SABAH ABACHNOU v. SULEIMAN OSHOUSH.

2005 Ct. Sup. 11757
No. FA 04 4000429-SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
August 2, 2005

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
WHITE, JUDGE.

The court presided at a trial in the above-entitled action on July 1, 2005. Based on the credible evidence offered at trial the admissions by the parties and the content of the court’s file the court finds the following facts. The parties were married on June 10, 1999 in Vernon, Connecticut. The plaintiff resided in this state more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint in this action and the parties’ marriage has broken down irretrievably without any reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The parties did not receive any public assistance benefits from the state or any town within the state during the course of the marriage. The parties have one child who is issue of the marriage: Sarah Oshoush, born May 6, 2001.

A few months after immigrating to the United States from Morocco and meeting the defendant, the plaintiff married the defendant. The defendant, who is an immigrant from Jordan, has been in this country for over eighteen years. He speaks English and has continuously worked full-time at Pro Mark Corporation[1] since before the date of the marriage. The parties agreed that during the course of the marriage, the plaintiff was responsible for maintaining the parties’ home and raising their child.[2] The plaintiff had few friends, did not speak English and did not know how to drive a car. Her husband discouraged her from developing friendships, taking English classes, learning how to drive and prohibited her from maintaining contact with her family. Further, since the parties separated in August 2004 after the defendant struck the plaintiff, the defendant has had little contact with the parties’ child, failed to consult with the plaintiff regarding the child’s well being and has provided his family with minimal financial support. The plaintiff currently lives in Delaware with the parties’ daughter, works in her brother’s restaurant as a cook and receives limited financial assistance from her family. CT Page 11758

Orders
In fashioning the following orders, the court has carefully considered the totality of the credible evidence as well as the relevant statutory criteria outlined in General Statutes Sections 46b-81, 46b-82, 46b-84, 46b-52, other relevant statutes and the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.

1. Marriage: The marriage is ordered dissolved.

2. Custody: The parties shall have joint legal custody of the minor child. The plaintiff shall be entitled to make day to day decisions about the child’s health and welfare in her sole discretion without the need to consult with the defendant. The parties agreed that the child’s primary residence should be with the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff shall have physical custody of the child and the defendant is entitled to visit[3] with the child on alternate weekends[4] and at such other times as agreed to by the parties. The defendant is also entitled to have reasonable telephone contact with the child. Further, the defendant shall be entitled once every three months to a weekend visit with the child from Saturday at 8:00 a.m. to Sunday at 3:00 p.m.
Neither party may remove the child from the United States without the written consent of the other party or in the alternative, without the permission of the court. Such consent or permission must be sought no less than thirty days in advance of such removal. Neither party may unreasonably withhold such consent and the court retains jurisdiction to decide whether such consent is being unseasonably withheld and to decide whether to grant such permission.
3. Child Support: The defendant shall pay the plaintiff $144.00 per week in support for the minor child and in addition shall pay her 65% of any daycare and unreimbursed medical expenses incurred on the child’s behalf. The defendant shall maintain health insurance coverage for the benefit of the minor child as long as it is available through his CT Page 11759 employer.
4. Alimony: The defendant shall pay the plaintiff alimony in the amount of 75.00 per week for three years. Such amount is non-modifiable as to term, but not as to amount. Each of the parties shall be responsible for maintaining health insurance for himself or herself. The defendant shall cooperate in arranging COBRA health insurance coverage through his employer for the benefit of the plaintiff in the event that she wishes to acquire such coverage at her own expense.
5. Property Division: The defendant shall pay the plaintiff sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00) in cash from the Savings Bank of Manchester savings account #2103437. The plaintiff shall retain her interest in any inheritance received from her deceased father as well as any funds in bank accounts outside the United States free and clear of any claims by the defendant. The defendant shall maintain his interest in the parties’ 200 Suzuki automobile free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff. The defendant shall also retain his interest in his Illinois Tool Works, Inc. 401K free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff.[5] The plaintiff shall be entitled to claim the minor child as an exemption for federal income tax purposes in odd number years and the plaintiff shall be so entitled in even numbered years.
6. Educational Support Order: Pursuant to General Statutes Section 46b-56c, the court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of entering educational support orders at a later date.
7. Marital Debt: The defendant shall pay the debts listed on his July 1, 2005 financial affidavit and shall indemnify and hold the plaintiff harmless against any third-party claims in connection with such debts.[6]
8. Attorneys fees: The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s attorney $3,087.00 in counsel fees.

CT Page 11760

The Court

White, J.

[1] In addition, the defendant has a part-time position as a deliveryman.
[2] The defendant testified that the plaintiff is a good mother who properly cares for the parties’ child.
[3] Neither party asked for the implementation of a detailed parenting plan outlining a visitation schedule. In the event that either or both parties find unsatisfactory the visitation order indicated in this decision, it is subject to post-judgment modification by the court.
[4] Such weekend visitation shall occur at or near the plaintiff’s home, but in no event shall occur outside the mother’s state of residence unless she agrees thereto.
[5] At trial the plaintiff waived any claim to the funds in the defendant’s 401K account.
[6] At trial, the defendant represented that he has already paid such debts and did not ask that the plaintiff be held responsible for such debts.

CT Page 11761