DocketNumber: File No. 1279
Citation Numbers: 460 A.2d 1318, 38 Conn. Super. Ct. 680
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 2/25/1983
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 5/5/2017
Following a trial to the court, the defendant was adjudged to be the father of the plaintiff's son born May 16, 1979. The defendant has appealed. The state thereafter intervened as an interested party. The trial court found the following: In 1977, when the plaintiff was eighteen years old, she met the defendant Jose Miranda and his wife Carmen. She became friendly with them and frequently babysat for their two daughters. In February, 1978, she began having sexual relations with the defendant. Their affair lasted through the fall of 1978. In September the plaintiff discovered she was pregnant. Fearful that she would be unable to continue her relationship with the defendant and his daughters if the truth were known to the defendant's wife, the plaintiff fabricated a story that the father was someone named Bob whom she had met at a bar. She did, however, tell several of her friends and her mother that Jose Miranda was the actual father of her child.
The defendant has raised three issues on appeal. First, he contends that the court erred in concluding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant fathered her child. We do not agree. Admittedly, there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses are, however, for the trier of fact to resolve and we will not disturb his findings on appeal unless the evidence is insufficient to support them. State v. Gaynor,
Second, the defendant claims that the court failed to explain in its memorandum of decision how it found the plaintiff's evidence to be the more credible in view *Page 682
of the numerous inconsistencies contained in her testimony. See Armstrong v. Watrous,
Finally, the defendant argues that the court erred in its finding of constancy of accusation of the defendant's paternity. We disagree. "Constancy of accusation . . . [is] not an essential element of [the plaintiff's] case . . . . Section [
There is no error.
DALY, COVELLO and F. HENNESSY, Js., participated in this decision.