DocketNumber: No. FA 0049756 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9672
Judges: BOOTH, J.
Filed Date: 8/7/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
At the time of the magistrate's hearing on April 20, 1998, the petitioner Elizabeth Racine had just been discontinued from AFDC assistance. CT Page 9673
It appears that there was an arrearage to the State of Connecticut for $5,564 for nonpayment by the defendant during times when the petitioner had been receiving State assistance. There also was a "temporary assigned support account" of $2,740 for nonpayment during times when petitioner had not been receiving state assistance which the State claimed had been assigned to it by operation of law pursuant to §
The automatic assignment provided for in §
The Magistrate observed:
"So the immediate net effect of his violating a court order is that he gets his future payments applied to reduce his debt to the State of Connecticut instead of supporting his child. That's what the computer wants to do?"
(Transcript, April 20, 1998 p. 4.)
The Magistrate continued:
"Secondly, I'm going to make an arrearage finding as follows: to the State of Connecticut $5,584; to the Petitioner $2,694, both as of April 16, 1998."
(Transcript, April 20, 1998 p. 7.)
Section
"By such application, the applicant shall assign to the commissioner the right of support, present, past and future, due all persons seeking assistance.
The broad question of assignment of rights of support was considered by the appellate court in Langon v. Weeks,
The court concluded that §
The precise question presented on this appeal was presented to the Superior Court in Beausoleil v. Chamberland, No. FA 90 0039508 (Sept. 24, 1996) when the magistrate "unassigned" an arrearage which had been assigned pursuant to §
This court notes that §
While the court believes that Langon may be dicta on the issue, and while Beausoleil is not binding on this court, §
The entire system of AFDC payment is a complex system growing out of State Statute §
The court finds no basis to distinguish between an arrearage for a period of State assistance and an arrearage for a period during which no assistance is being paid. Neither does the court find any basis for the magistrate to "unassign" or "reassign" the petitioner's right to payment.
The appeal is granted. The matter is remanded to the magistrate for action consistent with this opinion.
Booth, J.