Donkin v. Donkin
| Citation | 399 A.2d 844,35 Conn.Supp. 123 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 160413,160413 |
| Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Margot W. DONKIN v. Arthur W. DONKIN. |
Daggett, Colby & Hooker, New Haven, for plaintiff.
Broadman, Noble & Franceski, Hartford, for defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Margot Donkin, has filed for a dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, Arthur Donkin, on the basis that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has broken down irretrievably. The defendant has filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint, contending that General Statutes § 46-32(c) is void for vagueness and denies the defendant his right to due process of law. The defendant argues that the term "irretrievable breakdown" is not defined by statute, Connecticut case law or legislative history. He argues further that there is a lack of clear statement of intention or clear meaning of the statutory language or guidelines for judicial discretion to be applied to contested cases.
General Statutes § 46-32(c) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "A decree of dissolution of a marriage . . . shall be granted upon a finding that one of the following causes has occurred: The marriage has broken down irretrievably . . . ." The plaintiff contends that the language is not constitutionally void for vagueness. She argues that the language has reasonable precision, that it provides a measurable standard for judicial application in both uncontested and contested cases, that the challenge here made has been specifically rejected by other courts passing on "almost identical" statutes, and that courts of Connecticut and of other states have found the challenged language workable and constitutionally precise.
It is fundamental that when a question of constitutionality is raised, courts must approach it with great caution, examine it with infinite care, and sustain the legislation unless its invalidity is clear and beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Fields, 5 Conn.Cir.Ct. 384, 386, 254 A.2d 503. In Connecticut, no statute will be held void for uncertainty if a practical or sensible effect may be given to it. State v. Fields, supra.
Statutes providing for a dissolution of marriage based upon a finding that the relationship is no longer viable are a relatively recent development in the law, the first such statute having been enacted into law in California to be effective in 1970. Annot., 55 A.L.R.3d 581, 590. Although the issue has not yet been decided in Connecticut, courts in other states have upheld the validity of such statutes against attacks on grounds of vagueness of the statutory language and denial of due process of law.
In a 1972 California case, In re Marriage of Walton, 28 Cal.App.3d 108, 104 Cal.Rptr. 472, the court held that the California Family Law Act, on which was based the granting of the husband's petition for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences which had caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage, did not contain language which was unreasonably uncertain or ambiguous. The court stated (p. 116, 104 Cal.Rptr. p. 479):
In a 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial