2011 Ct. Sup. 17796
No. FA06-4009345SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
August 19, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION (#261.00)
SHAY, J.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved by decree of the Regional Family Trial Court on December 14, 2007. The parties are the parents of two minor children, to wit: Kent Schneider, born February 13, 2001, and Karenna Schneider, born November 18, 2003. In relevant part, said decree awarded sole legal and physical custody of both children to the defendant father (“father”) with scheduled, supervised visitation to the plaintiff mother (“mother”). In addition, the mother was prohibited from driving any vehicle with the children as passengers. Both children reside with their father in Greenwich, and the mother resides in Fairfield. At the time of the decree, the trial court took considerable pains describing what it believed the mother’s mental state to be, suggested a course of therapy, and left the door open for a future modification.
Subsequent to the decree, after participating in a course of therapy, the mother sought a change in the custodial and visitation arrangements pursuant to a Motion for Modification (#234.10) dated April 1, 2008. This motion was denied (#244.00). The matter comes before this court by way of the mother’s renewed Motion to Modify (#261.00) dated September 1, 2010. Subsequent to that motion, the court ordered that both children, who have been represented throughout by Attorney Catherine Whelan, undergo psychiatric evaluations by Dr. Pauline Jordan, who had performed the initial evaluations in 2007. The interviews for the new evaluations took place in January and February of 2011. (AMC Exhibits II and III.)
Throughout most of the legal proceedings, the mother was represented by counsel, who has since withdrawn. The mother was self-represented during the hearing, which took place on August 9, 2011. At that time, the court heard from several witnesses, including the mother, Dr. Jordan, Dr. Adamakos, and Michele Slater, one of the supervisors. Dr. Jordan’s evaluations conclude that the current manner of visitation with the mother is “not sustainable and is psychologically unhealthy” for the children. Dr. Adamakos wrote (Exhibit #1) that the mother is a “devoted CT Page 17797 and loving parent” and that he saw “no psychological reason, centered on any possible concern about her, why there should be limits in her ability to parent her children directly.” Ms. Slater told the court that she had noticed positive changes in the mother’s behavior, in that she has become “more patient; less confrontational; and really trying to let them `just be.'”
FINDINGS
The court, having considered the testimony and evidence, hereby finds as follows:
1. That a minor child of divorced parents is “entitled to the love and companionship of both parents,” and unless a parent is “completely unfit, a decree should allow a parent deprived of custody to visit or communicate with [the child] under such restrictions as the circumstances warrant.” Raymond v. Raymond, 165 Conn. 735, 741 (1974).
2. That “before a court may modify a custody order, it must find that there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior order of the court, but the ultimate test is the best interest of the child.”Malave v. Ortiz, 114 Conn.App. 414, 424 (2009); Payton v. Payton, 103 Conn.App. 825, 834 (2007); and that, however, in modifying visitation without modifying custody, the court is to be guided by the best interest and is “not required to find as a threshold matter that a change in circumstances has occurred.” Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn.App. 510, 515-16 (2011).
3. That the circumstances have materially changed since the date of the last order in that: a) the mother has obtained and maintained full-time employment; 2) the mother drives to and from said employment, and no evidence was introduced demonstrating that she is an unsafe driver; 3) the mother has continued with her course of therapy and has gained new coping and parenting skills as a result, and she has demonstrated a willingness to continue to seek guidance in this regard; 4) the mother does not suffer from any “clinically serious psycho-pathology” and is neither a danger to herself nor to the children; 5) the mother’s current residence in Fairfield, which, under the circumstances, has an impact upon her ability “to be actively involved” in the lives of her children, in part, given their participation in sports and other out-of-school activities scheduled by the father, without consultation with the mother, during her limited parenting time, thus reducing her “quality time” with the children; 6) the present restrictions upon visitation, in particular with regard to driving and supervision, have actually had a negative impact on the children and are an impediment to the development CT Page 17798 of a normal relationship with their mother, in that they tend to undermine her parental authority and create a sense that she is not a competent parent; and 7) a continuation of the present order regarding custody and visitation is not in the best interest of the minor children.
4. That in making or modifying any custody and/or visitation order, the court must consider “the rights and responsibilities of both parents,” and it “shall enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests.” General Statutes § 46b-56(b).
5. That an order of joint legal custody, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, is in the best interest of both children, in that it invests each fit parent with a degree of responsibility for the parenting of the children, and it reinforces the fundamental principle, with each parent, of the importance of the other parent in the lives and development of their children.
ORDER
THE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION (#261.00) IS HEREBY GRANTED, AND IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Effective immediately, the parties shall share joint legal custody of the minor children, however, the father shall continue to have primary residential custody. The parties shall consult with each other regarding all decisions regarding the education, religious upbringing, and non-emergency medical and dental treatment of the children. In the event that the parties are unable to agree, they shall first bring the matter to the Attorney for the Minor (“AMC”) children for assistance in resolving it, and if they are still unable to agree, unless otherwise ordered by the court, the father’s decision shall control. In addition, the parties shall consult with each other regarding the scheduling of activities and appointments, including sports and after-school programs, for the minor children, with particular regard to the parenting time of the mother. The father shall, on a regular basis, in advance, provide the mother with a schedule of each child’s after-school activities, as well as any parent-teacher conferences and other school programs involving either of the children.
2. Effective November 1, 2011, the mother shall have unsupervised visitation with the minor children each weekend, alternating between Saturdays and Sundays, commencing Saturday, November 5, 2011, from 10:00 CT Page 17799 A.M. through 6:00 P.M. Pick up and drop off shall be at the residence of the father (or from the site of the child’s activity if previously scheduled), and the mother shall be responsible for transportation. In addition, during the school year, the mother shall have one evening per week, unsupervised, from after school to 7:30 P.M. During the summer recess, the visit shall commence at 4:00 P.M. She shall be responsible for pick up at school and drop off at the father’s residence, and she shall provide the children with dinner and shall help with any homework, at her home or at a public library. Said visitation shall continue for a minimum of two months, at which time the court will consider either a continuation of the foregoing schedule or a further expansion of it, including full weekends, overnights, holidays, and summer and other school vacations. Until November 1, 2011 visitation shall be in accordance with the current order.
3. The foregoing is conditioned upon the following:
a. The parties and children engaging in family therapy with M. Deborah Gruen, Ph.D. of Westport, in particular with the goal of acclimating and preparing the parties and children regarding the changes in the parenting schedule, as well as to improve the ability of both parents to act appropriately with each other, especially in the presence of the children. The parents shall share the responsibility for transportation of the children to and from such sessions. The unreimbursed portion of this therapy shall initially be shared 75% by the father and 25% by the mother, subject to adjustment by the court;
b. The wife shall continue with individual counseling with Dr. Adamakos on a regular basis, on a schedule as may be recommended by him, or until further order of court;
c. Both children participate in individual therapy as recommended by Dr. Jordan;
d. That all parties and counsel appear for a status conference on October 26, 2011, to report any problems with the implementation of the modified visitation order.
e. Until further order of court, the AMC shall continue to play a role in the lives of the children, and in particular, she shall coordinate the implementation of the family therapy sessions as ordered above. The AMC shall have access to all records and reports of the minor children prepared by any therapists and other medical providers and shall be free to meet with them to discuss either of both children’s treatment and to communicate with same by any appropriate means. In addition, the AMC will CT Page 17800 make an effort to effectuate a plan, with the assistance of the professionals involved, for improving the communication between both parents regarding the children, in particular during the exchanges.
CT Page 17801