Edge v. Commissioner of Welfare

• Citation: 388 A.2d 1193,34 Conn.Supp. 284
• Decision Date: 24 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 096339,096339
• Parties: Willie EDGE v. COMMISSIONER OF WELFARE.
• Court: Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut

Page 1193

388 A.2d 1193

34 Conn.Supp. 284

Willie EDGE v. COMMISSIONER OF WELFARE.

No. 096339.

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut, New Haven County.

April 24, 1978.

Mongillo & Insler, New Haven, for plaintiff.

Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., and Michael A. Arcari, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

DUPONT, Judge.

The plaintiff, Willie Edge, appeals from a decision made pursuant to a hearing by the state welfare department requiring him to reimburse the state for support given to his wife. The plaintiff claims to be aggrieved because the decision failed to find that the plaintiff's wife left him without just cause. It is the plaintiff's position that a husband need not support his wife if the marital separation is without justification by the wife and without fault of the husband. It is the position of the defendant that the court has no jurisdiction to determine fault of the parties and that the marital relationship per se establishes the liability of the husband to reimburse the state.

The issue to be decided, therefore, is whether an otherwise legally liable relative, such as a husband, is required under § 17-82e of the General Statutes to reimburse the state for support payments made to his wife where the wife has left the husband without any fault on his part and where she has obviously engaged in adultery leading to the birth of another man's child. The state's position is that reimbursement from the husband is dependent solely upon a showing that the relationship exists, that the wife is in need, that the state has contributed to the support of the wife and that the husband can afford the contribution to be exacted.

The plaintiff makes no claim that the amount of state support given to the wife by way of AFDC assistance is exclusively for an illegitimate child born prior to his marriage, nor does he deny that the amount of support which the state claims to have given his wife was in fact given. Thus, the case of Peterson v. Norton, 395 F.Supp. 1351 (D.Conn.), which upheld the constitutionality of the Connecticut welfare department's regulation requiring the father of an illegitimate child to pay the caretaker expenses of the child's mother, is not applicable. The defendant's brief relies heavily on that decision. The brief is an almost verbatim copy of a brief filed in another case, Leggett v. Popolizio, 34 Conn.Sup. 281, 388 A.2d 1192. The issue in that case was apparently whether the wife of the plaintiff was the recipient of state aid, and whether the entire state payment was used for the support of an illegitimate child. Although the memorandum of decision does state that § 17-82e focuses on the legal relationship of the parties rather than on the "why" of state welfare assistance, it is nowhere indicated in the decision that the fault of the wife for the separation of the parties was interposed as a defense to the husband's obligation to reimburse the state for support tendered to his wife.

It is clear that the cause of the marital separation must be considered in cases involving suits for separate maintenance brought by one spouse against another, and that a separation without justification is a defense to such actions. Cantiello v. Cantiello, 136 Conn. 685, 74 A.2d 199; Rucci v. Rucci, 23 Conn.Sup. 221, 181 A.2d 125.

Section 17-82e of the General Statutes gives no exculpatory defenses to a legally liable spouse based on disruption of the relationship, nor does General Statutes § 53-304 or § 17-320. Section 17-326 of the General...