would in such a strue a statute stitutional. SAUCIER RICHARD CONNECTICUT OF
STATE 17502) (SC Sullivan, Vertefeuille, Katz, Palmer, Js.* Borden, Norcott, Zarella and *18 * consisting panel originally argued court before a of this case was This Thereafter, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, and Zarella. Vertefeuille of Justices (b), sponte, court, ordered that the pursuant § 70-7 sua to Practice Book Accordingly, Justice Borden and Senior en banc. Justice case be considered record, they panel, briefs have read Sullivan were added transcript argument. of the oral