2005 Ct. Sup. 2178
No. FA 01 0727128 SConnecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
February 15, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
GRUENDEL, JUDGE.
On December 1, 2003, the plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to modify custody of the parties’ two minor daughters, Natalie and Julia Signor. The defendant filed an objection to the motion in accordance with the procedures set forth in the court’s standing orders. The court did not grant ex parte relief but did immediately order the appointment of Attorney Leo Diana as guardian ad litem for the girls. This decision is rendered after several days of testimony including the testimony of Mr. Diana.
In her objection, the defendant characterized the allegations of the motion as “completely untrue in most cases, grossly exaggerated in other cases, and occurred over three years ago in other cases . . .” Objection to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Order Post-Judgment, December 3, 2003, p. 2. That characterization is a classic understatement. While some of the events complained of may have occurred, and indeed some did, the tenor of the allegations when taken together paint the defendant as a terrible person unfit to be a parent. That picture is inaccurate. Although not without some faults, the defendant is clearly an appropriate mother to the children. And, although not without some faults, the plaintiff is clearly an appropriate father, as well. The plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Modification dated August 31, 2004 more accurately reflects the situation with which the court must deal. Both motions allege that the girls should spend more time with their father, and to that extent were proven.
Since January 23, 2002, the date of the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, several changes have taken place in their lives that implicate custody. The original judgment provided that Mr. Signor would have the children every other weekend from Saturday at noon until Monday morning and, on the alternate weeks, on Monday overnight. In practice, however, the visitation CT Page 2179 schedule has been expanded by the parties to include parenting time for Mr. Signor on Mondays from 3 to 6:30 p.m. and Wednesdays from 1 to 5:30 p.m., and during summers it has been even more expansive. Mr. Signor has remarried, to a woman he has known for twenty years and with whom he has been in a relationship since June 2001, six months after the parties’ separation. He and his new wife have purchased a home together in Marlborough, a short distance from the home the girls share with their mother in Glastonbury.[1] Finally, his work schedule has become more flexible. He is a part owner of a Hartford restaurant, and is not required to work every day or every evening.
The court was troubled that part of Mr. Signor’s motivation in pursuing this modification may have resulted from his unexpressed wish to supplant the defendant with his new wife, but has no direct evidence of that and makes no such finding. The court is also troubled at the level of his intrusion into the defendant’s personal and home life over the years, and does have direct and credible evidence of that. He has expressed to the children disrespectful accusations about the defendant or her friends. Finally, when the defendant was having difficulty with Julia’s behavior toward and around her, Mr. Signor refused to be involved in the therapy or to otherwise co-parent to reduce the problem. His attitude was essentially that the defendant should deal with her own problems with the child, rather than that the parties should deal cooperatively with the child’s problem.
The court will not make findings about most of the allegations about the defendant in the original motion other than to find that they are either untrue or, if true, exaggerated. The level of her justified hurt and humiliation upon being served with those allegations makes understandable if not acceptable the fact that she shared the pleading with the girls. The court is troubled by the fact that the defendant has been involved in a series of relationships with men who have spent considerable time residing in her house. While it is true that these relationships have been meant to be permanent, they have not worked out that way. It is inappropriate for the defendant to cause her children to share their home with men she is dating until she has some assurance that the relationship will be relatively stable. Otherwise, the court finds that the defendant has a fine relationship with the girls and parents them well. In addition, she has achieved a high degree of professional success, almost exclusively through her own effort and ability. She has been required to exhaust virtually all the funds she received from the CT Page 2180 dissolution to pay her attorneys fees in connection with this litigation, with the result that the court’s original financial orders have been undermined.
The court’s factual findings are limited to events which occurred prior to the last day of testimony.[2]
The parties do not have the present ability to act as co-parents. They will require professional assistance to achieve that ability.
Based upon the net earnings of each party, Mr. Signor is obligated to pay $270.00 per week in child support. While the court will order a visitation schedule which arguably is in excess of the “ordinary” visitation schedule set forth in the child support guidelines, the court will not order a deviation based upon shared parenting. The court does not have sufficient evidence to determine that an economic impact will result from any change, and does not conclude that a deviation would be equitable or in the best interests of the children.
The court has taken into account the testimony of the parties and witnesses, including the credible and thoughtful recommendations of the guardian ad litem, the court’s findings of fact and the provisions of Section 46b-62 of the General Statutes together with relevant case law in formulating its orders.
The following orders will enter.
1. The parties will have joint legal custody of the children. They will consult with and cooperate with each other on all decisions and issues that affect the health, education, and welfare of the children.
2. The children will primarily reside with the defendant.
3. The plaintiff will have parenting time with the children as follows:
a. School Year (September through the end of school in June)
1. Every other weekend from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. until Monday morning, but if Monday is a holiday that CT Page 2181 follows his weekend, then until Tuesday morning.
2. On alternate Mondays in weeks when no weekend visitation was scheduled, from after school on Monday overnight until Tuesday morning, and on all other Mondays from after school on Monday until 7:30 p.m.
3. On Wednesdays, from after school on Wednesday until Thursday morning.
4. After consultation with the children and the opposite parent, consent not to be unreasonably withheld, the defendant can determine which outside activities the girls or either of them shall be involved in, except that under the same conditions the plaintiff can determine which activities the girls or either of them can be involved in on Mondays and Wednesdays. If there are activities such as team sports, play rehearsal, or band participation which require the girls or either of them to participate on more than one day (eg. Soccer practice after school Monday through Thursday, game Saturday), the parties shall consult with each other and the affected child regarding her participation, consent not to be unreasonably withheld, but in the event of a disagreement the defendant may designate the activity. The parent who has the children shall take them to their outside activities, regardless of who chose the activity.
b. Summer, from one week after the close of school until one week before school resumes, all of the above provisions shall remain, but the children will be in the care of the plaintiff during alternate weeks from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. until Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. and, in the weeks where there is no weekend visitation, from Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. until Thursday at 5:30 p.m., all subject to the vacation schedule set forth herein.
CT Page 2182
c. It is the intention of this order that all Monday holidays (eg. Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day) be spent with the parent with whom the immediately previous weekend had been spent.
d. The children shall spend the following additional holidays and vacations as follows:
*Thanksgiving, including Thursday and Friday, with defendant in odd years.
*Christmas Eve until 10:00 a.m. Christmas Day with defendant in odd years.
*Christmas Day, from 10:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. with plaintiff in odd years.
*New Years Day, with defendant in even years.
*Good Friday through Easter Sunday, with plaintiff in even years.
*If the children are not otherwise with the parent celebrating Mother’s or Father’s Day, they should be permitted to visit with that parent from noon until 7:30 p.m. on those days.
*The parties shall alternate February and April vacations. They shall each have two uninterrupted weeks during the summer.
e. The children shall remain in the Glastonbury school system unless otherwise agreed in writing or ordered by the court, but this order will not prevent the defendant from relocating within a reasonable CT Page 2183 distance of Glastonbury without a court order.
4. The parties shall participate in the Peace Program in good faith for a minimum of ten sessions unless excused by the professionals who run the Peace Program once they are satisfied that the parties have met the goals of effective parental cooperation or communication. If the parties are excused from further participation by the professionals involved in the program prior to the expiration of ten sessions, they shall return to court for further orders.
5. The plaintiff shall pay $270.00 per week as child support together with 36% of any unreimbursed medical expenses for the girls for any prescribed medical service and 36% of any day care expenses required for the defendant to work. This order is retroactive to the date of the filing of the motion for modification of child support.
6. The plaintiff shall within thirty days pay $15,000.00 toward the defendant’s attorneys fees. Both parties shall complete payment of the Guardian Ad Litem’s fees in accordance with previous orders.
Orders will enter accordingly.
BY THE COURT,
GRUENDEL, J. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
CT Page 2184