Marrocco v. Giardino

• Decision Date: 03 April 2001
• Docket Number: (SC 16427)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MARGUERITA MARROCCO v. MICHAEL A. GIARDINO

255 Conn. 617

767 A.2d 720

MARGUERITA MARROCCO v. MICHAEL A. GIARDINO

(SC 16427)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 12, 2001.

Officially released April 3, 2001.

Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, Js.¹

Martin D. Wheeler, with whom were Claudine Siegel and, on the brief, Joanne Lewis and Terrence R. Real, for the appellant (defendant).

Patricia Pac, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Donald M. Longley, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (state).

Lucy Potter and Shelley White filed a brief for the Connecticut Legal Rights Project et al. as amici curiae.

Opinion

KATZ, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether, in an action for child support, the use of the "best interests of the child" criterion may justify an order against the noncustodial parent to pay child support from his public assistance benefits, an obligation otherwise proscribed by the child support and arrearage guidelines (guidelines).² The trial court approved a ruling by a family support magistrate that deviation from the guidelines is allowable in ordering an award of child support, if it is in the best interests of the child, even when the parent's sole source of income is from public assistance. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c), we transferred the appeal to this court. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff, Marguerita Marrocco, and the defendant, Michael A. Giardino, are the parents of a child born on October 31, 1985. The plaintiff has primary physical custody of the child. In 1996, then family support magistrate Paul Matasavage entered a default order requiring the defendant to pay child support in the amount of $50 per week plus $5 per week toward an undisclosed arrearage. On January 5, 1999, the defendant filed a motion for modification of child support on the grounds that he was incapacitated as a result of a motor vehicle accident and derived his sole support from supplemental security income (SSI), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., and from state supplementation pursuant to General Statutes § 17b-600.³ Thereafter, the family support magistrate temporarily suspended his prior order of child support and continued the matter to September 14, 1999, for purposes of considering whether, under the updated child support guidelines, effective August 1, 1999, the defendant would be required to pay child support.

On September 14, 1999, another family support magistrate, Denise Chisholm Langley, heard arguments on the defendant's motion to modify and the plaintiff's motion for contempt.⁴ At that time, the defendant submitted a financial affidavit indicating that he had been receiving federal and state public assistance benefits consisting of SSI benefits in the amount of $500 per month, a state supplementation of $247 per month, and food stamps in the amount of $81 per month. On the basis of that affidavit, the family support magistrate determined that the defendant had no income under the guidelines, and, therefore, pursuant to those guidelines, owed $0 in current support. She concluded, however, that the best interests of the child justified a deviation from the guidelines, and, accordingly, ordered the defendant to pay $12 per week in child support and $1 per week toward any arrearages.⁵ Specifically, the family support magistrate determined that it would be "inappropriate" and "unfair" to follow the guidelines in this case, noting that if the plaintiff and the defendant had been living together, the defendant would have had to share his SSI benefits and food stamps with his family.⁶ She further noted that "it was unreasonable and outrageous" for the defendant to have made "no offer [of child support] in the best interests of [his] minor child."

The defendant appealed from the family support magistrate's decision to the trial court. The trial court, Dranginis, J., dismissed the appeal, concluding that the guidelines did not prohibit the family support magistrate from using the deviation criterion—the best interests of the child—in ordering an award of child support when the defendant's income consisted only of public assistance. This appeal followed.

The defendant claims that the trial court improperly upheld the family support magistrate's decision to deviate from the guidelines in concluding that the defendant must pay child support out of his SSI benefits and public assistance grants. Specifically, he maintains that the SSI and state supplementation are expressly excluded from gross income in determining child support pursuant to § 46b-215a-1 (11) (A) (ix) and (B) (ii)⁷ of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The defendant further argues that the trial court improperly concluded that the family support magistrate had improperly used the best interests of the child criterion to justify her decision to deviate from the guidelines.⁸

The plaintiff argues, conversely, that the trial court was correct because the family support magistrate had acted within her discretion in deviating from the guidelines pursuant to § 46b-215a-3⁹ of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies on the basis that, given the best interests of the child, application of the guidelines would have been inequitable and inappropriate in this case.

"Resolution of this issue requires us to interpret the statutory scheme that governs child support determinations in Connecticut, and, therefore, constitutes a question of law." Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 243 Conn. 584, 587-88, 704 A.2d 231 (1998); see also Charles v. Charles, 243 Conn. 255, 258, 701 A.2d 650 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1136, 118 S. Ct. 1838, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1089 (1998). The standard of appellate review governing questions of law dictates that "[w]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 357; Jenkins v. Jenkins, supra, 588. "When the question of law involves statutory interpretation, that determination is guided by well settled principles." Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 357. In construing statutes, "[o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature.... In seeking to discern that intent, 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; Jenkins v. Jenkins, supra, 588. Moreover, "[o]ur rules of statutory construction apply to administrative regulations.... Diamond v. Marcinek, [226 Conn. 737, 744 n.8, 629 A.2d 350 (1993)]; Preston v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 218 Conn. 821, 829 n.9, 591 A.2d 421 (1991)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 245 Conn. 169, 178, 713 A.2d 1269 (1998). Our examination of the language, history and purpose of the guidelines leads us to conclude that the defendant offers the more sound interpretation of the guidelines. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

We begin with a brief overview of the relevant statutory and regulatory framework. In 1989, the legislature enacted No. 89-203 of the 1989 Public Acts, first codified at General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 46b-215a,¹⁰ establishing the third commission for child support guidelines, charged with three specific statutory mandates: (1) to review previous child support guidelines; (2) to establish criteria and promulgate new guidelines to "ensure the appropriateness of child support awards"; and (3) "to issue updated guidelines not later than January 1, 1991 and every four years thereafter."¹¹

In General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 46b-215b (a),¹² the legislature made four significant changes in the application of the guidelines to questions of child support. These changes, moreover, replaced the "flexible and nondirective approach" taken by previous sets of guidelines that, although made available to the court, were in no way binding on it. See Favrow v. Vargas, 222 Conn. 699, 707-15, 610 A.2d 1267 (1992) (discussing history of and changes to guidelines). The statute provides: (1) that the guidelines "shall be considered in all determinations of child support amounts within the state"; (2) that "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of such awards which resulted from the application of such guidelines is the amount of support to be ordered"; (3) that in order "to rebut the presumption in such case," a court or family support magistrate must make a "specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case"; and (4) that such a specific finding must be "determined under criteria established by the commission...." General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 46b-215b (a).

In response to these statutory mandates, the commission promulgated new guidelines in 1991, which were later revised in 1994, and again in 1999. The primary purposes of the current guidelines are: "(1) To provide uniform procedures for establishing an adequate level of support for children, and for repayment of child support arrearages, subject to the ability of parents to pay ... (2) [t]o make awards more equitable by ensuring the consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances... (3) [t]o improve the efficiency of the court process by promoting settlements and by giving courts and the parties...