Jhorge N. Richardson v. Cozonne James et al.
FA040185302S
????Decided: January 18, 2012
Jainay, the 13?year?old child in this action, was born to plaintiff father and defendant mother. ? Plaintiff and defendant have never been married to each other. ? For many years their parenting relationship has been filled with conflict and strife, the consequence of which has brought them before the Juvenile Court, the Probate Court and the Superior Court. ? In fact, at about the same time this action for visitation was pending, there was a neglect petition against both parties in the Juvenile Court. ? Included in the charges of neglect were allegations of domestic violence, use of illegal drugs, abandonment, and lack of cooperation with authorities. ? While most of these allegations were made while Jainay was in the care of her mother, plaintiff reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) that he was unable to care for his child due to his being disabled.
At about the same time there was also a Probate Court order that placed Jainay in the temporary custody of her maternal grandmother, Cozonne James (M/G). ?On January 27, 2006 plaintiff’s application for visitation in the Family Court was transferred to and consolidated with the Juvenile Court neglect petition. ? The Family Court resumed jurisdiction of these matters once the neglect petition was resolved.
The file is replete with numerous motions by both parties for contempt and modification. ? Despite the many attempts to help the parties resolve their issues, including the oversight of DCF, the involvement of the Family Relations Unit, and the assistance of an experienced Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), parenting decisions have depended on court hearings and the resulting court orders. ? The parties are simply unable to communicate, much less agree on what is in their child’s best interests. ? What is especially disconcerting is the almost palpable dislike and distrust that plaintiff and defendant have for each other.
A most recent example of the bizarre nature of the parenting problems and issues of the parties was reflected in defendant’s Motion for Modification (#?179, dated December 13, 2010) wherein she requested an order of sole custody, alleging that plaintiff had not picked up the minor child for visitation for a period of 14 months. ? Plaintiff acknowledged that he had not been exercising his visitation rights for that period of time but blamed defendant for not allowing it to take place. ? During that period of time, however, he never filed a motion for contempt or modification, nor did he contact the GAL. It was only after defendant filed her motion for sole custody that plaintiff responded with his Ex-parte Motion for Temporary Custody (#?181, dated January 6, 2011), which was denied and subsequently dismissed by the court (Bozzuto, J.)
On January 24, 2011 (#?185) the court (Bozzuto, J.) granted the proposed orders of the GAL transferring sole legal and physical custody of the minor child to M/G (it is noted that M/G’s first Motion to Intervene was dated August 4, 2009 as pleading # 156). ? On that date the court also directed M/G to serve the parties with another formal motion to intervene in this case. ? In compliance with the direction of the court, and citing reasons that necessitated her involvement in this case, M/G filed her Motion to Intervene in February 2011 (#?184). ? On June 29, 2011 the court (Bozzuto, J.) once again entered orders granting the maternal grandmother’s Motion to Intervene and continuing the order of her sole legal and physical custody of Jainay (#?188). ? Jainay has therefore been in the sole custody and care of M/G for at least the past year.
MOTIONS AND ISSUES
M/G filed the present Motion for Modification (motion #?189, dated July 6, 2011) requesting that the court allow her to relocate her residence to another state with Jainay. ? A comprehensive relocation evaluation was ordered from the Family Relations Unit on August 1, 2011.
FACTS
Plaintiff presents himself well. ? He is apparently smart and well-spoken. ? Plaintiff wants his daughter to be part of his life. ? There have been periods of time, however, when he has not been available to her. ? He was incarcerated from 2000 to 2003. ? His visitation has been sporadic, most notably and recently when he did not exercise his visitation rights with his daughter for about a year. ? He has represented in the past that he was unable to care for his daughter due to being disabled. ? In that regard it is somewhat inconsistent that he now wishes to have sole custody of Jainay, but continues to represent that he is disabled. ? Plaintiff has offered no evidence of what disability he suffers from, whether his current disability differs from that claimed in 2005 (at the time of the neglect petition), or how he is now able to handle custody whereas he could not do so before.
Plaintiff consistently blames everyone else for his failure to maintain a relationship with Jainay. ? He blames defendant for her interference with his access rights, blames the court for not giving him hearings when he wanted them, and blames M/G and defendant for ?brainwashing? Jainay. ? He has objected to M/G’s motion to relocate, but has not offered any viable option. ? His proposal that he have sole custody of Jainay has no evidentiary support.
Defendant has not offered herself as an option for custody. ? She is in agreement with M/G’s Motion for Modification.
The maternal grandmother presents herself now, as she has presented herself for many years, as someone who not only cares about Jainay, but who is also willing and able to provide a home for her. ? She was a custodial resource in the Juvenile proceedings and in the Probate proceedings. ? She recognizes the shortcomings of plaintiff and defendant but also understands the importance of them being a part of Jainay’s life. ? She has demonstrated that not only is she concerned about Jainay’s safety but is also willing to do whatever it takes to protect her.
The maternal grandmother has proven a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties. ? She is retiring to North Carolina, and has requested the court to order that Jainay go with her. ? She and her husband have rented an affordable apartment. ? She has family support there. ? She has checked out the schools and is satisfied they will give Jainay a good education. ? She is not employed and will be at home full time to care for Jainay.
M/G has graciously agreed to transport Jainay back and forth from North Carolina to Connecticut for visitation with plaintiff. ? Without such an offer, it is questionable whether the court would impose the entire burden of transportation on her. ? As usual, she is concerned with Jainay’s welfare, and is willing to provide transportation so that Jainay will see her father. ? Her concern appears to be realistic, as plaintiff has previously indicated his inability to help with the transportation of Jainay from Waterbury to Bristol, a relatively short distance.
Michael Elder, Family Relations Counselor of the Family Services Unit, conducted an investigation pursuant to court order. ? He has had extensive contact with the parties as this case was previously assigned to him on May 16, 2011 for a full custody evaluation. ? At that time his investigation was stalled because of a lack of cooperation from both plaintiff and defendant. ? The current investigation was ordered on August 1, 2011 as a result of the subject relocation motion.
It is the opinion of Elder that it is not in the best interests of Jainay to be in the custody of either plaintiff or defendant. ? He believes that defendant tried to keep Jainay from plaintiff and that plaintiff never was willing to assume responsibility for Jainay. ? His investigation concludes that the house and environment in North Carolina are good and safe for Jainay, and that granting the subject motion would be in Jainay’s best interests. ? Jainay has represented to him that she could not fathom living away from M/G and does not wish to live with either plaintiff or defendant.
It is Elder’s recommendation that M/G be allowed to relocate with Jainay to North Carolina. ? His recommendation was complete with suggestions for visitation and the retention of jurisdiction by this court.
The GAL has likewise conducted an investigation into this issue. ? She also believes that it is in Jainay’s best interests to have the court grant M/G’s motion. ? In her clearly articulated testimony, the GAL cited the many reasons underlying her recommendations. ? Jainay has also told her that she wanted to move to North Carolina with M/G.
There is sufficient credible evidence for the court to find that to place Jainay in the care of either plaintiff or defendant would continue the dysfunction of this family and result in further disruption to Jainay’s life.
FINDINGS
The maternal grandmother has sustained her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a change in the circumstances of the parties does exist. ? She has further proven that her motion for relocation is for a legitimate purpose, that the proposed location in North Carolina is reasonable in light of such purpose and that this relocation is in the best interests of the minor child.
ORDERS
This Court has considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law affecting the issues in this case as well as the testimony and evidence presented by the parties. ? The Court enters the following orders:
1.?The maternal grandmother, Cozonne James, shall continue to have sole legal and physical custody of the minor child, Jainay Richardson (DOB 6/20/98).
2.?The motion of Cozonne James to relocate her residence and Jainay (#?189, dated July 6, 2011) to North Carolina is hereby granted.
3.?The maternal grandmother shall notify the parents of any major issue regarding Jainay’s health, education, welfare, or general well-being.
4.?Plaintiff shall enjoy parenting time with Jainay for the Christmas holiday school break during the even numbered years and the spring school break each year.
5.?Plaintiff shall also enjoy parenting time with Jainay for three weeks during the school summer vacation, provided he gives the maternal grandmother written notice of his selected weeks no later than May 1 of each year.
6.?Plaintiff may enjoy additional parenting time in Connecticut or North Carolina, subject to the agreement of the maternal grandmother.
7.?Defendant mother shall enjoy parenting time with Jainay by agreement and arrangement with the maternal grandmother, who shall have the authority to impose reasonable conditions on defendant. ? Those conditions shall include where parenting time will take place and who may be present during those times. ? Until further order of the court there shall be no contact between Jainay and Dashaun Cook.
8.?Defendant’s parenting time shall not interfere with any orders regarding plaintiff’s parenting time.
9.?The cost of transporting Jainay for visitation shall be borne by the maternal grandmother. ? Any vehicles used for transportation shall be validly registered and insured.
10.?Plaintiff and defendant shall have reasonable telephone and/or Skype access with Jainay.
11.?The parties shall immediately notify each other of any change in their address or telephone number.
12.?The maternal grandmother shall not relocate from North Carolina to any state other than Connecticut without further order of the court.
13.?The maternal grandmother shall notify Support Enforcement of this decision and her change of address.
14.?The State of Connecticut shall retain jurisdiction over this matter.
RESHA, S.J.
Resha, Robert T., S.J.