2004 Ct. Sup. 18370
No. FA 03 0196546 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford
December 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENJOIN VISITATION
BLACK, JUDGE.
The Court has heard extensive testimony and evidence on the plaintiff’s motion on November 9th, November 15th, November 16th, December 2nd and December 7, 2004. The plaintiff’s Motion to Enjoin the defendant’s visitation with the minor children, Chloe and Jacob, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties dated May 6, 2004 is granted until further order of the Court.
The decision of the Court is not predicated on particular claims of lack of parental judgment on the part of Mr. Zilkha. The Court was not persuaded to enjoin visitation by the recitation of perceived dangers, inadequate food, lack of parenting skills or poor judgment, all peripheral issues. Rather the Court’s focus is first and foremost on the best interests of the minor children. That focus compels the conclusion that the children are suffering from separation anxiety and are extremely fearful. (Testimony Whelan, Sarno, Wargo, Kotchman). The court is extremely disturbed by the alleged violent behavior exhibited by the defendant towards the plaintiff in the presence of the children on June 30, 2004. That violence coupled with the verbal abuse and foul language directed at the plaintiff in the presence of the children indicates to the court that the defendant can no longer control his anger. While the defendant persists in denying that such events occurred his version defies logic and the weight of the evidence.
The defendant’s inability to channel his anger resulting in an increased propensity for violence was amply demonstrated in the October 30th incident at the scheduled supervised visitation at the bookstore. But for the physical intervention of Mr. Sarno, Mr. Zilkha would have physically harmed Mrs. Zilkha in the presence of her children. (Testimony Sarno, Mrs. Zilkha). Indeed, the defendant’s demeanor at court, his characterization of the plaintiff’s attorney, his remarks concerning the divorce proceedings, all evince a disdain for the proceedings. The Court concludes that Mr. Zilkha cannot control his anger and as such presents a CT Page 18371 threat to the very children he so obviously loves. Therefore, in order to protect these children, the court orders the following:
1. Judge Novack’s order enjoining the defendant, David Zilkha from exercising visitation and/or parenting time with the minor children, Chloe and Jacob is continued until further order of the Court;
2. Attorney Whelan is directed to arrange therapy for the minor children with Carol Swenson, Ph.D. as soon as possible.
This Court will review this matter in two months to determine the status of the therapy. The defendant may move for visitation at such time as he provides the Court with proof of further therapy to address his anger issues.
So Ordered.
The Court
Marylouise S. Black CT Page 18372