2006 Ct. Sup. 21662
No. FA01-0165543.Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury.
Filed: November 22, 2006.
THE COURT: This is the matter of Hutchinson versus Hutchinson FA 01-0165543.
HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. BOZZUTO.
The parties appeared before the Court on October 10th, 2006. The motion before the Court was the defendant’s postjudgment motion for modification dated October 24th, the year 2005 coded number 122.
By way of background, the parties were divorced on June 26th, 2002. They have four children, Michael whose date of birth is July 29th, 1998. Michael was a minor at the time the motion was filed but has since reached the age of majority and is no longer subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
Halema born October 13th, 1990, Sabrina born September 23rd, 1993, and Anthony born January 7th, the year 2001.
The parenting arrangement approved at the time of dissolution provided for the following, and it’s dated again June 26th, the year 2002, signed by all the parties and approved by the Court, and it reads as follows: the parties shall have joint legal custody of the minor children, physical custody is vested in the plaintiff. The defendant shall have reasonable rights of visitation and shall notify plaintiff 24 hours in advance of non-exercise of visitation. Defendant to arrange visitation through the plaintiff’s mother.
There’s been no modification of that order since its original entry. The defendant exercised his visitation consistent with that order until approximately the year of 2003. He was visiting with the children every other weekend, Friday to Sunday. At first it appears that it may have been supervised but thereafter, approximately four weeks was unsupervised despite the facts there was a mention in the court order that it needed to be supervised.
In May of 2003, the youngest child was not provided to the defendant for the purpose of visitation. The plaintiff indicated that the child CT Page 21663 has seizures and that the defendant was not capable of assuming responsibility for the seizures. The Court would note the child had two seizures — two seizures, one in the year 2001 and, the other in 2002. The plaintiff’s reason for not allowing the defendant to visit with Anthony starting in May of 2003, can’t be reasonably connected to the child’s medical condition.
In June of 2003, the plaintiff stopped bringing all the children for visitation completely. The defendant’s response to the plaintiff’s refusal was sluggish at best. He complained that he didn’t have money to file the motion and also he was having difficulty finding the time. Both excuses, the court finds to be poor.
Both parties agree that they have not been able to speak to each other since the time of the divorce and their communication is dismal at best. Mike Elder of the Waterbury Family Relations office performed an Issue Focused Evaluation. In that evaluation, which the Court had before it and has reviewed, Mr. Elder made the following recommendations as to the three minor children.
I’m quoting from the report. “With regards to the three other children, it’s recommended the mother have sole custody. The father is to have visitation of the three minor children every other Saturday from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. at the home of the maternal grandmother, if he is unable to be present for the visitation, he is to provide Beverly Sandelin with 48 hours notice.” And Beverly Sandelin, if the Court recalls correctly, is the plaintiff, Paula Hutchinson’s mother.
During all periods of this litigation, Ms. Sandelin appeared to be cooperative and available to the defendant, her former son-in-law, to assist with visitation. It was the court’s impression from the testimony provided that she’s no longer making herself available for that purpose.
On March 8th, 2006, the parties entered a temporary order which was essentially consistent with Mr. Elder’s recommendation. It was approved by Judge Resha, signed by the parties as well as the GAL and provides for the following: that the father will have visitation on alternate Saturdays from 12:00 to 4:00 at the maternal grandmother’s home.
Since that time, the testimony would support that the defendant missed three out of eight opportunities to visit with the children, which certainly is not an impressive record. At this time the defendant seeks regular visitation with the three minor children.
The plaintiff seeks the defendant to see the two girls, who now are CT Page 21664 the two older children, only if they want to visit with their father and offers limited, supervised visitation with Anthony, the youngest child.
The GAL does not recommend any visitation with any of the children, essentially a de facto termination of the defendant’s parental rights, which this Court cannot accept or approve.
Although the defendant has fallen far short of his obligation to his children, he appeared sincere in his desire to be a meaningful part of their life. And absent some sort of dangerous defect or legitimate claim affecting the safety of the children, which was completely absent from the record, the court and the plaintiff are without right to stand in his way.
But with that said, the plaintiff has been the primary parent in all respects and there is no reason why that shouldn’t continue.
The defendant’s motion for modification before the Court is granted. And the Court finds that to be in the children’s best interest. And the Court enters the following orders relative to the three remaining minor children:
The plaintiff shall have sole physical and primary custody of the three minor children. And the defendant is to have visitation with the three minor children every other Saturday from 10:00 to 7:00 p.m.
In the event that the defendant is unable to exercise the visitation, he shall provide notice to the plaintiff 48 hours in advance.
In the event any of the children have scheduled activities during the defendant’s visitation time, he shall be responsible to transport the children to and from those activities and assure their attendance. Additional visitation shall be permitted by agreement of the parties.
As for the fees for the Attorney for the Minor children and the Guardian ad Litem fees. The court has reviewed their affidavits, finds their hours to be reasonable as well as their hourly rate being reasonable in all respects, although the court will note for the record, that the parties subject to this litigation are subsisting at very modest income levels and would never be able to afford the AMC’s and GAL’S standard billing rates.
The court awards and approves the GAL $2,600 in fees to be paid by the parties equally, that being 50/50. The court awards and approves the AMC’s fee of $1,000 to be paid by the parties 50/50, on an equal basis. CT Page 21665
All of the orders of the court are effective immediately and the court wishes the parties, as well as the their children much luck and success in the future. CT Page 21666