ABRAHAM v. BOULEY, No. FA 04 0083478 S (Sep. 7, 2005)


SARAH ABRAHAM v. JON BOULEY.

2005 Ct. Sup. 12324
No. FA 04 0083478 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
September 7, 2005

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
LAWRENCE C. KLACZAK, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.

The parties in this case have two minor children together, namely Drew Bouley, born May 13, 1997, and Sally Bouley, born June 2, 2003.

Although the parties were not married to each other they lived together from November 1995 until January or February 2004 when they separated.

The issues between them are over parenting access and certain conditions related to parenting time, as well as financial (support) issues.

The relationship between the parties has, since the separation, become extremely contentious. An evidentiary pendente lite hearing was held in 2004 and the Court, on May 19, 2004, entered pendente lite orders as to some of the same issues presently in dispute.

Also, at that time, the Court appointed Attorney Thomas Fiorentino to be the guardian ad litem for the minor children. Attorney Fiorentino has acted in such capacity many times in this court and is a thoughtful and sensitive reporter in that role.

While the Court makes up its own mind in reaching its decision, the report of an experienced and well-qualified objective observer is entitled to serious consideration.

The final hearing in this matter was held over a three-day period in June 2005. Testimony was provided by the plaintiff Sarah Abraham; Peter Myers; Supervising Family Relations Officer; and Keith Roeder, a licensed psychologist with extensive training and experience in family therapy (See Exhibit B). He has done a number of assessments and evaluations for the Superior Court’s regional family docket in Middletown. His opinions are also deserving of careful, consideration. Jon Bouley the defendant, elected not to testify on the issues of parenting access, choosing to CT Page 12325 adopt the recommendations of the guardian ad litem. He was, however, called by the plaintiff and was cross-examined as to his financial affidavit which was submitted to the Court.

Although the plaintiff, throughout this case was seeking sole custody of the children, her attorney, during final arguments, specifically withdrew that claim.

The Court has carefully reviewed the testimony, exhibits and proposals of the parties.

The Court believes that the orders proposed by the guardian ad litem are in the best interests of the children and provide the most reasonable access for both parties. It’s reasoning is as follows:

Doctor Roeder testified that co-parenting is usually best for young children, especially if they have strong attachments to both parents, and that children are more apt to thrive when that is the case. He testified that this is the prevailing view among professionals in the field. Doctor Roeder had been working with the parties since August 2004 toward that goal until the plaintiff, who had been cooperating toward the goal of co-parenting, changed her mind, and decided to seek sole custody.
Neither Doctor Roeder nor Attorney Fiorentino could be assured that a co-parenting arrangement would work, but the parties were making progress toward that goal and, recognizing that these children are attached to both parents, that it would be in their best interests to have co-parenting and want to give it a chance. It is significant that the plaintiff will have final say if there are disputes over the children.

The Court is not as pessimistic as the plaintiff that co-parenting will not work.

The parties must understand that the children will be much better served by a cooperative co-parenting plan, and with continued counseling, can move in the right direction. In short, this is too important for the children’s sake, not to try, especially given the fact that there had been positive movement, and that the plaintiff is protected by the “final say” provision. CT Page 12326

The plaintiff’s objection to Drew participating in cub scouts both in Glastonbury (her town of residence), and in Coventry (the defendant’s town of residence) while unusual, and while the defendant earns no points for enrolling him in Coventry, Drew enjoys going to both places and Dr. Roeder recommends he continue. The Court sees it as more harmful to make Drew withdraw from the Coventry troop.

For these reasons the Court adopts the considered recommendations of the guardian ad litem and incorporates them into the judgment.

1. CUSTODY: The parties continue to share Joint Custody of the minor children. Their primary residence shall be with the plaintiff mother.

2. ACCESS:

a. The children shall be parented by their father each Monday morning from 8:00 am. to Wednesday morning when he will return them either to school, day care, or mother’s residence by 8:00 a.m.
b. The children shall be parented by their mother each Wednesday morning from 8:00 a.m. to Friday at 3:30 p.m. when on alternate weekends father shall either pick up the children from school, day care, or mother’s residence.
c. The parents shall parent the children on alternate weekends from Friday at 3:30 p.m. to Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. Following mother’s weekend, during the summer vacation weeks, father shall pick up the children at 8:00 a.m. Monday morning from mother’s residence or day care; during the school year the mother shall transport Drew to school, and father shall pick him up at the end of the school day. Father shall pick up Sally at mother’s residence or day care until such time as she attends pre-school or school. At that time mother will transport the children to school and father shall pick them up at the end of the school day.
d. Both parents shall allow for modifications to this schedule as the children get older and their academic and extra-curricular obligations become more CT Page 12327 demanding.
3. HOLIDAYS: The children shall spend the following holidays as follows:
a. Memorial Day Weekend: With father in ODD YEARS, with mother in EVEN YEARS.
b. Labor Day Weekend: With father in EVEN YEARS, with mother in ODD YEARS.
c. All other holidays shall be as set forth in the August 9, 2004 court order.
4. SUMMER CAMP: The children shall be enrolled in summer camp for a period of one week per summer vacation. The parents’ summer vacation plans shall take precedent over the summer camp schedule. Consequently, summer camp shall not be scheduled during either parents scheduled summer vacation.
5. CUB SCOUTS: As previously established, Drew shall continue to participate in Cub Scouts in both Coventry and Glastonbury.
6. EXTRA CURRICULAR EVENTS: Drew shall remain in school in Glastonbury, and shall continue to participate in the youth sports programs offered by the Town of Glastonbury, as well as school sports and other extra-curricular activities. Drew shall participate in one sport per season, i.e. Fall sport — soccer; Winter sport — basketball; Spring sport — baseball.
7. DAY CARE: It is anticipated that the children shall remain enrolled in the same day care facility as they have been for the last year. If they must attend another facility, then mother shall choose three facilities, and the parties shall undertake their own inspections of the facilities, discuss with each other the advantages and disadvantages of each facility, and then subsequently make a decision. If the parties are unable to reach a decision then the guardian ad litem shall make the decision and it shall be binding on both parties.

CT Page 12328

8. FINAL SAY: With regard to all MAJOR DECISIONS as defined in the August 9, 2004 court order, the parties shall consult with each other, share all information pertinent to the issue, and include each other in all meetings and appointments scheduled regarding the issue, however in the case of a conflict, then after full consultation, mother shall have FINAL SAY, and father shall be bound by the decision made. For six months following date of this judgment, neither party shall file motions regarding this provision absent an emergency or life threatening issue.
During the six-month period both parents may consult with the guardian ad litem together with Dr. Keith Roeder, ONLY for the purpose of discussing the decision making process and to air complaints and/or compliments. The guardian ad litem and Dr. Roeder shall not be authorized to modfy the decision in any way.
After the expiration of the six-month period, the parties may file motions to modify the FINAL SAY provisions of the judgment. Both the guardian ad litem and Dr. Roeder shall be able to testify regarding their respective positions at any further court hearings.

9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:

a. Drew shall continue to treat with Dr. Michael Pines until such time as Dr. Pines discharges him from his care.
b. All other orders of the court not affected by this Order shall remain in full force and effect.
c. Neither party shall smoke in the presence of the children.

The Court declines to draw an adverse influence against the defendant for not testifying (except as to his finances) on the issues of parenting access. (His testimony was limited to finances.)

He relied on the testimony and reports of Doctor Roeder, and the CT Page 12329 guardian ad litem. He asked the Court to adopt the proposals of the guardian ad litem without change, and the Court was familiar with the background of the case from the pendente lite hearing.

The current child support order of $120.00 per week shall remain in effect. The defendant’s income is essentially the same as it was when the order was entered While the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of trial, that was expected to be only temporary and in the meantime, it appears she must have another source or sources of income, at least for the time being. In any event, she has an earning capacity likely greater than the defendant’s shown earnings.

Klaczak, J.T.R. CT Page 12330