2004 Ct. Sup. 621
No. FA 00-631322SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
January 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
PRESTLEY, JUDGE.
Procedure
This is an appeal from a decision of the Family Support Magistrate (Lifshitz H.) dated February 26, 2001. The state claims error in the magistrate’s denial of an offer to admit into evidence a carbon copy of an executed acknowledgment of paternity identified under oath by the affiants. The state claims that the magistrate’s denial foreclosed their ability to obtain an order for arrears commensurate with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46b-172. On August 8, 2001, this court initially ruled on the appeal on grounds not argued by any party. Upon reflection by this court, the matter was scheduled for additional argument on November 30, 2001.
As a result of that argument and a thorough review of the record, the court modified its original decision and ordered a remand for a clarification of the record. It was this court’s determination that while the state made several points in its brief and in argument before this court to support its claim on appeal, the record was not adequate for this court’s review of the claim.
Over 18 months later, on March 7, 2003, the petitioner filed a motion for articulation of the magistrate’s decision. It was not until October 20, 2003, that this court was made aware of the fact that this case was still pending. No articulation had been filed or received by the petitioner or by this court from the family court magistrate up to that point, presumably because of an error in communication with respect to this court’s remand In early November 2003, this court received a copy of an articulation from the family court magistrate dated September 23, 2003 but apparently not filed until after October 20, 2003. It is not clear from the decision whether it is an articulation to this CT Page 622 court or to the case on appeal to the appellate court. In the interests of resolving these issues, this court will consider the articulation as a response to its remand
Background
On February 26, 2001, DSS (Department of Social Services) offered into evidence an executed sworn acknowledgment of paternity dated February 26, 2001 as required by the standing orders of the family court magistrate when pursuing a claim of support. DSS was seeking their statutory right to three years of past-due support pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46b-160. This section limits the state in collecting an arrearage to three years next preceding the filing date of the petition.
During the course of the hearing, DSS offered a carbon copy of an acknowledgment signed by both parties and dated July 30, 2000. This carbon copy was the first carbon of a triplicate form with all signatures from the stroke of a pen and intended to have the same effect as the original. In the state’s attempt to introduce this carbon copy into evidence the following colloquy took place:
Mr. Samalot: Mr. Malone, I am first showing you an acknowledgment of paternity for Tyonne Anthony Malone, Jr. signed June 29, 1999. Do you know whose signature is in the bottom right hand corner?
Mr. Malone: It is mine.
Mr. Samalot: And Ms. Bermudez, I am showing you the copy of the acknowledgment of paternity. Whose signature appears in the bottom left hand corner?
The petitioner: That is my signature.
Mr. Samalot: And that date is again?
The petitioner: July 31
Mr. Samalot: 2000?
The petitioner: Yes
Mr. Samalot: Your honor, the State would offer the acknowledgment of paternity signed . . . CT Page 623
The Court: For what purpose?
Mr. Samalot: The purpose of collecting arrears back to the period of time three years back from the . . .
The Court: Excuse me, Mr. Samalot, you can’t have it both ways. The state wants to claim that these documents are judgments, therefore, they are not relevant as evidence. The document speaks for itself. We have a document in the file. The document is not admitted.
Mr. Samalot: Exception on that, your Honor.
The Court: Exception noted.
In sum, the state’s request to have the carbon copy introduced as evidence was denied by the magistrate. As a result of this ruling, DSS claims that three years past-due support was mistakenly calculated from February 26, 2001 rather than July 30, 2000 which resulted in a loss of seven month’s arrearage payments to the state and to the petitioner.
In a thoughtful and well-reasoned articulation, the family court magistrate appears to have reconsidered his decision after taking into account more recent decisions of the trial and appellate courts. This court agrees with the family court magistrate for all of the articulated reasons that the arrearage timing for child support orders is three years next preceding the date of the signing of the acknowledgment. Therefore, the appeal before this court on that issue is moot.
With respect to whether the carbon copy of the July 31, 2000 acknowledgment should have been admitted by the magistrate, this court agrees with DSS that the three years must be calculated from the earliest acknowledgment. Both the petitioner and the respondent testified that those were their signatures on an acknowledgment that they had signed. The copy was the first carbon of a triplicate form with all signatures from the stroke of a pen and intended to have the same effect as the original.
Order
The case is remanded to the family court magistrate for a CT Page 624 recalculation of the arrearage owed to comport with the magistrate’s amended decision.
PRESTLEY, JUDGE. CT Page 625