Opinion
July 5, 1979.
PRESENT: Bevilacqua, C.J., Joslin, Kelleher, Doris and Weisberger, JJ.
DIVORCE. Reimbursement for Public Assistance Benefits Paid to Wife. Public interest would best be served by requiring the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services to file a brief wherein husband challenged portion of divorce decree directing family court to pay over his money on deposit to State of Rhode Island as reimbursement for portion of public assistance benefits paid to wife.
The Family Court, Goldberg, J., entered a decree granting wife's petition for divorce, and husband appealed. The Supreme Court held that public interest would best be served by requiring the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services to file a brief wherein husband challenged portion of divorce decree directing Family Court to pay over his money on deposit to State of Rhode Island as reimbursement for portion of public assistance benefits paid to wife.
Order accordingly.
Raymond E. Shawcross, Chief Legal Counsel, Social and Rehabilitative Services, for petitioner.
Isidore Kirshenbaum, for respondent.
This is a divorce proceeding in which the husband challenges a portion of a decree which granted his wife's petition for divorce. The challenged portion directs the Family Court clerk to pay over to the State of Rhode Island about $3,400 of the husband's money which is presently on deposit in the court's registry. This sum is to be used to reimburse the state for a portion of the Public Assistance Benefits paid to the wife for her support and the support of the couple's minor child.
The wife has filed no brief because she believes the issue is one which concerns solely the state and the husband.
The Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services has notified the clerk of this court that the department was totally unaware of the challenge being made to the impoundment and transfer of the husband's cash.
The issue presented appears to be significant, and we believe that the public interest would best be served by the department's filing a brief.
Accordingly, the case is reassigned for oral argument to the October 1979 calendar, and the department through its counsel is directed to file its brief within the next 60 days.