Ladd v. Welfare Commissioner

• Decision Date: 28 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. CV,CV
• Citation: 217 A.2d 490,3 Conn.Cir.Ct. 504
• Court: Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
• Parties: Patricia LADD v. WELFARE COMMISSIONER. 10-6504-4504.

Page 490

217 A.2d 490

3 Conn.Cir.Ct. 504

Patricia LADD v. WELFARE COMMISSIONER.

No. CV 10-6504-4504.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 13, 1965.

Decided Oct. 28, 1965.

Marvin M. Horwitz, Norwich, for appellant (plaintiff).

Mary P. Ryan, Asst. Counsel, State Welfare Department, for appellee (defendant).

PRUYN, Judge.

The plaintiff has appealed under § 17-2b of the General Statutes from the action of the welfare commissioner in refusing to find her eligible for aid to dependent children under § 17-87. A fair hearing as required by § 17-2a was held, and the transcript of the hearing together with the hearing decision constitutes the record in the trial court. § 17-2b. 'The findings of the commissioner or his designated hearing officer as to the facts, if supported by substantial and competent evidence, shall be conclusive. The court, upon such appeal, shall determine whether the commissioner has acted illegally or so arbitrarily and unreasonably as to abuse his discretion * * *.' § 17-2b(b). The trial court determined that the commissioner had not so acted.

The material facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff was formerly married to Donald Boushee, but they had been separated since December, 1962, and were divorced on November 1, 1963. At the time of the separation, he was contributing $45 a week to the support of his family, which contribution continued until May 3, 1963; from then on his support payments were, and continued to be, sporadic. The plaintiff received aid to dependent children, effective April 1, 1963, for the six children, aged four, six, eight, nine, ten and eleven of her marriage to Boushee. This was discontinued June 30, 1964, after her marriage to Gerald Ladd on June 27, 1964. On December 14, 1964, the plaintiff reapplied for aid to dependent children for the six children of her former marriage. This was denied on the ground that she had remarried and was living with her husband, who was supporting the family, and the children were not being deprived of parental care. The plaintiff's husband earns about $120 a week on a sixty-six-hour week and has a difficult time in supporting his wife, their one child and his six stepchildren. The state made no determination of the need for such assistance.

The statutory provisions for state aid to dependent children were first enacted in 1941; Sup.1941, c. 99b; and are now contained in General Statutes, chapter 302, part 2, §§ 17-84 to 17-107, as amended. The portions thereof concerning the definition of a dependent child, ¹ eligibility for aid, ² the extent of aid, ³ and the grant of aid ⁴ are contained in the footnotes to this opinion. 'The policy and purpose * * * [of this statute] is to provide a means for the support of dependent children in the home of the supervising relative applying for aid as preferable to placement in a state institution.' State v. Griffiths, 152 Conn. 48, 58, 203 A.2d 144, 149.

Prior to 1959, there was no reference in the statute to stepparents except in the definition of a needy child under the predecessor of § 17-82. In 1957, the attorney general issued an opinion; 30 Conn.Atty.Gen.Rep. 19; that in determining eligibility of a child for aid to dependent children the commissioner of welfare was entitled to take into consideration the resources of the stepfather. The mother, the stepfather and her children are a family unit the resources of which should be considered. For the state to furnish aid, there should be an actual need. Need should not be created where none exists, based on the absence of a legal obligation on the part of the stepparent to support his stepchildren. ⁵ The 1959 General Assembly, by Public Act No. 79, codified this ruling of the attorney general by inserting in § 17-87(a) the provisions concerning stepparents. It is to be noted that in the determination of need 'the ability of a stepparent to provide for the support of his minor stepchild or stepchildren residing with him shall be considered in the same manner as that of a natural parent is considered' (italics supplied). In other words, a parent and a stepparent are placed on the same basis. Where a natural parent with whom his minor child is living is employed, his ability to support his child is not taken into consideration, since he is not eligible for aid to dependent children because the child is not being deprived of parental support or care by reason of the factors mentioned in § 17-82 and § 17-86a. A stepparent is to be treated in...