At the time of granting dissolution of a marriage to which one party is mentally ill or at any time thereafter, on application of either party or of the guardian or conservator of the mentally ill spouse, or of any person, town or other municipality charged with the support of the mentally ill spouse, or the Commissioner of Administrative Services if the state is charged, the court may make such order requiring support of the mentally ill spouse, or security for support, as may be proper. The court may set aside or alter any such order, at any time thereafter, on application of either party or of the guardian of the mentally ill spouse, or of any person, town or other municipality charged with support, or the Commissioner of Administrative Services if the state is charged. Any order providing for the support of the mentally ill party shall be enforceable in the same manner as orders relating to alimony.
(1949 Rev., S. 7332; 1953, 1955, S. 3004d; 1957, P.A. 502, S. 3; P.A. 73-373, S. 30; P.A. 77-614, S. 70, 610; P.A. 78-230, S. 38, 54.)
History: P.A. 73-373 referred to “dissolution of a marriage one party to which is mentally ill” rather than to divorce “granted on the ground of mental illness”, substituted commissioner of finance and control for welfare commissioner and “mentally ill spouse” for “defendant” and deleted provision which prohibited orders for support to continue support of sane wife from estate of mentally ill husband after the wife remarries; P.A. 77-614 replaced commissioner of finance and control with commissioner of administrative services; P.A. 78-230 restated provisions but made no substantive changes; Sec. 46-53 transferred to Sec. 46b-85 in 1979.
See Sec. 17b-743 re direction that payments under support order be made to Commissioner of Administrative Services or local welfare department.
Cited. 184 C. 307.
Cited. 20 CA 500; 26 CA 386; Id., 737.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1981–2014 · leading case:
Roach v. Roach, 568 A.2d 1037 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
Roach v. Roach, 568 A.2d 1037 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 18× “The primary issues on appeal are whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the defendant time limited alimony, and whether the defendant, in addition to the award *502 of periodic alimony, should have been awarded support under General Statutes § 46b-85 because…”
Henin v. Henin, 601 A.2d 550 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 6× “The defendant also claims that there can be no time limited alimony award in this case because General Statutes § 46b-85 requires an order of indefinite length for the support of the defendant, who is a mentally ill spouse.”
Luttrell v. Luttrell, 439 A.2d 981 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 6× “2 This section has been repealed and replaced by General Statutes § 46b-85. 3 For the pur *310 poses of this opinion, the relevant language of both statutes has the same meaning.”
Keenan v. Casillo, 89 A.3d 912 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 46b-86 (a); but see General Statutes § 46b-85.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.