Schaffer v. Schaffer
Decision Date | 25 May 1982 |
Citation | 187 Conn. 224,445 A.2d 589 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Paul D. SCHAFFER v. Cynthia L. SCHAFFER. |
Paul D. Schaffer, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Joan B. Sinder, Willimantic, for appellee (defendant).
Richard W. Dyer, Manchester, for minor child.
Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and ARMENTANO, JJ.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a dissolution of marriage judgment which found that the minor child born during the marriage was the lawful issue of the parties and ordered the plaintiff to provide weekly support for the child. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff was the father of the minor child. 1
If the plaintiff is not the father of the minor child, the trial court lacked the authority to order the plaintiff to provide support for the child. Morrow v. Morrow, 165 Conn. 665, 668, 345 A.2d 561 (1974); LaBella v. LaBella, 134 Conn. 312, 316, 57 A.2d 627 (1948). The principal issue is whether the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff to be the father of the minor child. Because this is a factual finding, we may reject it only if it is "clearly erroneous." Practice Book § 3060D; Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387, 391-92, 441 A.2d 629 (1982); Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 220, 435 A.2d 24 (1980).
The parties were married on July 1, 1978. The defendant was pregnant at the time of the marriage, with the probable time of conception being the end of April or the beginning of May, 1978. The minor child was born on January 24, 1979. The plaintiff testified that he did not have sexual relations with the defendant until May 24, 1978, which was after the probable time of conception. 2 The plaintiff testified that he married the defendant because he believed she was pregnant with his child but that in December, 1978 she told him that she had had sexual relations with other men during the probable period of conception and that she had married him only for financial reasons. According to the plaintiff, it was this revelation which led him to seek a dissolution of the marriage. The transcript of the testimony reveals, however, that the plaintiff was unable to elicit confirmation of the defendant's alleged revelation from the defendant or corroboration for it from other witnesses alleged to have been involved with the defendant.
The defendant contradicted the plaintiff's testimony and testified that she did have sexual relations with the plaintiff during the probable period of conception and that she did not have sexual relations with anyone else during this period. The defendant also testified that there was no doubt in her mind that the plaintiff was the father of the minor child.
Because it was the plaintiff who put into issue the question of the paternity of the minor child, the burden was on him to prove that he was not the father of the child. Although the trial court did not specify the nature of the plaintiff's burden, it is clear that in Connecticut there is a presumption that a child born during lawful wedlock is the child of the husband, which presumption may be rebutted only by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof that the child is illegitimate. See Grant v. Stimpson, 79 Conn. 617, 623, 66 A. 166 (1907); Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Prince, 28 Conn.Sup. 348, 351, 261 A.2d 287 (1968); Beal v. Ross, 11 Conn.Sup. 323, 326 (1942); 10 Am.Jur.2d, Bastards §§ 10-13, 20; McCormick, Evidence (2d Ed. Cleary 1972) § 343, p. 810.
The resolution of this factual dispute falls within the province of the trial court. Kaplan v. Kaplan, supra, 186 Conn. 391, 441 A.2d 629. Robertson v. Apuzzo, 170 Conn. 367, 384, 365 A.2d 824, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 852, 97 S.Ct. 142, 50 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976).
On the basis of the record before us, the evidence presented to the trial court, 3 and the plaintiff's heavy burden, the finding that the plaintiff is the father of the minor child cannot be said to be "UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, INCORRECT, OR otherwise mistaken." kaplan v. Kaplan, supra, 392. The finding, therefore, was not clearly erroneous.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other Judges concurred.
1 The plaintiff also challenges, for the first time on appeal, the actions of the counsel appointed to represent the minor child on the ground that the child's counsel has failed to represent the best interests of the child. The gist of this claim is that the counsel for the minor child, by opposing the plaintiff's attempts to prove he is not the father of the minor child, has failed to represent the best interests of the child because he has not aided in determining the identity of the child's actual father. Even if it is assumed, however, that this claim is properly reviewable, we cannot say that the actions of the child's counsel amounted to an ineffective representation of the child's interests. The purpose of appointing counsel for a minor child in a dissolution action is to ensure independent representation of the child's interest and such representation must be entrusted to the professional judgment of appointed co...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simmons v. Simmons, 15658
...174, 183, 425 A.2d 592 (1979). Such an excursion by this court into the domain of the trier is unacceptable. Schaffer v. Schaffer, 187 Conn. 224, 227, 445 A.2d 589 (1982)." Carpenter v. Carpenter, 188 Conn. 736, 741-42, 453 A.2d 1151 Section 46b-81 (c) directs that, "[i]n fixing the nature ......
-
Mejias v. Sebastian, No. FA98-0116648 (CT 12/1/2004)
...By common law, a minor child born during its parents' marriage is presumed to be the issue of that marriage. Schaffer v. Schaffer, 187 Conn. 224, 226, 445 A.2d 589 (1982). This common presumption does not establish a child's legal If a child is born out of wedlock in a Connecticut hospital,......
-
Weidenbacher v. Duclos
...cases have continued to apply this rule. See, e.g., Holland v. Holland, 188 Conn. 354, 357, 449 A.2d 1010 (1982); Schaffer v. Schaffer, 187 Conn. 224, 226, 445 A.2d 589 (1982). We have never held, however, that this presumption is irrebuttable and conclusive against a person claiming to be ......
-
Imperial Cas. and Indem. Co. v. State
...443, 447, 365 A.2d 1076 (1976), quoting W. Maltbie, Connecticut Appellate Procedure (2d Ed.1957) § 305; see Schaffer v. Schaffer, 187 Conn. 224, 227-28 n. 3, 445 A.2d 589 (1982) ("[w]e cannot find error in a trial court's failure to make a decision which it was never called upon to make"); ......
-
Advocating for Connecticut's Children During Their Parents' Divorces and Custody Disputes After Carrubba v. Moskowitz: the Past, the Present and the Future State of the Law for Attorneys for Minor Children and Guardians Ad Litem
...467 (1990). FN28Id. at 510. FN29Id. at 516. FN30See CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT, supra note 8. FN31 Schaffer v. Schaffer, 187 Conn. 224, 445 A.2d 589 (1982). lution action appealed from a finding his paternity and the child support orders. On appeal, he challenged the actions o......