ABRAHAM v. BOULEY, No. FA 04 0083478 S (May 19, 2004)


SARAH ABRAHAM v. JON BOULEY.

2004 Ct. Sup. 7937
No. FA 04 0083478 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
May 19, 2004

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
KLACZAK, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

In this matter the parties, who are not intermarried, have two minor children together, Drew Bouley born May 13, 1997 and Sally Bouley, born June 2, 2003.

In November 1995, the parties began living together in a single-family home which had been owned by the defendant. They separated in January or February 2004 with the plaintiff moving out of the home.

When they separated, and at the defendant’s insistence, the plaintiff agreed to a shared parenting arrangement whereby they would each have the children 50% of the time. The plaintiff, who had to go through the transition of finding housing, after finding a townhouse near her place of employment in Glastonbury, now seeks pendente lite orders whereby she would have primary residence with reasonable parenting access to the defendant.

The matter of custody has been referred to the Family Relations Office for evaluation, and a final hearing has been scheduled for August.

An evidentiary hearing was held with respect to the issues and the evidence adduced at the hearing established the following pertinent findings:

The plaintiff was the primary nurturer for both children. She took a leave of absence from her employment until Drew was nine months old to take care of him. She would like to enroll Drew in the Glastonbury school system instead of the Coventry system where the defendant lives. The present parenting plan (which was not court ordered) has the children with the defendant from Tuesday 4 p.m. to CT Page 7938 Friday 8:30 p.m.

While each party accuses the other of being controlling and being motivated by issues of control, it appears that the defendant is more domineering in this relationship.

He almost dictated the parenting plan now in place. He was not pleased when the plaintiff became pregnant with Sally because of the financial burden that presented and now seeks child support from the plaintiff under the shared parenting arrangement. He is retired but works as a self-employed house painter and claims he can schedule his hours to take care of the children. He claims to have two sisters he can call on to babysit if needed as well as neighbors. (One sister is only available on weekends and the other has never babysat the children. While the neighbors may be agreeable, they would have to be available when needed.)

His daughter by a prior marriage lives in this home but hopes to move away in a “couple of months.”

There is smoking in the defendant’s home and his daughter Becky deems it ok to smoke in the car with the children as long as a window is opened. The plaintiff expressed some concern about Becky as an appropriate care giver (the defendant claims the plaintiff “hates” his daughter, but the Court believes her concerns are not frivolous).

The Court is of the opinion that the more traditional parenting plan proposed by the plaintiff offers a stable routine which will benefit them. They will likely be in a daycare or preschool on a regular basis as opposed to the uncertainty of who might be available to babysit them under the present arrangement. They are still very young at ages seven and less than one. The plaintiff has been the primary nurturer and her parenting ability has not been challenged, and although the defendant appears to be a proper parent as well, the edge goes to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court enters pendente lite orders as follows:

1. The parties shall have joint legal custody, with primary residence of the minor children with the plaintiff.

2. The minor son Drew shall continue in the Coventry school system until the school year ends in June 2004. (Where he will attend school in the fall will be determined at the final CT Page 7939 hearing).

3. The defendant shall have alternating weekends with the children from Friday (after school in Drew’s case) and from 4 p.m. in Sally’s case on the same weekend, until Sunday at 6 p.m.

4. The defendant shall have access to the children every Wednesday from after school until 7 p.m. and, in Sally’s case from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Wednesdays.

5. The plaintiff shall provide transportation for Drew to and from school. However, on the days when the defendant has parenting time with Drew he shall pick Drew up at school and return Drew to the plaintiff’s home when visitation concludes.

The plaintiff shall provide transportation to the defendant’s home for Sally but the defendant shall provide the transportation at the conclusion of his time with Sally.

6. The defendant shall pay in accordance with child support guidelines $186 per week in child support.

7. The plaintiff shall maintain the minor children on the health coverage available through her employer. Unreimbursed medical expenses and reasonable daycare expenses shall be shared 75% by the plaintiff and 25% by the defendant.

8. The defendant shall not smoke, or permit others to smoke in any motor vehicle in which the children are riding, nor shall he smoke or permit others to smoke in the same room in which the children are.

9. In accordance with the agreement of the parties Attorney Thomas Fiorentino is appointed guardian ad litem for the minor children, pendente lite, and the parties shall share equally, his fees in that capacity.

Klaczak, JTR CT Page 7940