Case Title: Duhaime v. Treasurer

Citation: 161 Vt. 157, 636 A.2d 754

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
DUHAIME_V_TREASURER.92-316; 161 Vt. 157; 636 A.2d 754

[Filed 19-Nov-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 92-316


 Robert M. Duhaime                            Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Washington Superior Court

 Treasurer, State of Vermont                  June Term, 1993



 Stephen B. Martin, J.

 Oreste V. Valsangiacomo, Jr., of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten, P.C.,
    Barre, for plaintiff-appellant

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Robert W. Gagnon, Senior Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff, Robert Duhaime, appeals from a declaratory
 judgment holding that he is not entitled to receive additional retirement
 benefits from the Vermont Employees Retirement System, 3 V.S.A. {{ 455-
 495, for financially supporting his stepchild.  He argues that 3 V.S.A. {
 461(c)(2) requires the Treasurer to pay him an extra ten percent of his
 "average final compensation" on account of his dependent stepson.  He also
 argues that if he is not entitled to additional compensation under the
 statute, the statute violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause
 of the United States Constitution and Chapter I, Articles 7 and 9 of the

 

 Vermont Constitution.  We agree that the statute entitles him to the
 benefits he seeks and we reverse.
      Plaintiff was employed by the Vermont State Police from 1976 to 1983,
 at which time he began receiving accidental disability retirement
 compensation pursuant to 3 V.S.A. { 461.  Prior to his disability,
 plaintiff had married Yolande Duhaime.  Her biological son, Nathan, lived
 with his father until 1986, when he moved in with his mother and the
 plaintiff.  In 1989, Ms. Duhaime was granted sole custody of Nathan.  The
 custody order states that Ms. Duhaime is "presently financially able to
 support Nathan," and it provides no child support from Nathan's biological
 father, although the father acknowledges that he may have to pay child
 support in the future.  In fact, plaintiff has financially supported Nathan
 since 1986.  He claims Nathan as a dependent for purposes of calculating his
 income tax liability and his Veterans' Administration disability allotment.
      The issue in this appeal centers on whether plaintiff may claim his
 stepchild, Nathan, as "a dependent child of his" for purposes of calculating
 his retirement allowance pursuant to 3 V.S.A. { 461(c)(2).(FN1) If Nathan is a
 child who comes within the statutory description, plaintiff is entitled to
 the extra retirement benefits he seeks.  The superior court denied plaintiff

 

 additional benefits for the dependent child because plaintiff had no legal
 obligation to support Nathan.  Defendant argues, in addition, that
 irrespective of plaintiff's obligation to support Nathan, the statute allows
 additional benefits only for adopted or natural children.  We consider each
 ground for denial of additional compensation in turn.
      The superior court decision was based on the erroneous principle that a
 stepparent has no duty to support his or her stepchild.  That was the rule
 at common law, Borkman v. Commissioner of Social Welfare, 128 Vt. 561, 565,