Jessi Johns v. Demario Moore (2011)

ORDER

Based on the testimony of the parties, the evidence in the file, the credibility of the parties, giving appropriate weight to both the evidence and testimony, the Court finds that the respondent received the results of the DNA test in 2003.   In 2005 he was told to file a motion to open the judgment.   He was again reminded in 2008 and he still did not file any motions.

The GAL for the minor child takes no position on the motion to open.   The State asserts the defense of laches.

“Laches consists of two elements.   First, there must have been a delay that was inexcusable, and, second, that delay must have prejudiced the defendant ․ The mere lapse of time does not constitute laches ․ unless it results in prejudice to the defendant ․ as where, for example, the defendant is led to change his position with respect to the matter in question.”  Papcun v. Papcun, 181 Conn. 618, 620–21, 436 A.2d 282 (1980);  Bozzi v. Bozzi, 177 Conn. 232, 239, 413 A.2d 834 (1979);  Lownds v. Lownds, 41 Conn.Sup. 100, 107, 551 A.2d 775 (1988);  Finneran v. Finneran, 9 S.MD. 84, 88 (1995);  Thomas v. Ah Tau Ah Nee, 8 S.M.D. 154, 159, 11 Conn.Fam.L.J. 45 (1992).

The Court finds that nine years is an inexcusable delay and prejudices the State.   Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to open and leaves the State an opportunity to recoup the TFA that was paid.

By the Court,

Family Support Magistrate

William E. Strada

Strada, William E., F.S.M.