## Facts

- A husband and joint custodian alleged that two children born during his marriage were biologically fathered by another man.
- The husband was present at both births, was listed as father on both birth certificates, and supported and cared for the children for nearly a decade believing he was their father.
- The alleged biological father and the children’s mother purportedly knew the husband was not the biological father and agreed to conceal the children’s true paternity from the husband and the children for years.
- The complaint alleged that, without the husband’s knowledge, the mother periodically brought the children to visit the biological father while concealing his identity.
- When the biological father sought custody/visitation in family court, the husband learned of the proceeding, confronted his wife, and was told the children’s true paternity.
- The husband sued the biological father for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment, alleging severe emotional and financial harm from the concealment.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged fraud against a third-party biological father based on alleged participation in intentional concealment of the children’s paternity.
2. Whether the alleged prolonged concealment and related conduct could plausibly satisfy the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress at the pleadings stage.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim for unjust enrichment based on allegations that the biological father benefited from the husband’s financial support of the children while avoiding parental obligations.
4. Whether, applying the motion-to-strike standard, the court could conclude as a matter of law that no set of provable facts consistent with the pleadings would support any of the asserted causes of action.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendant’s motion to strike.
- Accepting the pleaded facts as true and construing them in the plaintiff’s favor, the court concluded the complaint stated legally sufficient claims.
- The court treated the allegations as asserting affirmative participation in concealment (not mere silence), supporting the fraud theory at the pleading stage.
- The court allowed the emotional distress counts to proceed because the alleged conduct could be found sufficiently severe and foreseeably harmful under the applicable standards.
- The court permitted the unjust enrichment claim to proceed based on allegations that the defendant knowingly retained a financial benefit from the plaintiff’s support of the children.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to strike, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to sustaining legal sufficiency.
- A fraud claim may be pleaded based on concealment of a material fact where the allegations support knowing concealment, intent to induce reliance, actual reliance, and resulting damages.
- Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress may proceed past the pleadings stage when alleged conduct, if proven, could be found extreme and outrageous and causally connected to severe distress.
- Claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress may proceed when the pleadings plausibly allege foreseeable and serious emotional harm proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct.
- Unjust enrichment is sufficiently pleaded where the allegations support that the defendant knowingly received or retained a benefit that equity could require him to disgorge.

## Conclusion

The court denied the biological father’s motion to strike, holding that the complaint’s allegations of long-term, intentional concealment of paternity and resulting harm were sufficient at the pleadings stage to permit claims for fraud, emotional distress, and unjust enrichment to go forward.


DiMichele v. Perrella, No. CV-10-6003272-S, 2011 WL 1026184 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2011)