Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith

• Decision Date: 16 September 2003
• Docket Number: (SC 16931)
• Citation: 265 Conn. 723,830 A.2d 228
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. CHRISTOPHER L. SMITH.

265 Conn. 723

830 A.2d 228

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. CHRISTOPHER L. SMITH.

(SC 16931)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 22, 2003.

Officially released September 16, 2003.

Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.

Helene Opocensky, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Donald M. Longley, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Frederic Gilman, for the minor child.

Opinion

NORCOTT, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a defendant in an action to establish child support, who is properly served with notice of the pending proceedings and summoned to appear but fails to appear as directed or to otherwise deny the material allegations of the petition, impliedly has admitted the factual assertions of the petition such that an adjudication of paternity may be made and an order of support may be entered. The plaintiff, the commissioner of social services, appeals¹ from the judgment of the trial court affirming the family support magistrate's ruling that the failure of the defendant, Christopher L. Smith, to appear or to otherwise deny the material allegations contained in the plaintiff's petition for support did not operate as a default judicial admission of the factual assertions underlying the petition.² We conclude that a defendant who fails to appear or to otherwise deny the allegations of a support petition has admitted the facts underlying the petition. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following undisputed relevant facts and procedural history. On September 18, 2000, the plaintiff, on behalf of Amanda L. Cahoon, and pursuant to General Statutes §§ 17b-745,³ 46b-172⁴ and 46b-215,⁵ initiated an action for child support by filing a support petition with the family support magistrate division. Attached to the petition was a verified statement of facts that alleged, inter alia, that the state was providing child support services to a minor child and that the defendant was the acknowledged parent of the minor child.⁶ Accompanying these materials was a summons, which notified the defendant of the pending action and advised him that he was required to appear in court and respond to these allegations on February 15, 2001. The summons further advised the defendant that, should he fail to appear, judgment may be entered against him.

On February 15, 2001, the defendant failed to appear in court and the family support magistrate, Katherine Y. Hutchinson, continued the matter to April 5, 2001. On that date, the family support magistrate, James M. Bentivegna (magistrate), issued a finding that the defendant properly had been served with the petition, the summons and the verified statement of facts, and the magistrate continued the matter to April 19, 2001. On April 19, the defendant again failed to appear and the magistrate appointed attorney Frederic Gilman as child advocate to represent the interests of the minor child. The magistrate again continued the matter to May 3, 2001.

On May 3, 2001, after the defendant again failed to appear, the magistrate elected to proceed with the matter and heard the plaintiff's evidence seeking to establish the defendant's paternity. During this hearing, the plaintiff offered, as proof of the defendant's paternity, the testimony of Dean Festa, an investigation supervisor for the bureau of child support enforcement for the department of social services, who testified as to the procedures and entities involved in the collection and maintenance of written paternity acknowledgments. Through Festa, the plaintiff also sought to introduce a photocopy of the acknowledgment of paternity purportedly signed by the defendant.

Following this hearing, the plaintiff and the child advocate both submitted written memoranda to the magistrate on the sufficiency of the plaintiff's proof of the defendant's paternity. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's paternity had been sufficiently demonstrated because, not only was the unauthenticated photocopy of the written acknowledgment admissible under this state's statutory scheme regarding such documents, but pursuant to Practice Book § 10-19,⁷ the defendant, in his failure to appear or to otherwise deny the material allegations in the plaintiff's petition for support, had judicially admitted those allegations, including the assertion that he was the acknowledged father of the minor child. In turn, the child advocate filed a memorandum that claimed that the acknowledgment was inadmissible in that it had not been properly authenticated. This memorandum did not, however, respond to the plaintiff's argument that, by failing to appear or to otherwise deny the material allegations of the support petition, the defendant had thereby admitted the allegations, and paternity had therefore been established.

Thereafter, the magistrate issued a written decision that excluded from evidence the unauthenticated photocopy offered by the plaintiff. In the decision, the magistrate also ruled that Practice Book § 10-19 and the doctrine of implied admissions is inapplicable within the context of family support matters conducted under the umbrella of chapter 25 of the Practice Book.⁸ On the basis of these rulings, the magistrate dismissed the plaintiff's petition without prejudice. Thereafter, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-231 (n),⁹ the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. The trial court affirmed the decision of the magistrate excluding from evidence the unauthenticated photocopy of the written acknowledgment of paternity. Although the claim that the defendant effectively had admitted his paternity by his failure to appear or to otherwise deny the material allegations of the support petition was contained in the plaintiff's written submission to the court as a ground upon which to reverse the decision of the magistrate, the court's written memorandum of decision did not address that issue. The plaintiff filed a motion to reargue and for an articulation, based, in part, on the trial court's failure to address the issue of implied admission, which was denied by the court. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the magistrate improperly concluded that the failure of the defendant to appear or to otherwise deny the material allegations of the support petition did not operate as a default admission of those allegations, thereby admitting the defendant's paternal status and establishing his attendant obligation to provide child support. The plaintiff's argument on this issue is twofold. First, the plaintiff claims that, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-19, when a party to a civil action, including a family support matter, fails properly to deny the material allegations contained in the pleadings of an adverse party, the former party effectively has admitted those allegations. Thus, in this context, the defendant, by failing to appear or to deny the allegations in the support petition, has admitted those contentions for the purposes of the support proceedings. Second, the plaintiff asserts that the nature of a child support show cause hearing is such that, once a putative father is properly served with notice of the proceedings and advised of his rights and potential liabilities, the burden is placed upon him to appear and show cause why the court should not enter an order of support. The plaintiff claims that an order establishing support should have been entered because the defendant failed even to attempt to shoulder this burden.

The child advocate claims, however, that the defendant, by failing to appear, did not impliedly admit the material allegations of the support petition.¹⁰ Specifically, the child advocate claims that the doctrine of implied admissions, as codified in Practice Book § 10-19, is inapplicable to family support matters conducted pursuant to the provisions of chapter 25 of the Practice Book.¹¹ We conclude that, the defendant in the present case, by failing to fulfill his obligation to respond to the pleadings that properly were served on him, is deemed to have judicially admitted the underlying facts of the support petition.

As a threshold matter, we set forth the applicable standard of review. The plaintiff is challenging the legal conclusion reached by the magistrate as to the evidentiary impact of a defaulting party in a family support matter. The interpretive construction of the rules of practice is to be governed by the same principles as those regulating statutory interpretation. State v. Pare, 253 Conn. 611, 622, 755 A.2d 180 (2000) ("principles of statutory construction apply `with equal force to Practice Book rules'"). The interpretation of a statute, as well as its applicability to a given set of facts and circumstances, involves a question of law and our review, therefore, is plenary. Wallingford v. Dept. of Public Health, 262 Conn. 758, 773, 817 A.2d 644 (2003).

Moreover, "the process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature.... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of the case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.... Thus, this process requires us to consider all relevant sources of the meaning of the language at issue, without having to cross any threshold or thresholds of ambiguity. Thus, we do not follow the plain meaning rule.

"In performing this task, we begin with a searching examination of the language of the statute, because that is the...