Opinion
HHDFA155040443S
03-01-2017
STACY ROOS v. ROBERT CARMEN
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
As Corrected April 3, 2017.
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDERS RE: PLAINTIFF'S RE-REVISED MOTION RE: COUNSEL FEES (#167) AND DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION THERETO (#168) (THE MEMORANDUM WAS CORRECTED TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT, NOT THE PLAINTIFF, ELICITED TESTIMONY FROM ATTORNEY ROBERT ZASLOW AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF, NOT THE DEFENDANT, SUBMITTED A BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S FERRARO NOTICE.)
Robert Nastri, Jr., Judge.
This action for dissolution of marriage was brought by writ of summons and complaint dated September 21, 2015, with a return date of October 20, 2015. The defendant filed an answer and cross complaint on November 6, 2015 (#108).
The clerk's office was unable to locate the original complaint. Neither party could supply a copy of it. The plaintiff filed amended complaints on October 7, 2015 (#101), and October 8, 2015 (#103).
The plaintiff, Stacy Roos, and the defendant, Robert Carmen, were married on January 12, 2008, in Sharon, Massachusetts. The plaintiff resided in Connecticut for more than one year before she filed the complaint. The marriage produced one minor child: Lauren A. Carmen, born April 8, 2008.
The court heard the testimony of the parties on October 21, 22, November 17, 18, and December 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28. Each party testified at great length. The plaintiff also elicited testimony from Attorney Jennifer Davis, the guardian ad litem, Robert Arsenault, a state marshal, Jameson Ball, a Simsbury police officer, Craig Kennedy, one of the defendant's clients, and Pamela Ross, the plaintiff's sister. The defendant elicited testimony from Attorney Robert Zaslow, the guardian ad litem from the plaintiff's first divorce. Both parties were represented by counsel.
This is the plaintiff's second marriage. Her first marriage to Sotirios Gizelis produced a son, Jeffrey Gizelis, who was born on December 19, 1997.
Following the trial, the plaintiff filed a motion for counsel fees (#167) on December 29, 2016, seeking an award of just and equitable attorney's fees. In her motion, the plaintiff represented she has paid her attorney $15,000 and owes him another $41,216. The defendant filed a timely objection on January 13, 2017, in which he argued, inter alia, that the parties' incomes during the pendency of the lawsuit were essentially equivalent.
Statutory Basis :
General Statutes § 46b-81(c) provides the statutory framework for equitable distribution of property. It provides, in relevant part: " In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court . . . shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the . . . dissolution . . . the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, earning capacity, vocational skills, education, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income. The court shall also consider the contribution of each of the parties to the acquisition, preservation, or appreciation in value of their respective estates."
The Parties :
The plaintiff is a forty-six year old college graduate in good health. She has a bachelor's degree in radiology from the University of Hartford. She worked in that field for several years earning as much as $54,000 a year, but twice was dismissed from her employment. She was fired from the Connecticut Children's Medical Center in 2004, although she could not remember the reason. In 2009 or 2010 she was fired from her position as a physician's liaison at Jefferson Radiology when her first husband's new wife made an unspecified complaint. Defendant's Exhibit E . The plaintiff initially testified she left Jefferson Radiology to spend more time with her daughter but later admitted she had been fired.
The plaintiff now works as a special education paraprofessional in the Simsbury school system earning a gross weekly wage of $664 and a net weekly wage of $487, for thirty-four hours of work a week. She is a W-2 wage earner. Whether by accident or design, the plaintiff's work schedule now is compatible with Lauren's school schedule. The plaintiff lives rent-free in a house owned by her father, who pays $323 per week on her behalf toward the mortgage on the house.
All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
The defendant is a forty-five year old college graduate in good health. He has a bachelor's degree in professional aeronautics from Embry-Riddle University, but has never worked in the aeronautics field. He testified his degree is equivalent to a liberal arts degree. The defendant is a veteran of both the United States Navy and the United States Air Force. He was honorably discharged from both. Plaintiff's Exhibits 24 & 25 . The defendant entered the Air Force with the intent to become a pilot but was medically disqualified due to a minor heart murmur. His principal occupation is as a self-employed computer consultant, operating a company called Global Computer Consultants, which has been his primary source of income since 2006.
The defendant also owns a business called Fat Ass Bikes, which imports bicycle parts. The defendant uses the parts to assemble bicycles to his customers' specifications. Although he currently owns about $1800 worth of bicycles parts; Plaintiff's Exhibit 36 ; the defendant testified there is no longer any market for the types of bicycles he builds so the business produces no income.
The defendant is also a member of Naturally Fast, LLC, which manufactures and markets sports drinks. There are two other members of the limited liability corporation, Craig Kennedy and Dennis DeLorenzo. Mr. Kennedy testified the company has had no income and has no prospects for future business. Naturally Fast's partnership tax returns and profit and loss statement indicate it has operated at a loss . Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 . It operates out of a building that houses Mr. Kennedy's business, Color Craft, Ltd., d/b/a Createx Colors. According to Mr. Kennedy, his company has underwritten Naturally Fast's operation but has not seen a return on its investment. Mr. Kennedy testified that Naturally Fast will be shut down shortly, both to stop the loss of money but also because his company needs to reclaim the space occupied by Naturally Fast. Both the defendant and Mr. Kennedy testified that none of the members of the limited liability company has had any income from Naturally Fast.
Mr. Kennedy is not only the defendant's business associate but also the largest customer of his computer consulting business and his personal friend.
The defendant has typically spent a great deal of time at his avocation, bicycle racing. He is an avid cyclist, training frequently and competing in races on a regular basis. The defendant testified he entered fewer than twenty races in 2016. The plaintiff introduced a racing calendar which showed the defendant has entered sixteen cycling races sponsored by USA Cycling in 2016 through October of this year but, since 2008, he has entered an average of twenty-five races a year sponsored by that organization. Plaintiff's Exhibit 46 .
There is no evidence that the defendant enters races sponsored by other organizations.
The plaintiff complained that during their marriage the defendant was seldom around, pointing to the many hours of training he did every day and the number of races in which he competed. The court recognizes that athletes, even casual ones, train more than they compete. In the early years of their relationship, the plaintiff accompanied the defendant to the races and much of their social life centered on the racing circuit. After Lauren was born, the plaintiff began to spend more time with her and less time traveling to races. More recently, the defendant has been taking Lauren to races with him.
The plaintiff testified she learned the value of the defendant's racing bicycles from her time accompanying him to his races. She claimed the defendant insisted on buying only high-end equipment made of the best materials. According to the plaintiff, some of the defendant's bicycles cost more than $10,000. She estimated his personal bicycles have a value of $24,000.
On his latest financial affidavit, the defendant claims gross and net weekly income from his computer consulting business of $371. Defendant's December 23, 2016 Financial Affidavit (#164). At first blush, the defendant's income tax returns; Plaintiff's Exhibits 37, 38, 39 and 40 ; and Global Computer Consultant's profit and loss statements; Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 41 ; seem to bear out that level of income. The defendant's financial affidavit also shows that he pays weekly expenses of $502 for food, clothing, internet access, child support and other assorted basic necessities. The defendant also lives rent-free in a house owned by his father. Moreover, he is the beneficiary of regular financial gifts from his father, who pays the defendant's mortgage, taxes and some insurance. Each week the defendant's father pays $423 toward the defendant's expenses.
The court finds it difficult to reconcile the defendant's weekly expenses with his claimed income. Further adding to the mystery are the defendant's earlier financial affidavits in which he averred both his gross and net weekly income was $664; Defendant's April 15, 2016 Financial Affidavit (#121); and $1175; Defendant's November 4, 2015 Financial Affidavit (#107.40). Neither the defendant's income tax returns nor Global Computer Consultant's profit and loss statements support such a drastic change in income. None of the evidence adduced at trial explains how the defendant is able to meet his weekly expenses on only $371 a week.
Issues in the Marriage :
The parties had a tumultuous relationship from the outset. Before their marriage, at a time when they were estranged, the defendant wrote the plaintiff a note in which he described her as both loving and caring, and a control monster. The defendant wrote that the plaintiff was " The only person I have ever met with a solid Bold Huge Black Distinct Clear Sharp Precise . . . Black line Right down the middle of you. There is the I love the hell out of you side, caring affectionate, perfect in every way, neat . . . you do so much for everyone else -- ok you may go overboard a little, family oriented, great parents, great mother skills, intelligent . . . supportive supportive supportive. BUT then there is the other side of this clear cut black bold Solid Sharp, Distinct, Precise Huge black line right down the middle of you -- there is a MOTHER F--ING NIGHTMARE. A pure MONSTER. Distinctly hurtful in ever[y] way. Insecure, mistrusting, Do what the F I say when I say it, I MUST KEEP ROBERT IN A BUBBLE AWAY FROM THE WORLD (including some friends and all family) absolute Demon." Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 . (Grammar, syntax, punctuation and profanity in the original). The plaintiff testified the defendant was self-centered and distant while the defendant described the plaintiff as both emotionally remote and controlling. Recognizing the troubles in their relationship, the parties sought counseling before they were married. The therapist understandably advised them not to get married. They ignored the advice.
The precipitating event in the demise of the marriage occurred while the defendant was attending a trade show in Las Vegas. During his stay, the defendant posted an advertisement on Craigslist offering men his services to train their wives in oral sexual techniques. The plaintiff found the advertisement on Lauren's iPad. She immediately took Lauren to stay with the plaintiff's sister in Massachusetts. She also applied for a protective order. The defendant denied Lauren could have seen the Craigslist advertisement accidently. He testified Lauren did not know how to get on the internet and into his Craigslist account but the defendant did.
Craigslist is a classified advertisement website.
The troubles in the marriage were acute even before the plaintiff saw the Craigslist posting. While the defendant was in Las Vegas, the plaintiff contacted Craig Kennedy to enlist his aid in resolving some of the difficulties in her marriage. She complained the defendant was secretive about his business ventures and irresponsible about his household financial responsibilities. From the beginning of their relationship, the parties kept their finances separate, both maintained their own bank accounts and filed separate tax returns. They divided the responsibility for paying household expenses. The plaintiff told Mr. Kennedy that the defendant had depleted her bank account and failed to pay some of the utility bills before he left for Las Vegas, so cable service and garbage collection at the marital home had stopped. Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 .
Parenting Issues :
The guardian ad litem testified that the parties' animosity and disdain for each other flows into, and infects, their parenting decisions. She expressed her belief that the parties' parenting is affected by their animosity toward each other, that neither is sensitive to Lauren's emotional needs, and that neither parent is empathetic to the terrible burden their conflict puts on Lauren. The guardian described an incident in which the plaintiff made Lauren remove a coat and shoes when she returned to the plaintiff's home simply because the defendant had purchased them.
The guardian also related that she listened to a recording the plaintiff made of an argument between the parties. The guardian described the argument as " loud and hideous, " and said the defendant was sarcastic, immature, dismissive and condescending. She also testified the plaintiff's behavior was not any better. The most troubling aspect of the incident was that Lauren was present the whole time.
Lauren has learning disabilities. She is behind her grade level in reading and math. The school system has instituted an Individual Education Plan that provides Lauren with special services. Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 . The guardian testified Lauren will probably need the additional support throughout her school career. Lauren's learning disabilities and the special services she receives require extra involvement by her parents, especially with respect to homework and projects. The plaintiff and the guardian ad litem believe the defendant has not been particularly attentive to Lauren's need for extra help with her school work. The guardian testified that of the two parties, the defendant has a larger learning curve to understand the nuts and bolts of parenting.
The guardian ad litem described the defendant as a " Disney" dad, because he wants to be a " fun" parent. According to the guardian, the defendant also encourages Lauren's independence. The guardian testified the plaintiff is " strict" and " hyper-vigilant, " but provides Lauren more structure and stability in her life than the defendant does. The plaintiff's distrust of the defendant is so strong she persists in her efforts to have the defendant's visits with Lauren supervised, despite the fact Lauren has been living with her father half the time for over six months.
The guardian ad litem offered her opinions that Lauren is well adjusted and does not reflect the stress from her parents' conflict, and that she is safe and well cared for in both parents' homes. The guardian ad litem reported Lauren's therapy with Kristen Larsen-Samalus has helped her learn to deal with her parents' conflict and should continue.
The court notes that on her December 12, 2016 report for her Independent Education Plan, Lauren's progress for every skill was either satisfactory or she mastered the skill despite the acrimony between her parents . Defendant's Exhibit F . There is an indication Lauren will succeed despite her parents, if not because of them.
The parties' references to each other during their testimony confirmed the guardian ad litem's observations and opinions. Although their love of Lauren is unquestionable and strong, the parties fail to perceive how their treatment of each other causes her injury and anguish. The parties have very different parenting styles and are unwilling to recognize that the other's parenting style, while different, is valid. For instance, Lauren's life is more structured when she is with the plaintiff: home cooked meals are served at the same time each day and homework is a high priority. Lauren goes to bed by 8 p.m. every school night when she is with her mother.
The defendant's home is less structured. He tends to eat at restaurants frequently, eats dinner later in the evening, does not make homework a high priority, and sets Lauren's bedtime as 9 p.m. The defendant justified Lauren's later bedtime by pointing out she can sleep later at his house because he does not have to get her to day care before work as does the plaintiff; the defendant takes her directly to school.
Both parents are committed to raising Lauren in the Jewish faith. They each testified they want Lauren to go to Hebrew school and attend temple.
The plaintiff repeatedly expressed her concerns for Lauren's safety when she is in the defendant's care. She testified he takes Lauren to " techno" parties where he performs as a disc jockey and where Lauren is exposed to illegal drugs and kept out late at night. She complained that Lauren has returned from the defendant's care in different clothes than she was wearing when she went to his house and Lauren has come from the defendant's care without underwear. The plaintiff also claimed the defendant bathed with Lauren and let her sleep in his bed. The plaintiff testified about her concerns when Lauren is exposed to the defendant's extended family. She accused his mother of being an untrustworthy drunk and his father of being abusive. She introduced a photograph of the defendant's brother, cousin and two other individuals extending their middle fingers to the camera in a gesture universally viewed to be rude and profane, as proof of their " moral depravity." Plaintiff's Exhibit 22 . The plaintiff also introduced a picture that the defendant sent to Lauren of him in a bar. The text accompanying the picture explained that the defendant had been eating and did not have his phone. Plaintiff's Exhibit 26 .
The plaintiff suggested the defendant is somehow involved with illegal drugs. Such involvement would be incongruous with the defendant's fitness regimen.
The defendant denied sleeping in the same bed as Lauren or bathing with her. He admitted he often stays in Lauren's room until she falls asleep and has used a hot tub with her. He also denied any knowledge of Lauren not wearing underwear, although he averred she occasionally had incontinence problems when she was younger so he had to have her change her underwear. He admitted that he did not necessarily check to ensure Lauren had put on clean underwear. He also acknowledged he had not spent as much time with Lauren on her school work as he should have.
I. Alimony :
General Statutes § 46b-82 regarding alimony mirrors § 46b-81(c) with the exception of the last two provisions. Section 46b-82 directs the court when awarding alimony to consider " the award, if any, which the court may make pursuant to section 46b-81 . . ." The court therefore, will apply the statutory criteria to the facts of this case, recognizing that equal weight need not be given to any one factor. Parley v. Parley, 72 Conn.App. 742, 752, 807 A.2d 982 (2002).
II. Postsecondary Education Expense :
The plaintiff testified that if her family had remained intact, the parties would have assisted Lauren with postsecondary educational support to the extent possible. She asked the court to retain jurisdiction over this issue. The defendant agreed the parties would have supported Lauren's postsecondary education if the family had remained intact but did not think it was necessary for the court to retain jurisdiction over educational support issues.
III. Medical Insurance :
The plaintiff testified she provides health insurance for herself and Lauren through her employer. She also testified the defendant was covered under her insurance plan but believes he is now on the State of Connecticut Husky insurance plan. During the trial, the defendant went to the Simsbury Board of Education offices to have himself removed from the plaintiff's insurance policy. According to the plaintiff, who also was present, the defendant became irate and the police were summoned. The police report of the incident was introduced into evidence but it was heavily redacted, making it almost incomprehensible. The parties agreed no arrests were made.
The plaintiff introduced evidence of five separate police incidents, four of which she initiated. None of the incidents resulted in the defendant's arrest. Plaintiff's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 . The guardian ad litem offered her opinion that the plaintiff is too quick to involve the police.
IV. Real Property :
The parties do not own any real property. Each party lives rent-free in a house owned by a parent.
V. Personal Property :
The plaintiff testified that when the defendant finally left the marital home, he took with him a furnace, snow blower, lawn mower, air conditioner, generator, hedge trimmer and various other items. The defendant claimed the furnace was on loan from his cousin and had to be returned. He also claimed the plaintiff did not know how to use the snow blower but he acknowledged she had a greater area from which to remove snow. The defendant testified he still has personal property at the marital home, particularly in his former home office and the garage.
VI. Bank Accounts :
Both parties listed individual bank accounts on their financial affidavits; neither made reference to any joint accounts.
VII. Retirement Accounts :
The plaintiff listed retirement accounts on her financial affidavit; the defendant did not list any. Neither party testified about any other retirement accounts.
VIII. Liabilities :
The parties amassed substantial debt during their marriage. The defendant owes back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service as a result of his 2009 tax obligation. He did not know how much of the debt is made up of penalties and interest but he asked that the plaintiff be responsible for half.
IX. Attorneys' Fees :
Both parties were represented by counsel. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking to have the defendant pay her attorney's fees (#167).
FINDINGS
The court finds all facts by a preponderance of the evidence presented. The court has listened carefully to the witnesses and assessed their credibility. " It is the sole province of the trial court to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass on the credibility of the witnesses . . . . It has the advantage of viewing and assessing the demeanor, attitude and credibility of the witnesses and is therefore better equipped . . . to assess the circumstances surrounding the dissolution action." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Zahringer v. Zahringer, 124 Conn.App. 672, 679-80, 6 A.3d 141 (2010).
The court has reviewed all exhibits and given them appropriate weight.
The court has applied all applicable law including, but not limited to, that law found in General Statutes § § 46b-56, 46b-62, 46b-81, 46b-82, 46b-84, 46b-86 and 46b-87.
The court unseals all financial affidavits and takes judicial notice of all pleadings in the court's file.
All statutory stays have expired and the court is free to enter a judgment of dissolution.
The allegations of the complaint are proven and true.
The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.
Neither party is more at fault for the failure of their marriage than is the other.
The parties have one minor child issue of the marriage: Lauren Carmen, born April 8, 2008.
Neither the State of Connecticut nor any municipality therein has contributed to the support of either party or the minor child.
The parties were using Our Family Wizard® to communicate and track Lauren's activities but stopped using it due to the cost.
The defendant created a Gmail calendar that allows for the same information to be exchanged as does Our Family Wizard® . The plaintiff was reluctant to use the Gmail calendar for fear the defendant would be able to manipulate the data but has since changed her mind and is now willing to use the Gmail calendar in lieu of Our Family Wizard® .
When the plaintiff dispatched a marshal to serve the complaint on the defendant, he evaded service several times, once identifying himself as his brother, Chris. The marshal's bill for service of process would have been $55 to $60 but was $325 due to the defendant's evasion. The defendant agreed to compensate the plaintiff for the marshal's bill.
It is in Lauren's best interests for the parties to have joint legal custody and shared physical custody.
The plaintiff earns a gross weekly income of $664 and a net weekly income of $487. The plaintiff receives gifts from her father on a regular basis in the form of mortgage payments in the amount of $323. The plaintiff's receipt of regular recurring gifts from her father may be imputed to the plaintiff as gross income pursuant to the child support guidelines. Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-1(A)(11)(xxi).
The guidelines are official regulations established by the commission for child support guidelines pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-215a and approved by the legislative regulation review committee pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-215c. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-1 et seq.
The defendant also receives gifts from his father on a regular basis in the form of mortgage and utility payments in the amount of $423. The defendant's receipt of regular recurring gifts from his father also may be imputed to the defendant as gross income pursuant to the child support guidelines. In addition, the defendant pays weekly expenses in the amount of $502, including $170 for child support, despite the fact he claims his businesses only provide him with net income of $371 per week.
The parties net weekly incomes under the child support guidelines are equivalent.
The defendant charges $75 an hour for his work as a computer consultant.
The plaintiff's and the defendant's financial affidavits do not accurately reflect their gross and net incomes.
The plaintiff has an income stream in excess of that stated on her most recent financial affidavit and, therefore, the court imputes gross weekly income to her of $987 and net weekly income of $826.
In order to reach this imputed income, the court took into account the regular recurring gifts from the plaintiff's father. Lusa v. Grunberg, 101 Conn.App. 739, 755-57, 923 A.2d 795 (2007); Malk v. Malk, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. FA-10-4048644-S (November 4, 2010, Adelman, J.) (50 Conn.L.Rptr. 853, ).
The defendant has an income stream in excess of that stated on his most recent financial affidavit and, therefore, the court imputes gross weekly income to him of $1175 and net weekly income of $816.
In order to reach this imputed income, the court took into account the weekly expenses the defendant pays and the regular recurring gifts from his father. Lusa v. Grunberg, supra, 101 Conn.App. 755-57; Malk v. Malk, supra, Superior Court, FA-10-4048644-S (50 Conn.L.Rptr. 853, ). The court also took into account the defendant's declared income on his earlier financial affidavits.
The child support guidelines based on the plaintiff's and defendant's imputed net incomes and their shared parenting arrangement indicate that the parties' appropriate child support obligation is equivalent.
Because the court calculated the child support on imputed income after the final day of trial, the court afforded the parties the opportunity to be heard on the issue of the calculations. (#168.20) See Ferraro v. Ferraro, 168 Conn.App. 723, 731, 147 A.3d 188 (2016). The court held a hearing on February 21, 2017, at which time the parties asked to submit briefs on the preparation of the child support guidelines worksheet. The court ordered briefs to be submitted by February 28, 2017. Only the plaintiff did so.
If the parties' marriage had remained intact, they would have provided postsecondary educational support for Lauren.
The plaintiff pays for health insurance for herself and Lauren.
The defendant pays for his own health insurance.
Both parties are underemployed based on their education and experience. Both could have greater income by working either more hours or at different jobs. They have chosen their present occupations and levels of income ostensibly to accommodate Lauren's schedule although the court is aware that many, if not most, parents work more hours than either of these parents.
Neither party recognized or admitted the importance of the other parent to Lauren.
Neither parent demonstrated any ability to support Lauren's relationship with the other.
Neither party can separate his or her own needs from Lauren's needs.
The parties are committed to raising Lauren as a Jew.
The clothes Lauren wears are hers, regardless of who purchased them.
All financial orders are based on the parties' net incomes.
ORDERS
In accordance with the findings enumerated above and in consideration of the various statutory criteria the court is required to employ in making its findings and entering its orders, the court hereby orders:
Parenting Plan :
The parents shall continue to share joint legal and physical custody of their minor child, and they shall share information regarding her medical, educational and religious needs with one another freely.
Both parties shall ensure that each of their names and contact information are on all school, medical, dental and therapeutic records.
Neither parent shall enter the name of a third-party as an emergency contact or transporter without written approval of the other parent, which approval may be by email. Such approval of a third-party emergency contact or transporter shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Lauren's present medical and dental providers shall remain, unless the parties agree in writing to change professionals.
The parents shall use the electronic Gmail calendaring system created by the defendant for purposes of maintaining a family calendar and tracking Lauren's activities. Each parent shall update the Gmail calendar weekly, and failure to do so shall be taken into consideration by the court when reviewing any access or custody modification request.
Neither parent shall do anything to harm Lauren's relationship with the other parent and shall make every effort to ensure that Lauren is able to enjoy a loving and positive child/parent experience with the other parent, as well as that parent's extended family.
The parties shall do everything within their control to ensure that all of their extended family members and friends do likewise.
The parties shall not make demeaning or denigrating comments about the other parent or the other parent's extended family to Lauren or within her hearing, and shall do all within their control to ensure that all of their extended family members and friends do likewise.
Each party shall provide the other party with a current address, telephone number, and email address at all times.
Neither party shall take any action, either overtly or covertly, to interfere with the other party's right to receive all information from third-parties regarding Lauren's health, education, religious upbringing, and general welfare.
The parents shall endeavor to reach mutual agreement on all major medical, educational, extracurricular, religious, and social decisions regarding Lauren with the intent to arrive at a harmonious policy calculated to promote her best interest.
Significant, nonroutine decisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following areas:
o selection of schools and educational decisions;
o the residence of the child;
o day care providers, including after school and summer camp programs;
o participation in extracurricular activities that require commitments of time and transportation involving the other parent;
o nonemergency medical, dental, psychological, psychiatric or orthodontic care, including the selection of the care providers;
o participation in religious organizations and activities; and
o trips away from home without a parent that involve a distance of more than 50 miles, leaving the state of Connecticut, or overnight stays.
Day-to-day decisions shall be made by the party parenting Lauren at that time.
Neither parent shall take unilateral action regarding Lauren without first making an effort to consult with the other, unless said decision pertains to day-to-day care or is a bona fide emergency, in which case notice shall be given to the other parent as soon as is possible.
The goal of this custodial arrangement shall be child-focused, which requires each parent's consistent vigilance and cooperation toward the common goal of ensuring that Lauren has a stable and supportive environment during her childhood and into her young adult years.
Neither parent shall do anything that may estrange Lauren from the other parent, injure her opinion of the other parent, or hamper the free and natural development of her love and respect for the other parent. Such prohibited actions include but are not limited to:
a. Failure to adhere to agreed upon schedule changes;
b. Continual interference with Lauren's telephone contact with the other parent;
c. Unexpectedly and inappropriately showing up during the other parent's access time;
d. Coaching the child, or interrogating her as to activities in the other parent's home or with the other parent's extended family;
e. Negative and derogatory comments made to or about the other parent or the other parent's extended family, reasonably within Lauren's hearing; and
f. Scheduling of appointments or enrolling Lauren in activities with no notice to the other parent.
The parents shall utilize the services of Mr. Steven Polesel, LCSW, for co-parenting communication as follows:
a. Upon receipt of the Court's decision, the parties shall review the final parenting plan and its terms with Mr. Polesel, to ensure that they understand it;
b. Beginning in March 2017, they shall meet at least quarterly with Mr. Polesel, or more frequently as he deems appropriate, to review the parenting plan and the parental communication; the next appointment shall be made at the close of each session and entered on the Gmail calendar;
c. Such other times that a parent feels a session is necessary to resolve a parenting issue and, if a parent so requests that session, the other parent shall not unreasonably refuse to attend; and
d. The parties shall permit Mr. Polesel to access their Gmail calendar so that, if they need his advice from time to time, he has access to their activities.
Child Support :
Neither party shall pay child support to the other.
Each parent shall pay 50 percent of the cost of mutually agreed upon school activities, lessons, field trips, sports, and extracurricular activities.
The plaintiff shall continue to maintain health insurance for herself and Lauren through her employer. The defendant shall be responsible for his own health insurance.
If the plaintiff no longer has such insurance, the defendant shall provide medical and dental insurance for Lauren as such insurance is available to him through employment at a reasonable cost, so long as Lauren is a minor.
If neither parent has such insurance through employment, they shall agree on insurance coverage that is affordable and share the expense or, if so qualified, shall enroll Lauren in the State of Connecticut Husky insurance plan or any successor thereto.
Each parent shall pay 50 percent of all uninsured or unreimbursed medical expenses for Lauren, including but not limited to any pharmaceutical, psychiatric, psychological, optical and dental/orthodontic expenses, whether such expense is medically necessary or cosmetic in nature. Said percentage division between the parties is in accordance with the State of Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.
The phrase " medical and dental expenses" shall be interpreted broadly by the parties so as to include, rather than exclude, such treatment for Lauren.
Requests for reimbursement shall be made timely and shall include sufficient documentation so as to allow the other party to know the provider of said service, the nature, date, and cost of the service, and what insurance coverage has been or will be received and applied to the bill.
Any request for additional information must be made within seven days of the receipt of the request for reimbursement.
The time limits for reimbursement detailed below shall begin once the additional information has been supplied or the parties agree that the request is sufficient.
Reimbursement shall be made within thirty days of the receipt of the request if the amount is under $100, and sixty days if over that sum.
The health insurance coverage contemplated by this judgment shall remain in place for Lauren until she reaches the age of majority, or until she attains the age of twenty-three if she is attending college on a full-time basis and the medical plan allows for continued coverage beyond the age of majority.
The provisions of General Statutes § 46b-84(e) are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Routine Access :
During the school year, the parties shall continue to share the parenting of Lauren in accordance with the existing schedule: the defendant shall care for her Monday after school through Wednesday return to school and every other weekend from Friday after school until Monday return to school; the plaintiff shall care for her Wednesday after school through Friday return to school and every other weekend from Friday after school until Monday return to school.
In the event of snow days, school cancellation, or Lauren's illness, the parent having care of Lauren the night before shall care for her the following day until the appropriate transition time to the other parent.
Each parent shall be responsible for reviewing Lauren's homework and signing her reading and homework logs, including summer reading logs, when she is in that parent's care. Each parent shall be responsible for ensuring that Lauren is on time to school, camp or other activities, and that she is picked up on time from school, camp or other activities. A parent's failure to meet these requirements shall be reviewed with Mr. Polesel prior to any motion being filed with the court.
During the summer, the parents shall shift to a week on -- week off schedule. It shall begin the first full week after the last day of school and the parent having that first weekend shall have the first full week, and the schedule shall alternate weekly thereafter with Lauren going to the other parent on Friday at 5 p.m. The schedule shall end with the final full week before the first day of school, and the normal parenting rotation set out above shall resume at the close of that final weekend. Alternatively, the parents may continue to use the week on -- week off schedule rather than return to the parenting rotation set forth above if they agree to do so in writing.
During the summer schedule, the parent who does not have care of Lauren shall be entitled to access with Lauren from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesday or Wednesday, which date shall be placed on the Gmail calendar by Sunday of the weekend prior. Such scheduling shall not intentionally interfere with another scheduled event, as long as that event or activity is properly placed on the Gmail calendar. Unless that week is the other parent's properly scheduled summer vacation, as set out below, that access period shall not be denied by the custodial parent.
Lauren shall be entitled to telephone access with her parents at any time she chooses. She shall have appropriate access to her cell phone, and neither parent shall place telephone calls to the other parent using her phone with the goal of having to get that parent to respond to his or her phone calls.
Lauren's cell phone shall be shut off or put on silent mode at bed time each night. Extended family members shall be notified she may not receive telephone calls or text messages after 8 p.m.
Each parent shall be entitled to call Lauren on Sunday nights between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on her phone, and she shall be available during that hour to receive the telephone call. The call need not terminate at 7 p.m. but must be placed by that time. The parent who has care of Lauren on Sunday shall have an affirmative obligation to ensure that Lauren has her phone, that it is turned on and that she has a quiet and private space to speak with the other parent. Lauren shall determine the length of her Sunday telephone call.
Any time a parent wishes to take Lauren out of state overnight, that event, including relevant details, shall be included on the Gmail calendar, and a consistent failure to do so shall be taken into consideration by the court when reviewing any access or custody modification request.
Relevant details include an itinerary for such travel, including, but not limited to, means of travel (including airline name and flight numbers, name of the travel company, and dates and times of travel), address of accommodations, and telephone number.
Said itinerary shall be provided to the other parent at least one week in advance of the planned travel.
The January 27, 2016 order permitting a " first right of refusal" if one parent is unable to care for Lauren for six or more hours is rescinded.
Vacation Access :
Each parent is entitled to a maximum of two weeks of summer vacation each year, and that vacation shall be scheduled for his or her summer custodial weeks only.
The parties shall exchange vacation schedules no later than May 15 of each year.
In the event that there is a conflict of schedules that the parties cannot resolve through discussion, the plaintiff's schedule shall prevail in all odd years and the defendant's schedule shall prevail in all even years.
The planned vacations shall take into consideration Lauren's planned activities that have been previously approved by the parties.
No additional vacation time shall be taken by either party without written agreement of the other parent, but such agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The parents shall enter their summer vacation schedule into the Gmail calendar no less than thirty days prior to the anticipated vacation and necessary details shall be provided in the notification.
During a parent's properly scheduled vacation time, the mid-week visit for the other parent shall be suspended and there will be no make-up time; however, the noncustodial parent may have telephone access with Lauren during the normal mid-week time between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., as well as the normal Sunday telephone access.
The parents shall share the April and December school breaks as follows: The parent receiving Lauren on the Friday at the start of the break shall have the care of her through Wednesday at 5 p.m., and the other parent shall then assume the care of her through Monday return to school, at which time the normal parenting rotation shall resume. For the December break, which is occasionally longer than one week, the normal parenting rotation shall stay in place for those days outside of the one week period as described above.
When the child is in school, neither party shall remove her from school without the written approval of the other party.
Holidays :
A disproportionate share of Monday holidays falls on the defendant's time due to the regular access schedule; therefore, the parties shall equally share those Monday holidays by alternating them. When the plaintiff's Monday holiday is scheduled, Lauren shall be returned to her at 5 p.m. on Sunday. The parties shall immediately enter the schedule of holidays on the Gmail calendar so that there is no misunderstanding going forward, and any disagreement shall be reviewed with Mr. Polesel at the initial meeting following the issuing of this judgment.
The parties shall alternate the Jewish holidays that they have traditionally celebrated as an intact family, with the intent that neither parent celebrates with Lauren two consecutive holidays and neither parent celebrates with Lauren the same holiday in two consecutive years absent written agreement of the other parent, which may be by email. For those holidays that are several days long, the parties shall ensure that Lauren has access to each of them during that holiday period. Holiday time shall supersede regular parenting time, and there shall be no required make-up time.
The parents shall alternate the Thanksgiving holiday, with mother having the holiday in odd years and father having the holiday in even years. The celebrating parent can choose either Wednesday noon through Thursday at 8 p.m. or Thursday at 9 a.m. through Friday noon as his or her holiday time. This choice shall be placed on the Gmail calendar no less than thirty days before the holiday, to allow the other parent to arrange his or her holiday celebration. This holiday time shall supersede the regular parenting time, and there shall be no required makeup time.
Lauren shall spend Christmas Eve with the defendant, not for any religious purpose, but so she can participate in the defendant's annual family gathering.
Father's Day shall always be with the defendant, and Mother's Day shall always be with the plaintiff. Should that holiday fall on the other's weekend, Lauren shall transition to the celebrating parent by 9 a.m. on Sunday and shall stay with that parent until return to school Monday. There shall be no make-up time required.
Lauren's birthday shall be celebrated with the parent who then has the care of her, and the other parent shall celebrate with her on his or her regularly scheduled weekend. The parent not taking care of Lauren shall be allowed to call Lauren between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. that night.
Each parent shall be permitted to celebrate his or her birthday with Lauren and, should that date fall on the other parent's time, then the celebrating parent shall pick her up at 5 p.m. from the other parent and return her to school the next day, or if there is no school, to the other parent by 9 a.m. if it is still his or her regularly scheduled time.
Halloween shall be alternated yearly with the plaintiff having Lauren in odd years from after school to return to school the next day, and the defendant having her for the same period in even years.
Easter weekend shall be from after school on the Thursday before the holiday, or Thursday at 4 p.m. if Lauren is not in school, to return to school on Monday, or Monday at 9 a.m. if Lauren is not in school, and shall be with the plaintiff in odd years and the defendant in even years.
Memorial Day weekend shall be from after school on Friday, or Friday at 4 p.m. if Lauren is not in school, until return to school on Tuesday, or Tuesday at 9 a.m. if Lauren is not in school, and shall be with the defendant in odd years and with the plaintiff in even years.
Fourth of July shall be from 9 a.m. on July 4 until 9 a.m. on July 5 and shall be with the plaintiff in odd years and with the defendant in even years.
Labor Day weekend shall be from 9 a.m. on the Friday before the holiday until return to school on Tuesday, or Tuesday at 9 a.m. if Lauren is not in school, and shall be with the defendant in odd years and with the plaintiff in even years.
The vacation schedule shall supercede the weekly schedule and the holiday schedule shall supercede both schedules.
The parties may alter this schedule by written agreement.
Other Parenting Orders :
Lauren shall continue her counseling with Kristen Larsen-Samalus every other week through 2017, and thereafter as Ms. Larsen-Samalus directs. The parties shall alternate taking Lauren to her therapy and each shall participate only to the extent Ms. Larsen-Samalus directs.
The parties shall execute releases as provided by Mr. Polesel and Ms. Larsen-Samalus so that those professionals may speak to each other as may be necessary.
Both parents shall set and maintain the highest possible parental controls on their home and business computers, iPads, iPhones and other electronic devices. In addition, each parent shall ensure that all of Lauren's electronic devices have the highest possible parental controls in place. Each parent shall have an affirmative obligation to ensure that Lauren does not have access to any adult or personal information of either parent, and shall ensure that her access to any electronic device is supervised in an age appropriate fashion.
Neither party will decide what clothes Lauren will wear based on who purchased the clothes. The parties shall continue to guide Lauren's selection of clothing with respect to style and taste.
The defendant has an affirmative obligation to ensure that Lauren has no access, either directly or indirectly, with his paternal uncle.
The parents shall accommodate reasonable requests for family celebrations occurring on the other's time, for example, attendance at a family or close friend's Bar Mitzvah. Any request for such accommodation shall be made no less than thirty days in advance of the celebration and shall include date, time, and location of the celebration as well as two proposed make-up dates for the accommodating parent. Any such request for accommodation shall not be unreasonably denied, unless the care-taking parent has vacation, holiday, or family celebration events already scheduled on the Gmail calendar for that time.
The parents shall also accommodate reasonable and age appropriate requests for access to Lauren on the other parent's time in the event of a grandparent's serious illness or the death of a family member. A disagreement about an age appropriate request (for example, a visit to the hospital or attendance at a funeral) shall be discussed between the parties and Mr. Polesel via a conference call, which the parties shall expedite.
All requests for reimbursement of unreimbursed and uninsured medical expenses, work-related child care expenses and agreed upon extracurricular expenses pursuant to this court's order shall be entered in the Gmail calendar by the end of each month. These transactions shall be separate from any support order which may be ordered by the court and there shall be no deductions made from support to reflect reimbursement of the above expenses. Failure to enter a reimbursement request within six months shall be deemed a waiver of the reimbursement request.
Summer camp shall be considered work-related child care and the parents shall divide the cost of the agreed upon camp pursuant to the child support guidelines calculation. Neither parent shall deny an agreement to summer camp solely on the grounds that the parent can assume care-taking of Lauren for that week.
Each party shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that any notices, reports, and/or schedules regarding Lauren received by that party are shared with the other party.
The parent with primary access at the time shall notify the other parent of any serious illness or accident involving Lauren as soon as is practical.
All medical and dental appointments shall be made so as to allow both parties to attend, if possible.
Each parent has an affirmative duty to notify the other parent of any medications Lauren has been prescribed as well as the appropriate dosage.
Each party shall have the right to attend all public functions involving Lauren including, but not limited to, sporting events, school productions, graduations and the like, whether such events take place during his or her scheduled parenting time.
The court shall retain jurisdiction regarding postmajority educational support orders for Lauren pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-56c.
The guardian ad litem's appointment is terminated, except that she shall be permitted to return to court to seek enforcement of any order of fees.
The guardian ad litem shall submit an affidavit of fees within thirty days of this judgment, and the court may enter an order upon her reasonable request for reimbursement.
The parties shall complete the parenting education classes within ninety days of this judgment if they have not already done so.
Alimony :
Neither party shall pay alimony to the other. In reaching this decision regarding alimony, the court has taken into account all the factors enumerated in General Statutes § 46b-82.
General Orders :
The parties maintain separate bank accounts and shall continue to do so.
The plaintiff shall maintain her retirement accounts and the defendant shall have no claim to them.
The parties shall make no claim on each other's social security benefits.
The defendant shall own the following free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff, shall
be solely liable for any costs associated with said ownership, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the plaintiff from any liability thereon:
o His interest in Fat Ass Bikes; and
o His interest in Naturally Fast, LLC.
The plaintiff shall be solely liable for all debts and liabilities as listed on her financial affidavit or in her sole name.
The defendant shall be solely liable for all debts and liabilities as listed on his financial affidavit or in his sole name, including but not limited to any liability arising from his 2009 tax obligation.
Each party shall secure and maintain a term life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000, naming a trust for Lauren as the beneficiary. The policies shall remain in place until Lauren turns twenty-three years of age. Each party shall provide proof of coverage to the other annually as requested.
The parties shall divide their remaining personal property. The defendant shall have reasonable access to his former home office, garage and other areas of the marital home to retrieve his personal possessions within thirty days of this judgment. The defendant shall return the snow blower, lawn mower, and air conditioner to the plaintiff in good working order within thirty days of this judgment.
The parties will exchange any pictures they have of Lauren within sixty days of this judgment. The pictures are to be exchanged electronically, if possible.
The defendant is to reimburse the plaintiff $325 for the marshal's fee within sixty days of this judgment.
The parties shall each file the appropriate IRS tax forms to allow the other party to claim Lauren as a dependant.
The plaintiff shall claim Lauren as a tax exemption in even years beginning with 2016.
The defendant shall claim Lauren as a tax exemption in odd years.
The parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees. The plaintiff's Re-Revised Motion re: Counsel Fees (#167) is denied.
Judgment
The court orders the marriage dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and declares the parties single and unmarried. The foregoing findings are incorporated into the Judgment.