Court Opinion

ID: 9624179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:53:23.606485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:40.557148
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
I agree that the court having determined the reasonable and proper amount of support to be $110 per month, that is the amount for which the State Department of Social Services should be reimbursed in this ease. However, I cannot agree with the proposition that “the state’s right to reimbursement is derivative of the person entitled to support.” Section 78-45-7(3) enacted in 1977 referred to in the main opinion does not so indicate. That statute, and the main opinion which recognizes the change in the law, both impress me as a commendable improvement over the law as declared in the Meeham case, which the opinion cites. But it is obvious that the intent and purpose of that statute was to supplement the right of the State to recover for support furnished to dependents, and not to any way limit or diminish it. *600It is my opinion that the following proposition is ineontrovertibly supported by law, logic and justice: that whenever dependents are left in necessitous circumstances, anyone who comes to their rescue (including the State Department of Social Services) has the right to reimbursement from the one who had the legal duty of support; and therefore the Department, or anyone else who so comes to rescue, should be able to furnish things which are reasonable and necessary for the sustenance of such a dependent and to obtain reimbursement therefor; and that this is true whether furnished before or after a decree of divorce and irrespective of whether there is one or not and without necessarily being bound by any adjudication to which the furnisher was not a party. See discussion and authorities cited in the dissent in the Mecham case.