Opinion
No. FA 04-041 13 22 S
August 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter was tried before the Regional Family Trial Docket on nine (9) days between August 1st and August 17th, 2005, on a referral from the Fairfield Judicial District. The Plaintiff and Defendant testified and numerous exhibits were introduced. The court has considered all of the credible evidence presented to it and carefully considered the respective criteria for orders of custody, visitation and access, child support, health insurance, payment of children's medical expenses, alimony, property settlement, division of debt and award of counsel fees. The court makes the following findings of facts and orders.
FACTS
The parties were married on November 20, 1988 in Madison, Connecticut. The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the marriage. One of the parties has lived in the State of Connecticut for more than one year prior to bringing this action. The following minor children have been born to the parties since the date of the marriage:
Irene N. Falk, date of birth, August 6, 1989; and
Michael L. Falk, date of birth, April 9, 1994.
The wife is 42 years old and in good health. She is currently employed by both RedShirtImaging, LLC as managing member and by Yale University. She currently earns net income of approximately $60,458.32 per year. Ms. Falk earned a Ph.D. from Yale University in 1992.
The husband will turn 52 years old in September 2005 and is in relatively good health. He has been employed part-time by RedShirtImaging, LLC since 2001 and earns net income, plus interest and dividend income, of approximately $36,556.00 (Exhibit Q.) per year. Mr. CT Page 11996-bs Falk was unemployed from the termination of his employment with Rx Remedy, Inc. in the spring of 2001 and his employment with RedShirtImaging, LLC in late 2001. Mr. Falk earned a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in biostatistics in 1985.
ISSUES
Ms. Falk admitted she has fallen in love with a gentleman who supplies specialized cameras to RedShirtImaging, LLC. She wants to relocate to Atlanta, Georgia, with the minor children for both business and personal reasons.
Mr. Falk wants to remain in the marital home with the minor children and has asked the court to award him the bulk of the marital assets and has requested unallocated support in the amount of $900.00 per week. The court has applied the standards articulated in Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn.App. 173, at 173-74 (2002) as follows:
[T]he trial court properly decided whether the plaintiff should be allowed to relocate with the child pursuant to the statutory (§ 46b-56) best interest of the child standard; because the interests and circumstances of the parties at the postjudgment stage differ from those existing at the time of dissolution, the Ireland factors and its burden-shifting scheme do not apply to relocation issues arising when the initial custody determination is made.
The court has articulated on the record its findings that the wife's reasons for the relocation are for a legitimate purpose, the proposed location is reasonable in light of those purposes and that the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the children. Although the factors and considerations set forth in the Ireland decision were of interest to the court and were considered by it, this court has not allocated the burden of proof as required in the Ireland situation. Rather than applying the Ireland factors, the court instead analyzed the plaintiff's request to relocate under the best interest of the child standard set forth in General Statutes § 46b-56.
The court finds that it is in the best interest of the children to permit relocation because of the plaintiff's CT Page 11996-bt increased job opportunities in Georgia, the presence of her significant other and that moving to Georgia will improve the plaintiff's and, thus, the children's quality of life. Additionally, the court considered the fact that the defendant has no family and few, if any, close friends in Connecticut. After November 2005 he will have no job in Connecticut, and finally, the defendant cannot afford to maintain the marital home based on his current earnings and the unallocated support he has requested. If the court had denied the relocation the children would have been forced to move due to the financial circumstances of the parties at the time of trial.
ANALYSIS CUSTODY CONSIDERATIONS
Connecticut Gen. Stat. Section 46b-56(b)(1) provides that, "In making any order with respect to custody or visitation the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child, giving consideration to the wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capable of forming an intelligent preference."
In the case before the court, Irene, age 16, has made her preference in favor of the relocation to both her attorney and to the court-appointed evaluator, Robert Horwitz, Ph.D. Michael, at age 11, is not sufficiently mature to express an opinion regarding the relocation. The Family Relations Counselor, Dr. Horwitz, and the parties themselves, all agree that the minor children should not be separated.
"While the court's discretion with regard to custody determinations has not been limited, certain criteria have been enumerated by statute to guide or focus the court's consideration. Connecticut General statutes section 46b-56(b) provides that in making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation the court is to be guided by the best interests of the child, giving consideration to the wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capable of forming an intelligent preference. In making the initial order, the court is also authorized to take into consideration CT Page 11996-bu the causes for dissolution of the marriage or legal separation if such causes are relevant in a determination of the best interests of the child . . . This differs substantially from the criteria enumerated for purposes of child support, alimony and property distribution determinations . . ."
While the statute establishes a very general standard, more specific guidance is frequently useful. A number of individual factors that may be relevant have been identified by the courts. That development has necessarily been somewhat piecemeal as various cases are brought to the attention of an appellate court. However, on one occasion, a trial judge summarized these factors, listing twenty-two specific criteria employed in making his decision and the legal authorities relating to each of those factors ( Rudolewicz v. Rudolewicz, No. 410812 (1986), Hartford-New Britain at New Britain). The decision is one by the trial court so it is not binding on other trial courts considering similar issues, although it has been cited by other trial judges. In addition, it is not published in any of the official reports, making reference to it somewhat cumbersome. Nevertheless, the criteria listed provide an excellent overview of the law and are worthy of review.
1. Parenting skills. ( Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 490 A.2d 996.)
2. Each parent's relationship and psychological or emotional ties with the child. ( Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 490 A.2d 996); ( Seymour v. Seymour, 780 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005.)
3. Parental character with respect to willful disobedience of court orders. ( Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 178, 439 A.2d 447 (1982); Stewart v. Stewart, 177 Conn. 401, 418 A.2d 62 (1979); Simons v. Simons, 172 Conn. 314, 374 A.2d 1004.)
4. Willingness to facilitate visitation with the other parent. ( Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005.)
5. Past behavior as it relates to parenting ability. CT Page 11996-bv ( Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005 (1980); Yontef v. Yantef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899.)
6. Recommendations in the Family Relations Report. ( Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899.)
7. Advise of the attorney for the child. ( Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899.)
8. Credibility. ( Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899.)
9. Either parent's manipulative or coercive behavior through efforts to involve the child in the marital dispute. ( Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899.)
10. The parent's behavior and its effect on the child(ren). ( Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899.)
11. Continuity and stability of environment. ( Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 490 A.2d. 996 [1985].)
12. The flexibility of each parent to best serve the psychological development and growth of the child. ( Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005.)
13. Which parent is more willing and able to address medical and educational problems of the child and to take appropriate steps to have them treated and corrected. ( Faria v. Faria, 38 Conn.Sup. 37, 456 A.2d 125.)
14. A stable and familiar environment with love and attention from grandparents. ( Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 429 A.2d 801.)
15. The psychological instability of one parent posing a threat to the child(ren)'s wellbeing. ( Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 429 A.2d 801.)
16. The recommendation that one parent immediately CT Page 11996-bw commence in-patient treatment. ( Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 429 A.2d 801.)
17. Visitation having an adverse effect on the child at the time. ( Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 429 A.2d 801.)
18. Remarriage of either parent ( Trunik v. Trunik, 179 Conn. 287, 426 A.2d 274.)
19. Parental sexual activity. ( Trunik v. Trunik, 179 Conn. 287, 426 A.2d 274.)
20. Consistency in parenting and life style, insofar as these factors might affect the child's growth, development and well-being. ( Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005.)
21. The time each parent would be able to devote to the child on a day-to-day basis. ( Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005.)
22. Untidy condition of the home, alcoholism, leaving the home unattended, and emotional problems. ( Seymour v. Seymour, 180 Conn. 705, 433 A.2d 1005). ( Simons v. Simons 172 Conn. 347, 374 A.2d 1040.)
23. The effects of spousal abuse within the family. ( Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 621 A.2d 267.)
Not all of the above factors will be relevant in every case. This summary is found in: Rutkin, Family Law and Practice, Connecticut Practice Series, 2nd edition, West Publishing, Volume 8, pages 521 through 524, Section 42.24 (2000).
The court has taken into consideration the Family Relations Counselor's report and testimony, the testimony and report of Dr. Robert Horwitz, the testimony and credibility of the parties and the argument and evidence presented by the Attorney for the Minor Children. While the evaluations recognized both parents as loving and intelligent, the court has focused on the strengths each parent has to offer in meeting the needs of the children. The court fully articulated the CT Page 11996-bx basis of its decision on the record and a transcript is attached.
ORDERS
After considering all of the statutory criteria set forth in General Statute's § 46b-84 as to support of a minor child, § 46b-215a-1 et seq., Regs. Conn. State Agencies, as to child support, § 46b-56 as to custody and care of minor children, § 46b-62 as to counsel fees, § 46b-66a, as to conveyance of real property, § 46b-81, as to assignment of property and transfer of title, § 46b-82, as to the award of alimony, § 46b-84, as to medical insurance for minor child, § 46b-56c as to Educational Support Orders together with applicable case law and the evidence presented here, the court hereby enters the following orders:
1. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE:
A decree dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown shall enter on August 17th, 2005.
2. CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME:
1. The parties shall have joint legal custody of the minor children. The children shall make their primary residence with the plaintiff mother.
2. The plaintiff shall relocate with the minor children to the Atlanta, Georgia area immediately. The plaintiff shall not permit Mr. Bleau to reside in the same home with the minor children until his divorce is finalized and the Bleau children have met the Falk children and socialized for a minimum of one month.
3. The children shall visit the defendant in Connecticut one weekend each month. If the month has a school three-day weekend, that shall be the weekend for visitation in Connecticut. If the month has no three-day weekend, the visitation shall take place the third weekend of each month. The defendant shall have the right to visit the children in Georgia, as frequently as he is able, with 7 days advance notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall pay the cost of the CT Page 11996-by children's monthly transportation to and from Connecticut.
4. The minor children shall spend the first and last full weeks of summer vacation with the plaintiff commencing the summer of 2006. The remainder of the summer shall be spent with the defendant.
5. The children shall spend all school year vacations and holidays with their Father. They shall leave for Connecticut the day after school ends and return to Georgia the day before school begins. The school holidays shall include Christmas vacation from December 26th until the day before school resumes, Easter vacation from the day after school closes until the day before school resumes, winter school and spring school vacations (if the school observes those school vacations) from the day after school closes until the day before school resumes. Mother shall have the children for Christmas every year from the close of school until December 26th and Thanksgiving school vacation every year. If the Jewish holidays occur when the children are not in school (weekends) they shall spend those weekends with father in addition to the monthly visits. Father shall pay the cost of transportation for the Jewish holiday visits. During all holiday time, the monthly parental access schedule shall be suspended with no mandated make up time.
6. The plaintiff and defendant shall continue to share joint legal custody of the minor children. While the children are physically in Georgia, the plaintiff shall have final decision-making authority after consultation with the defendant. While the children are in Connecticut, the defendant shall have final decision-making authority after consultation with the plaintiff. Neither parent has the authority to make a decision that will impact the other parent's time with the children without the advance written consent of the other parent.
7. The parents are court-ordered to consult and communicate on a weekly basis via the "Our Family Wizard" web site or a similar web site that maintains copies and date stamps all communication between the CT Page 11996-cz parents. When the children are with the plaintiff, she shall post an update on the children every Monday and the defendant shall respond with any comments or suggestions by the following Wednesday (2 days after the Monday communication). When the children are with the defendant, he shall post an update on the children every Monday and the plaintiff shall respond with any comments or suggestions by Wednesday.
8. Each of the parties shall furnish the other copies of any reports from third persons or institutions concerning the health, education, or welfare of the minor children within 48 hours of receipt of said report.
9. The parties shall exert every reasonable effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact between the children and the other parent. Each parent shall foster a feeling of affection between the children and the other parent. Neither party shall do anything which may estrange the children from the other parent or injure the opinion of the children as to his/her mother or father, or act in such a way as to hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and respect for the other parent.
10. The parties shall have reasonable access to the children while they are with the other party, including free access by mail, e-mail, instant messenger and access by telephone at 8:00 p.m. for a period of time not to exceed 30 minutes each evening. The parents shall both equip their home computers with a web cam to facilitate virtual visitation. The web cam and computer shall be located in a quiet spot where each child may engage in private conversation with the parent they are not with.
11. Each parent shall have right of first refusal in care for their children should the other parent be absent or traveling and unable to provide personal care for a period including one overnight or more. The parents' right of first refusal supersedes the right of extended family members to care for the minor children.
12. The parents shall communicate with one another on CT Page 11996-ca all medical, academic, social and psychological issues concerning their children, and shall ensure that they both have all necessary and important information regarding their children. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each parent shall have unfettered access to all records concerning the children, and each is free to access said information independently. The parties shall share communication regarding schedules and issues related to their children. Neither parent shall provide a copy of or allow a third party to read the Family Relations Evaluation or Dr. Robert Horwitz' evaluation without prior permission of the court.
13. In the event of the illness or personal injury of either child, the first party to learn of such illness or injury shall notify the other immediately and each party shall keep the other informed at all times of the whereabouts of the children. For the purposes of this paragraph, the word "illness" shall mean any sickness or ailment which requires the service of a physician. The word "injury" shall mean any injury which requires the services of a physician. During any illness or accident, the parents shall have the rights of reasonable visitation to see the children in addition to the other rights provided herein. Notification shall be made promptly by the fastest method of communication available to the parent with the children.
14. Each of the parties shall keep the other informed of the whereabouts of the children while the children are with the Father or the Mother and outside the States of Georgia or Connecticut. The information shall be provided in writing and shall contain the date of the trip, the location, name of hotel or overnight accommodations (if any) and a telephone number where the parent and children may be reached. During any trips, if either parent has knowledge of any illness or accident or other circumstances seriously affecting the health or welfare of the children, he/she shall promptly notify the other party.
15. Each of the parties shall furnish the other copies of any reports from third persons concerning health, education or welfare of the child if not provided to the other parent directly. Each parent has the CT Page 11996-cb responsibility to contact the children's schools, teachers, coaches and team managers to secure the information for him/herself. If possible, each parent shall give the other fourteen (14) days advance notice of any special events involving the minor children including but not limited to plays, recitals, award ceremonies, banquets, sports activities, religious ceremonies, graduations, school conferences, sports meets and other ceremonies. Each party shall be responsible to transport the child to sports events, ceremonies, concerts and school functions that are scheduled during their parenting responsibility.
16. Both parents shall be deemed to have equal right of access to all of the children's school records and medical records at any time upon request.
17. Neither parent shall relocate with the minor children outside the State of Georgia (during the school year) or the State of Connecticut (during the summer school vacation) without 90 days advance written notice to the other parent and further order of the court.
3. CHILD SUPPORT:
The defendant shall pay child support to the plaintiff pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines in the amount of $160.00 per week. The defendant shall notify the plaintiff within 48 hours of accepting full-time or new employment and shall provide her with proof of his income and deductions in the form of a pay stub and/or contract for employment.
4. MARITAL RESIDENCE:
The family home located at 2 Stoneleigh Road, Fairfield, Connecticut, shall be sold. The home shall be listed for sale by a mutually chosen multiple listing real estate broker within fourteen (14) days of the date of judgment. If the parties are unable to agree on the choice of a real estate agent or agency, they shall each submit a name to the court within 21 days of the date of judgment and the court shall chose the real estate agent/broker/agency. The real estate agent shall be provided with a copy of the plaintiff's appraisal of the CT Page 11996-cc home by plaintiff's counsel within 7 days of his/her designation. The parties shall accept the real estate agent's recommendation of an initial asking price.
The parties shall accept any offer within 5% of the asking price. If the home fails to sell within 60 days, the price shall be reduced by the sum of $10,000.00 every thirty days until the home is sold.
The defendant shall be liable for the mortgage, utilities, minor repairs (defined as less than $250.00) and real estate taxes until the home is sold pursuant to this paragraph. Any repairs in excess of $250.00 shall be shared with the plaintiff paying 40% and the defendant paying 60%.
The net proceeds from the sale (after payment of agreed upon fix-up expenses, broker's commission, conveyance taxes and similar items) shall be divided between the parties sixty (60%) percent — forty (40%) percent in favor of the defendant.
5. ALIMONY:
Neither party shall pay alimony to the other. Each party is well educated, in reasonably good health and each has earning capacity comparable to the other.
6. OTHER PROPERTY:
The plaintiff shall have sole ownership of the 2000 Grand Voyager, and the defendant shall have sole ownership of the 2001 Mitsubishi Gallant, free of any claim from the other, and they shall indemnify the other in connection with all charges and expenses relating to said vehicle including registration, personal property taxes and insurance.
The parties shall adjust the sums they hold in all bank accounts and stock accounts so as to affect an equal division of the accounts, excluding the approximately $60,000.00 of defendant's funds in a German bank. The court considers these funds to be a premarital asset and shall remain the sole property of the defendant. CT Page 11996-cd
The plaintiff shall retain her minority ownership interest in the business known as RedShirtImaging, LLC, free of any claim by the defendant. Plaintiff shall hold the defendant harmless from and indemnify the defendant from any debts, liabilities, claims or lawsuits of any kind relating to or arising out of said business.
7. TAXES:
If the defendant continues to remain employed part-time (defined as less than 40 hours per week) or unemployed, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the dependency exemptions for the two (2) minor children. At such time as the defendant has regular, full-time employment, the parties shall each be entitled to a dependency exemption, and when only one (1) exemption is available they will alternate it, with the Mother to have it in the first applicable year.
The defendant shall reimburse plaintiff for the additional, unnecessary taxes she paid for the 2004 tax year by virtue of the defendant's filing a separate tax return in the approximate sum of $2,000.00. The plaintiff paid approximately $5,000.00 as a result of filing her tax return separately. The family would have owed approximately $3,000.00 if they filed jointly. The defendant received a $3,000.00 refund as a result of filing separately.
8. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS:
The retirement accounts and pensions of the parties shall be equalized, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") if necessary, so as to effect an equal division of all retirement accounts between the parties. The cost of preparing the QDRO shall be equally borne by both parties and shall be completed within 60 days of the date of dissolution.
9. MEDICAL INSURANCE:
The plaintiff shall maintain Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Major Medical Insurance, or their respective equivalent, for the benefit of the parties' children, CT Page 11996-ce until they graduate from a four-year undergraduate college, attain the age of twenty-three (23) or cease to be a dependent of either the Husband or the Wife for federal income tax purposes, whichever shall occur first, if such insurance is available to the plaintiff through her employment at a reasonable cost. In the event that such insurance is not available to the plaintiff through her employment at a reasonable cost, and such insurance is available to the defendant through his employment at a reasonable cost, then the defendant shall maintain such insurance for the benefit of the parties' children, until they graduate from a four-year undergraduate college, attain the age of twenty-three (23) or cease to be a dependent of either the Husband or the Wife for federal income tax purposes, whichever shall occur first. In the event that neither parties' employer provides medical insurance for the children at a reasonable cost, the parties shall, by mutual agreement, purchase Blue Cross, Blue Shield and Major Medical Insurance or the equivalent for the benefit of the parties' children, until they graduate from a four-year undergraduate college, attain the age of twenty-three (23), or cease to be a dependent of either the Husband or the Wife for federal income tax purposes, whichever shall occur first, and shall equally divide the cost of such insurance.
The parties shall equally divide the cost of the unreimbursed medical, dental and mental health expenses for the benefit of their minor children. Such unreimbursed expenses shall include medical, optical, surgical, hospital, psychiatric, psychological, nursing expenses, eyeglasses, educational evaluations and tutoring, the cost of prescriptive drugs and dental and orthodontic expenses.
10. LIFE INSURANCE:
For so long as either of the minor children are eligible for child support, each party shall provide and maintain a minimum of $500,000.00 in life insurance on his or her life and shall designate the other as irrevocable trustee beneficiary for the benefit of their children of such insurance, provided that the cost of such coverage does not initially cost either party more CT Page 11996-cf than $750.00 per year.
Each party shall at all times maintain said life insurance in the net amounts as provided, and shall pay all premiums, due and assessments thereon required to be paid by him/her to maintain said insurance, and shall make arrangements for all premium notices and premium receipts to be sent to the other party. Each party shall have the right to substitute other insurance for the policies he or she is to maintain provided prior to such substitution that party shall notify the other in writing of the name of the insurance company, the policy number, the amount, the name and address of the broker, and appropriate endorsements, but no substitution shall in any way permit a party to provide less than the death benefit required under this Article.
In the event that either party shall fail to comply with the obligations of this Article, the obligation shall survive his or her death and the amount due to the other as provided for herein shall be a charge upon the decedent's estate.
11. EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT ORDER:
The Court shall retain jurisdiction over educational support orders until the minor children each reach the age of twenty-three (23), pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 46b-56c. Either party may petition the Court for the establishment of an educational support order until such time.
The existing accounts held for the post-high school education of the minor children shall continue to be held by the father for that purpose. The father shall obtain the written permission of the wife before expending any of the money in those accounts.
12. MISCELLANEOUS:
The defendant shall not be required by the court to reimburse the plaintiff for household expenses during the period of time from September 2004 through December 2004 (when he failed to make any contribution toward the mortgage or household expenses for the family), as well CT Page 11996-cg as for the additional sums he removed from the joint account at the time he unilaterally attempted to divide it. The issue of the defendant's failure to contribute was expressly reserved in the parties' December 2004 Stipulation, as on file.
The plaintiff shall not be required by the court to reimburse the defendant any sum from the RedShirtImaging, LLC, 2004 bonus she received in February 2005. This money is considered compensation for the failure to contribute to the household expenses during the period from September 2004-December 2004 and the sums he unilaterally removed from the joint bank account.
13. COUNSEL FEES:
Each party shall be responsible for paying their counsel's fees incurred in connection with this action.
14. COUNSEL FEES FOR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE MINOR CHILDREN:
The fees for the attorney for the minor children shall be adjusted so that each party pays one-half of such fees. The defendant shall make payment in full within 15 days of the date of dissolution. The plaintiff shall pay her share immediately upon the closing of the family home.
15. JURISDICTION:
The Regional Family Trial Docket shall retain jurisdiction over this case for a period of one year from the date of judgment and any motions regarding custody and/or visitation shall be filed with the Regional Family Trial Docket.
16. PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATOR'S FEES:
The fees of Dr. Robert Horwitz for evaluation and testimony shall be equally shared by the plaintiff and defendant and shall be paid in full within 30 days of the date of judgment. CT Page 11996-ch
17. PERSONAL PROPERTY:
The parties have divided their personal property to their mutual satisfaction.
18. INFORMING THE CHILDREN:
Neither parent shall discuss these court orders with the minor children until their Attorney has had the opportunity to meet with them, explain the orders in a developmentally appropriate manner and answer any questions they may have.
19. FAMILY RELATIONS REPORT AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION:
The Family Relations Custody Evaluation and the psychological reports are ordered sealed. The court is making this order because the defendant permitted his son's school psychologist and counselor to read the family relations report pendente lite. The information was not solicited by school personnel or needed for any legitimate purpose.
20. PARENTING TIME WITH CHILDREN PRIOR TO RELOCATION:
The plaintiff shall be generous in allowing the defendant time with the children prior to their anticipated relocation to Atlanta, Georgia.
21. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTS:
The court finds it is in the best interest of the minor children that transcripts, or copies of transcripts of these proceedings, not be provided to the children or third parties without prior court order. This order does not apply to counsel securing transcripts for appeal or to the court's articulation of its orders on the record.
22. STAY:
The custody and relocation orders shall not be stayed by an appeal pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book CT Page 11996-ci Section 61-1(b).
By the Court
Holly Abery-Wetstone
Presiding Judge CT Page 11996-cj