NJ & CT News

Connecticut

State Starts Issuing Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples

New Haven Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert ruled after a short hearing Nov. 12 that gay and lesbian couples could begin picking up marriage license forms at town and city clerks' offices statewide. Many same-sex couples did just that shortly after the order was signed. Connecticut's highest court had ruled a month earlier that the Connecticut constitution prohibited the state from preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying, and the Nov. 12 order formally put that ruling into operation.

Constitutionality of Parenting Programs Upheld

The Supremce Court of Connecticut determined in October that the statutory requirement that a divorcing man attend a parenting education program did not implicate his fundamental right to decision-making authority over his child. That being the case, the court said that constitutional review of the statute, for a violation of a parent's substantive due process rights should be conducted under the rational basis standard rather than the strict scrutiny standard.

The question came up in a marriage dissolution action in which the Superior Court ordered the husband to attend a parenting education program designed by Connecticut's Judicial Department in accordance with ' 46b-69b of the Connecticut Code. That statute mandates parental education for parents whose family situations are before the courts. The law describes the course as one “designed by the Judicial Department to educate persons, including unmarried parents, on the impact on children of the restructuring of families. The course shall include, but not be limited to, information on the developmental stages of children, adjustment of children to parental separation, dispute resolution and conflict management, guidelines for visitation, stress reduction in children and cooperative parenting.” The husband appealed the order to attend the course, and the appeal was transferred from the Appellate Court to Connecticut's Supreme Court.

After the State Supreme Court determined that the proper test of the law was the rational relationship test, it found that the statute was rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of promoting the welfare of children. (See, e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (“[protecting children from harm is ' a legitimate goal.”) Therefore, the statute was not unconstitutional and the Superior Court's order was affirmed. The case is Dutkiewicz v. Dutkiewicz, 289 Conn. 362, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 4630337 (Conn., 10/28/08).

New Jersey

Appellate Court Reverses Palimony Grant

The longtime female companion of a married man who sued her ex for palimony lost her bid to retain the palimony awarded by a New Jersey Superior Court when the appellate court found that her married boyfriend had not promised her lifetime support. The case, Bayne v. Johnson, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 4725428 (N.J.Super.A.D., 10/27/08), was unusual because of the extended interconnections between the married couple and the female companion.

Earl Johnson married Carolyn Johnson (who was 20 years his senior) at her request, in order that she could shield her considerable financial assets from her children. They agreed at the time of the marriage that each would conduct his or her own personal lives as they saw fit. In 1981, Earl met Fiona Bayne and they began dating. He gave her expensive gifts, including a ring that Fiona testified was characterized as an engagement ring. In 1982, Fiona quit her job as a flight attendant and moved to a home in the Bahamas that she and Earl shared, although he continued to live also in a residence elsewhere on the island with his wife, of whose existence Fiona was unaware. It was years before Fiona discovered that her fianc' was married. After she did find out, there were more years of promises to marry, as soon as Earl could become financially independent of his wife. There were many ups and downs in the relationship, with numerous financial setbacks. At certain points in time, Carolyn was happy to live with the couple as a relative would, while at other times she objected to her husband's relationship with Fiona. Carolyn and Fiona even lived alone together for some time while Earl was away. Eventually, Fiona and Earl's relationship deteriorated when she realized that he would never make a go of any of his business ventures. Fiona left Earl, asking him for financial help to reestablish herself on her own, but he refused. Earl and Carolyn divorced, but later remarried.

Fiona filed a complaint in 2004, inter alia, against Earl for breach of a palimony agreement. After an eight-day trial, the judge ordered Earl to pay Fiona $4,000 per month in palimony after finding that there was an enforceable agreement that Earl would support Fiona for life. The appellate court reversed on this issue, finding that the palimony claim was not well founded as there was no explicit or implicit promise from Earl that he would support Fiona for life. In fact, Fiona knew almost all along that Earl's main source of income was his wife. “Palimony is the enforcement of a broken promise made for future support,” said the court. “It is not recompense for years spent in a failed relationship. Fiona may speculate as to what could have been had she not met Earl or left him earlier, but palimony is not an economic substitute for opportunities that may have been lost or expectations that were unfulfilled.”

Also persuasive to the appellate court were the facts that Fiona left Earl and, by the time of her suit, she was earning approximately $60,000 per year and was able to support herself. The case is Bayne v. Johnson, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 4725428 (N.J.Super.A.D., 10/27/08).

Connecticut

State Starts Issuing Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples

New Haven Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert ruled after a short hearing Nov. 12 that gay and lesbian couples could begin picking up marriage license forms at town and city clerks' offices statewide. Many same-sex couples did just that shortly after the order was signed. Connecticut's highest court had ruled a month earlier that the Connecticut constitution prohibited the state from preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying, and the Nov. 12 order formally put that ruling into operation.

Constitutionality of Parenting Programs Upheld

The Supremce Court of Connecticut determined in October that the statutory requirement that a divorcing man attend a parenting education program did not implicate his fundamental right to decision-making authority over his child. That being the case, the court said that constitutional review of the statute, for a violation of a parent's substantive due process rights should be conducted under the rational basis standard rather than the strict scrutiny standard.

The question came up in a marriage dissolution action in which the Superior Court ordered the husband to attend a parenting education program designed by Connecticut's Judicial Department in accordance with ' 46b-69b of the Connecticut Code. That statute mandates parental education for parents whose family situations are before the courts. The law describes the course as one “designed by the Judicial Department to educate persons, including unmarried parents, on the impact on children of the restructuring of families. The course shall include, but not be limited to, information on the developmental stages of children, adjustment of children to parental separation, dispute resolution and conflict management, guidelines for visitation, stress reduction in children and cooperative parenting.” The husband appealed the order to attend the course, and the appeal was transferred from the Appellate Court to Connecticut's Supreme Court.

After the State Supreme Court determined that the proper test of the law was the rational relationship test, it found that the statute was rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of promoting the welfare of children. ( See, e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta , 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (“[protecting children from harm is ' a legitimate goal.”) Therefore, the statute was not unconstitutional and the Superior Court's order was affirmed. The case is Dutkiewicz v. Dutkiewicz , 289 Conn. 362, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 4630337 (Conn., 10/28/08).

New Jersey

Appellate Court Reverses Palimony Grant

The longtime female companion of a married man who sued her ex for palimony lost her bid to retain the palimony awarded by a New Jersey Superior Court when the appellate court found that her married boyfriend had not promised her lifetime support. The case, Bayne v. Johnson, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 4725428 (N.J.Super.A.D., 10/27/08), was unusual because of the extended interconnections between the married couple and the female companion.

Earl Johnson married Carolyn Johnson (who was 20 years his senior) at her request, in order that she could shield her considerable financial assets from her children. They agreed at the time of the marriage that each would conduct his or her own personal lives as they saw fit. In 1981, Earl met Fiona Bayne and they began dating. He gave her expensive gifts, including a ring that Fiona testified was characterized as an engagement ring. In 1982, Fiona quit her job as a flight attendant and moved to a home in the Bahamas that she and Earl shared, although he continued to live also in a residence elsewhere on the island with his wife, of whose existence Fiona was unaware. It was years before Fiona discovered that her fianc' was married. After she did find out, there were more years of promises to marry, as soon as Earl could become financially independent of his wife. There were many ups and downs in the relationship, with numerous financial setbacks. At certain points in time, Carolyn was happy to live with the couple as a relative would, while at other times she objected to her husband's relationship with Fiona. Carolyn and Fiona even lived alone together for some time while Earl was away. Eventually, Fiona and Earl's relationship deteriorated when she realized that he would never make a go of any of his business ventures. Fiona left Earl, asking him for financial help to reestablish herself on her own, but he refused. Earl and Carolyn divorced, but later remarried.

Fiona filed a complaint in 2004, inter alia, against Earl for breach of a palimony agreement. After an eight-day trial, the judge ordered Earl to pay Fiona $4,000 per month in palimony after finding that there was an enforceable agreement that Earl would support Fiona for life. The appellate court reversed on this issue, finding that the palimony claim was not well founded as there was no explicit or implicit promise from Earl that he would support Fiona for life. In fact, Fiona knew almost all along that Earl's main source of income was his wife. “Palimony is the enforcement of a broken promise made for future support,” said the court. “It is not recompense for years spent in a failed relationship. Fiona may speculate as to what could have been had she not met Earl or left him earlier, but palimony is not an economic substitute for opportunities that may have been lost or expectations that were unfulfilled.”

Also persuasive to the appellate court were the facts that Fiona left Earl and, by the time of her suit, she was earning approximately $60,000 per year and was able to support herself. The case is Bayne v. Johnson, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 4725428 (N.J.Super.A.D., 10/27/08).