Husband Lacks Standing In Action Against Biological Father

If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A Mother's husband could not maintain an action to recover child support from the children's biological father under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-215, because, while the husband had joint legal custody and a close relationship with the children, he was not a guardian and had no relationship that would have provided him standing to bring such a motion.

The intervener husband and defendant wife were married in 1995. Unbeknownst to the husband, the plaintiff father and defendant mother had sexual relations which produced the two minor children, born in 1996 and 1998. DNA evidence confirmed the paternity of the father and mother. During this time, the husband believed himself to be the father of both children, and is named father on both birth certificates. In a 2008 action for visitation, the plaintiff father was ordered to pay $155.00 per week in child support. The husband brought action the father, arguing that since the father had been ordered to pay $155.00 per week going forward, then the plaintiff owes at least that amount in support since the birth of the children. Connecticut statute creates a statutory duty for parents, married or otherwise, to support their children. Further, an action for current or past due support may be brought by the conservator or guardian. The husband argued that, because he had been granted custody of the children, he had standing as a guardian to bring action against the father. The court disagreed. In construing statute, a court cannot exceed the limitations set forth by congress. While a custodian and guardian are similar, they are not interchangeable. The husband’s joint custody alone does not fulfill the legal relationship that provides standing by state law. The husband may have believed himself the father, and provided for them since birth. However, since learning the truth, the husband has not moved for legal guardianship, but rather to aid as a joint custodian of the children. Thus, the absence of any legally recognized relationship between the husband and children preempted his claim against the father.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Perella v. Dimichele, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2083 (July 23, 2009)