Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MARGUERITA MARROCCO v. MICHAEL A. GIARDINO (SC 16427)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, Js.* Argued January 12--officially released April 3, 2001 Counsel

Martin D. Wheeler, with whom were Claudine Siegel and, on the brief, Joanne Lewis and Terrence R. Real, for the appellant (defendant). Patricia Pac, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Donald M. Longley, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (state). Lucy Potter and Shelley White filed a brief for the Connecticut Legal Rights Project et al. as amici curiae.
Opinion

KATZ, J. The principal issue in this appeal is whether, in an action for child support, the use of the ``best interests of the child'' criterion may justify an order against the noncustodial parent to pay child support from his public assistance benefits, an obligation otherwise proscribed by the child support and arrearage

guidelines (guidelines).1 The trial court approved a ruling by a family support magistrate that deviation from the guidelines is allowable in ordering an award of child support, if it is in the best interests of the child, even when the parent's sole source of income is from public assistance. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and pursuant to Practice Book

Download Marrocco v. Giardino.pdf

Connecticut Law