Feliciano v. Feliciano
| Decision Date | 23 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 15295,15295 |
| Citation | 674 A.2d 1311,236 Conn. 719 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Iraida FELICIANO v. Juan FELICIANO. |
Margaret P. Levy, for appellant (defendant).
Rochelle Homelson, Assistant Attorney General, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, and Donald M. Longley, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee (state).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, NORCOTT and KATZ, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether family attribution rules governing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program may justify the diminution of the parental support obligation otherwise prescribed by applicable child support guidelines. The trial court approved a ruling by the family support magistrate that deviation from the support guidelines is constitutionally required in order to assure that a parent's support obligation does not exceed his or her child's pro rata share of AFDC benefits for a family unit that includes children for whom the parent bears no financial responsibility. Upon appeal by the state, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. Feliciano v. Feliciano, 37 Conn.App. 856, 865, 658 A.2d 141 (1995). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to review whether the Appellate Court's ruling requiring the defendant to pay support in accordance with the child support guidelines properly took into account the trier's exercise of discretion and properly resolved the defendant's constitutional claims. 1 We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The underlying facts are undisputed. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff, Iraida Feliciano, and the defendant, Juan Feliciano, the defendant had been ordered to pay $15 per week child support. The attorney general, representing the state, was a party to the dissolution proceedings because, pursuant to the applicable AFDC program, the plaintiff was receiving financial assistance for the defendant's minor child. General Statutes § 46b-55(a). 2 The plaintiff receives AFDC payments for a family unit that includes not only the defendant's child but also two other children for whom the defendant had no financial responsibility.
In 1993, in conformity with the Connecticut child support guidelines, the state moved for an increase in the defendant's support obligation to $86 per week, and for payments to discharge an arrearage. The family support magistrate granted the state's motion in part, but increased the defendant's support obligation only to $56.43 per week, which was his child's pro rata share of the family's AFDC benefits. The decision of the family support magistrate was upheld by the trial court, but the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the state's motion should have been granted in its entirety. We agree with the Appellate Court.
After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the Appellate Court properly analyzed the legality of deviations from child support guidelines premised on the availability of income attributable to AFDC public assistance grants. We agree with that court's conclusion that, as a matter of state law, such deviations are improper because the Connecticut child support guidelines "expressly provide that public assistance grants are not to be included in determination of gross income." Feliciano v. Feliciano, supra, 37 Conn.App. at 859, 658 A.2d 141. We also agree with its further conclusion that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, denials of such deviations comport with the requirements of due process and of equal protection in light of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 107 S.Ct. 3008, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrocco v. Giardino
...are not to be included in [the] determination of gross income." Feliciano v. Feliciano, 37 Conn. App. 856, 859, 658 A.2d 146 (1995). In Feliciano, the Appellate Court addressed a nearly identical issue to the one in the present case, namely, whether public assistance grants, although expres......
-
Fabrizio v. Glaser
...Court, it would serve no useful purpose for us to elaborate further on the discussion therein contained. Cf. Feliciano v. Feliciano, 236 Conn. 719, 722, 674 A.2d 1311 (1996); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 236 Conn. 27, 30, 670 A.2d 318 (1996); Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 230 Conn. 12, 16, 644 A.2d 871 (199......
-
Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, 15316
...Court, it would serve no useful purpose for us to elaborate further on the discussion therein contained. Cf. Feliciano v. Feliciano, 236 Conn. 719, 722, 674 A.2d 1311 (1996); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 236 Conn. 27, 30, 670 A.2d 318 (1996); Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 230 Conn. 12, 16, 644 A.2d 871 (199......
-
Baker v. Baker, 16795
...forth for defendant's adjusted income level); Feliciano v. Feliciano, 37 Conn.App. 856, 858-59, 658 A.2d 141 (1995), aff'd, 236 Conn. 719, 674 A.2d 1311 (1996) (presumption that amount of support calculated under guidelines appropriate amount of support to be ordered by court "can be rebutt......
-
1995 and 1996 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...be considered is the decrease from the time of the original decree, $20,000 or 29% which is much more likely to be deemed substantial. 64 236 Conn. 719 (1996), aff'g 37 Conn. App. 856 (1995). 65 Jaser v. Jaser, 37 Conn. App. 194 (1995). 66 Id. at 205. 67 See Standish v. Standish, 40 Conn. A......
-
1998 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 720, 595 A.2d 297 (1991) and Feliciano v. Feliciano, 37 Conn. App. 856, 858-59, 658 A.2d 141 (1995), affd 236 Conn. 719 (1996). 104 See Support Guidelines, §46b-215a-3(b). 105 47 Conn. App. 729 (1998). 106 The Court cited D'Ascanio v. D'Ascanio, 237 Conn. 481, 486,......