Opinion
FA064027147S
01-06-2017
Stephanie Szymonik v. Peter Szymonik
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION, P.J. (#419)
José A. Suarez, J.
This high conflict matter began on December 12, 2006, when the plaintiff, Stephanie Szymonik, (n.k.a. Sans), filed a dissolution action against the defendant, Peter Szymonik. The parties have two sons. The oldest, who is now 15, was born on July 25, 2001; the youngest, who is now 12, was born on August 26, 2004. On April 30, 2008, a judgment of dissolution entered. Since April 30, 2008, the plaintiff has filed four (4) postjudgment motions for modification of custody; the defendant has filed nine (9) postjudgment motions for modification of custody; and the parties have each filed seven (7) postjudgment motions for contempt.
After a careful review of all the evidence and testimony presented, the court makes the following findings of fact.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Before the court is the plaintiff's fourth motion for modification postjudgment (#419) filed on October 5, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that there has been a material change in circumstances since the last court order and is seeking a modification of child support and medical insurance orders for the minor children. She also seeks sole custody of the parties' oldest son, final decision making authority for the youngest child, and suspension of the defendant's access to the minor children.
In addition, the plaintiff is seeking to modify court orders so that the defendant must cease publishing on the internet, through email and other communication defamatory statements about the plaintiff, her counsel and various professionals who have provided and continue to provide services for the minor children. The plaintiff also seeks to modify court orders so that the defendant stays away from her home, and does not confront the children at her home and school.
This matter was originally scheduled for a three-day trial commencing on February 8, 2016. At the start of evidence, the defendant moved this court for review of attorney conduct. The court denied the defendant's request and the hearing on plaintiff's motion for modification commenced. The hearing did not close and it was scheduled to continue on March 21, and 22, 2016, however, the plaintiff requested a continuance and the court granted it to May 3, and 4, 2016. On May 3, 2016, the defendant once again requested the court to act on his motion for review of attorney conduct. Again, the court denied his request. The hearing on the plaintiff's motion for modification proceeded, but did not finish. The court scheduled it for July 14 and 15, 2016. On July 14, 2016, the defendant requested for a third time to have a hearing on his motion for review of attorney conduct. The court canvassed the defendant and clearly advised him that to schedule a hearing on his motion for review of attorney conduct would delay the pending motion for modification of custody well into the fall. The defendant insisted on having a hearing on his motion for review of attorney conduct. The court granted the defendant's request and suspended evidence on the motion for modification until a resolution of the defendant's motion for review of attorney conduct. The defendant's motion for review of attorney conduct was heard by the court, Nastri, J., on September 22, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the court, Nastri, J., issued a memorandum of decision denying the defendant's motion [63 Conn.L.Rptr. 148, ]. This court rescheduled the pending motion for modification of custody for November 15 and 16, 2016. The defendant requested another continuance of the hearing citing work and personal commitments. The court granted the continuance to the week of December 5, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the defendant filed two separate motions for continuance on the motion for modification citing work and personal commitments. The court denied the requests. On December 5, 2016, the court ordered the hearing on the motion for modification of custody to be heard continuously until evidence concluded. Evidence concluded on December 9, 2016.
On February 1, 2016, the defendant filed a request for leave to file a motion for review of attorney conduct. Because of the interminable number of motions filed, the court, Carbonneau, J., issued an order on August 20, 2012 stating that " neither party shall file any motions with the Court without the prior express written approval of the Presiding Judge."
ANALYSIS
Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56 provides the court with broad authority to make or modify any proper order regarding the custody, care, education, visitation and support of minor children in dissolution actions. Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn.App. 510, 515, 25 A.3d 680 (2011). However, " [o]ur Supreme Court has limited the trial court's broad discretion to modify custody, requiring that a modification order be based on either a material change of circumstances which alters the court's finding of the best interests of the child . . . or a finding that the custody order sought to be modified was not based upon the best interest of the child." (Emphasis in original.) Malave v. Ortiz, 114 Conn.App. 414, 416, 970 A.2d 743 (2009). The material change of circumstances must be found from the last court order.
FACTS
The last order for custody and visitation was issued on October 11, 2013. Szymonik v. Szymonik, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. FA 06-4027147, (October 11, 2013, Carbonneau, J.). The order was issued after a contested hearing on defendant's motion for modification (#290) filed on June 18, 2012. At the time, " the defendant 'alleged that the plaintiff was emotionally unstable and irrational; ' that she was unable to effectively parent the children; that their younger child, . . . was beyond her control and that she blocked defendant's efforts to provide educational services for their older child who had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome." at *1-2. The defendant was seeking an order of sole custody.
The defendant appealed the October 11, 2013, court order. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's custody and visitation orders, however, it reversed and remanded for further proceedings the child support orders. Szymonik v. Szymonik, 167 Conn.App. 641, 144 A.3d 457 (2016).
In its October 11, 2013 memorandum of decision, the court found a pattern of engagement with these two parties. " No issue, no grievance asserted by one is too small to be controverted by the other." Szymonik, supra, at *11. The court further found that defendant either " sorely lacks insight into his own behavior with an effect on plaintiff, or, after years of observing and learning plaintiff's weaknesses, failings and foibles, he has formulated a Machiavellian plan to overwhelm and overcome her." Id. The court cited as an example the parties' inability to agree on where the April 24, 2013 exchange for Mother's Day was to take place. " Some sixty (60) emails later spanning a period of over two weeks and involving plaintiff, her attorney and the GAL, the parties could not, literally, agree on middle ground." at *11. The court further found that the " parties argue over parent-teacher conferences . . .; where their child ought to sit in his classroom; if the child would most benefit from a summer school program emphasizing education or socialization, . . . and whether or not he should be screened for dyslexia." Id.
The court struggled with the question of joint vs. sole custody and it concluded that an award of sole custody would give one party too much control and authority over the other. The court did not believe that " either parent will genuinely and sincerely support the other's relationship with the children . . ." at *16. The court concluded that " [a] strict and detailed parenting plan must be imposed on these parties because of their toxic, irreparable relationship. They cannot be trusted to timely agree on the simplest of decisions in the best interest of their sons. Because of this, in effect, they have abdicated their parental responsibility and ceded it to the family court. Having the court make family decisions is cumbersome, ineffective, costly, and time-consuming, but these parents have left the court with no other reasonable choice." Id.
The court ordered the parties to have joint custody. The defendant was ordered parenting time from Monday after school until Wednesday after school and alternating weekends from Friday after school until Monday after school. The plaintiff was ordered parenting time from Wednesday after school until Friday after school and alternating weekends from Friday after school until Monday after school. The transitions were to take place at school in that the party whose parental responsibility time is beginning picks up the children when the school day is over. The court's orders included a very detailed holiday schedule as well as vacation schedules.
In addition to the custody and visitation orders, the court also issued very detailed orders for therapy. The plaintiff was ordered to engage in " individual therapy to address issues of appropriate discipline and parenting skills, development of skills to remove the minor children from the parental conflict, anger and stress management, boundary issues, communication skills and post dissolution issues." at *31. The defendant was ordered to engage in " individual therapy to address issues of appropriate discipline and parenting skills, development of skills to remove the minor children from the parental conflict, anger and stress management, boundary issues, communication skills and post dissolution issues." Id. The children were ordered to continue in therapy with Dr. Michael Pines. Specifically, the court ordered that " [n]either parent shall interfere with the children's therapy and appointment schedule. The frequency, duration of and participation in the therapy shall be determined solely by Dr. Michael Pines. Neither parent shall change the minor children's therapist without prior written consent of the other parent on OFW or prior court order." Id.
" OFW" Our Family Wizard is a computer program used in high-conflict cases wherein the communication of the parties can be monitored electronically by professionals. It is a paid service that provides for one party to sign-in and post a message and the other party to sign-in to read and respond to the message.
The court further ordered the following detailed conflict management procedure. Either party may contact the other party using OFW with a proposal related to the children's education or extracurricular activities. If the other party agrees with the proposal, they were to indicate so in writing and the proposal was accepted. If the other party did not agree to the proposal, the proposing parent would contact Dr. Bruce Freedman via email to alert him of the disagreement. The parents then were to provide all information Dr. Freedman required to resolve the dispute. Dr. Freedman would post a written recommendation to the parents on OFW. The parent whose position was supported by Dr. Freedman could proceed to implement the proposal. The parent not supported by Dr. Freedman's recommendation could choose to seek relief from the court. The court further ordered a similar procedure to address the children's medical and mental health needs.
Neither party has complied with the October 11, 2013 court orders. The plaintiff did not engage in individual therapy as ordered by the court. The defendant has not engaged in individual therapy as ordered by the court either as he does not believe he needs therapy. He finds it " offensive." He believes that the best therapy for his " family and sons is to get all of these 'experts' out of our lives." Exhibit B. The defendant finds it more beneficial to participate in a Family Court Reform Group than any therapy. However, he is unable to identify a single member of that group as being a licensed therapist that can provide the therapy identified in the October 11, 2013 court order.
The plaintiff claims that she is now in individual therapy with Community Health Resources, (CHR). However, the CHR therapy for the plaintiff only began in November 2016. She is now participating in the Functional Family Therapy through CHR.
At the time of the October 11, 2013 court orders, the children were in individual therapy with Dr. Michael Pines. The children last saw Dr. Pines in October 2014. The plaintiff wanted a more specific therapist for the children. She was seeking a therapist qualified in clinical adolescent psychology. The defendant also wanted to replace Dr. Pines because he thought Dr. Pines was not providing proper services; that he was corrupt; that his fees were too high and that his services were not covered by medical insurance. Dr. Pines is not willing to work with this family anymore because of the high-conflict nature of this case.
The plaintiff claims that she has been looking for a new therapist to replace Dr. Pines since his services ended. The defendant denies that the plaintiff has made an effort to find a suitable replacement for Dr. Pines. The defendant claims that the plaintiff is only looking for a therapist that is going to support her position with respect to the educational support the children need. The defendant has attempted to discuss the children's therapy with the plaintiff through OFW. However, the plaintiff stopped using OFW in May 2014.
Neither party has engaged the services of Dr. Freedman to resolve the conflict over the children's therapy or educational needs as ordered by the court on October 11, 2013. The plaintiff claims that Dr. Freedman will not work with the parties because of derogatory comments the defendant has made about him. The defendant disputes that and claims that he has a good relationship with Dr. Freedman. However, he has targeted Dr. Freedman as corrupt and claims that Dr. Freedman has a " master plan" to enrich himself on the backs of his patients, regardless of the best interest of the patients. Neither party has petitioned the court for a substitute therapist or a substitute mediator as ordered by the court on October 11, 2013.
The parties' current conflict arises from two separate educational issues. First, the oldest child has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and general anxiety disorder. He does not have a high tolerance for uncomfortable situations. He manifests his anxieties by shutting down and expresses himself with loud sounds and not words. He has difficulties expressing his emotions. He attends the Glastonbury Public Schools and is in a diagnostic placement. He has been a special education student since elementary school.
The plaintiff is a special education teacher. She believes that the Glastonbury school system has not provided the necessary services the oldest child needs. She has complained in the past that the school personnel are abusive to the oldest child and she is seeking out-of-district placement for him. She has not, however, raised those complaints with the defendant through OFW nor has she addressed them with Dr. Freedman as ordered by the court on October 11, 2013.
The defendant disagrees with the plaintiff's concerns over the professionals at the Glastonbury school system and the services provided by them. The defendant acknowledges that the oldest son is autistic and he claims to be an expert in autism. The defendant asserts that the oldest child does not need therapy or further testing. He does recognize, however, that the oldest child needs help with math and science. The defendant maintains that the Glastonbury school system is capable of providing proper services for the oldest child. He claims that he has done nothing to thwart the special education needs of the oldest child and accuses the plaintiff of therapy shopping in order to get the diagnosis she thinks is necessary to further her educational agenda. The defendant adamantly opposes out-of-district placement for the oldest child.
On September 23, 2015, the plaintiff, without notifying the defendant through OFW and without engaging Dr. Freedman as per the October 11, 2013 court order, filed a Due Process Complaint with the Connecticut State Department of Education--Bureau of Special Education. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Glastonbury school system had failed to make reasonable accommodations and provide reasonable services to the parties' oldest son. She sought out-of-district placement. The defendant received notice of the Due Process hearing through the school. The defendant immediately filed an objection to the plaintiff's standing to file for Due Process hearing and to prevent the plaintiff's attorney from participating in the hearing. On October 13, 2015, the Due Process hearing officer, Attorney Sylvia Ho, overruled the defendant's objection and found that the plaintiff had standing to file the action. The hearing officer also found that the defendant was not a party to the action, nevertheless, allowed the defendant to intervene in the action. On November 12, 2015, the hearing officer recused herself from the Due Process hearing because the defendant made a number of allegations against her to the Department of Education and the Commissioner of Education after the defendant received the adverse ruling. The hearing officer found that " the personal attack on the Hearing Officer and interference compromises the integrity of the Due Process Hearing and the impartial role of the Hearing Officer." Exhibit 4. A different hearing officer was assigned to the Due Process hearing and on September 6, 2016, a final decision was issued denying the plaintiff's request. An appeal of that decision is pending before the United States District Court, District of Connecticut.
The second issue is that the children do not want to see the defendant so they do not go to school when it is the defendant's parenting time. They go to school on the plaintiff's parenting time.
The oldest son began exhibiting signs of behavioral difficulties during the fall of 2014. The plaintiff claims that the problem started when the defendant and his then fiancé e were in the process of ending their relationship.
In the October 11, 2013 memorandum of the decision, the court found that the defendant had some parenting advantages over the plaintiff because of his fiancé e. The court found that: " the couple began living together in 2009, and they plan to marry." Szymonik, supra, . The court found that: " [s]he provides trusted and caring parental backup for the Szymonik boys. She displayed genuine insight into the children's stuck-in-the-middle situation and sincere concern for their well-being." Id. The court hoped that: " both plaintiff and defendant follow her reasonable, conciliatory example when the best interests of the boys are at stake." at *14.
Contrary to the October 11, 2013 court finding, on February 3, 2015, the defendant determined that his ex-fiancé e is not an appropriate caregiver for his children. Exhibit 15.
The defendant and his fiancé e's relationship ended in May 2014; however, she and the defendant remained living in her home, which she purchased and owned solely without any contribution from the defendant. In September 2014, there was an incident of domestic violence where the defendant got angry with the fiancé e, yelled and screamed at her, pushed her through a door into the bedroom, pushed her on a bed and continued to scream at her. After the incident, the fiancé e left the house and stayed at her niece's house for a few days. The defendant accused her of abandoning her own home and told her she had to leave. Approximately one week after the incident, the defendant moved his new girlfriend, now wife, into the fiancé e's home and forced the fiancé e to stay in one room in the house. The new girlfriend was there every day. The defendant installed surveillance cameras inside the fiancé e's home to monitor her movements. In September 2014, the fiancé e filed a notice to quit and initiated an eviction action against the defendant. The defendant and his new girlfriend moved out in December 2014 to a home of their own.
According to the plaintiff, the oldest child developed anxiety over the tension and animosity surrounding the defendant's breakup with his ex-fiancé e and the transition into the defendant's new home. The oldest child was not comfortable with the defendant's new girlfriend because the oldest child felt he was betraying the ex-fiancé e.
The oldest child started resisting going to school during the days he had to transition to his father's home. On February 15, 2015, the plaintiff called the Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services, (EMPS), an emergency response team, seeking help because the oldest child refused to go to the defendant's home and had threatened to run away and kill himself. The oldest child reported to the EMPS that he was very fearful of his father; that his father was very angry; and that he felt comfortable in his mother's home. He refused to return home with the defendant. During the EMPS evaluation, the defendant called demanding to speak with the clinician performing the evaluation. " He called repeatedly non-stop approximately 10 times in a row." Exhibit M1, at 9. " This escalated [the oldest child's] behavior and he became increasingly anxious, pacing back and forth demand [sic] that mom call the police as he stated that he was afraid that Dad was going to break into the home and take him away." Id. On February 24, 2015, the plaintiff called EMPS again because the oldest child refused to transition to the defendant's home. The oldest child took a sharp object and threatened to stab himself. The plaintiff transported the child to the hospital and the oldest child was hospitalized until April 24, 2015.
On June 25, 2015, the oldest child stopped seeing the defendant altogether and refuses to go to school on his parenting time. The oldest child missed a total of eighty-two (82) school days from August 28, 2015 through May 2, 2016. He missed thirty-two (32) school days from September 2, 2016 through December 5, 2016.
On August 28, 2015, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), made a referral to Community Health Resources, (CHR), for the oldest child to engage in therapy. The reasons for the referral were that the oldest child exhibited " disruptive and suicidal behaviors due to increased fear of father and post-marital relationship between parents." Id., at 9/2/2015 entry, page 1 of 2. At the time, the following goals were identified for the oldest child: for him to understand the consequences of suicidal ideations and try to express himself differently when feeling anxious, afraid or upset; to get involved in outpatient services to help with coping skills; and to work on emotions and expressing feelings of anxiety and fear of the defendant. In October 2015, the CHR services ended because the defendant demanded in a letter dated October 5, 2015, that CHR not provide additional services to his son without his knowledge or approval and after he met with the therapist so that he could provide a complete set of case and family history. In December 2015, DCF closed its case.
In January 2016, the oldest child started attending the LINKS Academy. LINKS is a program in the Glastonbury school system that is designed to accommodate students who are struggling in mainstream classes. It is a more structured environment where students can focus on the issues that impact their education. The goal for the oldest child was to focus on social skills and address emotional issues related to his anxiety in school. The oldest child adjusted well to the LINKS program; however, he was discharged from it because of excessive absenteeism. He returned to mainstream classes where he is not doing well. Because of the truancy issues, he repeated the school year.
The youngest child was also giving the parties a hard time over attending school. When the plaintiff demanded the youngest child attend school, he would get physical with her. He would kick, scratch and punch her. On February 4, 2016, there was an incident where the youngest child physically assaulted the plaintiff and the police were called. The youngest child got arrested.
The defendant was more successful at getting the youngest child to school because the defendant was more physical with the child. When the youngest child refused to get out of bed to go to school, the defendant would physically pick the youngest child up and put his feet on the floor. On March 3, 2016, the youngest child was at the defendant's home and was refusing to go to school. He was at the top of the stairs and refused to come down. The defendant " bear hugged" the youngest child from behind and physically walked him down the stairs. As they were walking down the last few steps, they tripped and the child fell down. The youngest child then got into the car and when they arrived at the school, the youngest child was in a fetal position and refused to get out of the car. The youngest child stopped seeing the defendant after the March 3, 2016 incident. He missed a total of fifty-one (51) school days from September 3, 2015 through May 2, 2016. He missed thirty-one (31) school days from September 2, 2016 through December 5, 2016.
In March 2016, DCF once again referred the youngest child to the Multi-Dimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) team of CHR. The services for the youngest child began on April 20, 2016. The MDFT team also referred the oldest child to the program and services began for him on May 24, 2016. Two MDFT counselors, Ms. Jordan-Stewart and Ms. Robinson, provided in-home services to both children, two to three days per week for approximately three hours each day. The goals identified for the oldest child were: communication skills; coping skills; and to explore the reasons why the oldest child was not in school. The goals identified for the youngest child were: to increase school attendance; reduce physically aggressive behaviors; develop appropriate coping skills; and to use words to express thoughts, emotions, and feelings.
Both children did well in the program and achieved their goals. However, they still refuse to attend school on the defendant's parenting time. The CHR therapists encourage the children to see the defendant in the community. However, the boys continue to resist seeing the defendant. They are not willing to see their father in any setting. According to the MDFT therapists, the reasons for the children not wanting to see the defendant are based on past negative emotional experiences with him. The oldest child has verbalized a fear of the defendant. According to the CHR therapists, that trauma needs to be addressed before the oldest child starts to see the defendant again. The youngest child refuses outright to see the defendant and does not plan on abiding by the visitation schedule. The MDFT therapy is only a six-month-long program and the children were discharged in October 2016.
After the six-month time commitment, the MDFT team referred the family to the Functional Family Therapy (FFT) team within CHR. The FFT team started working with the children and the plaintiff in November 2016. The goal is to continue with the services the MDFT provided and to encourage the children to see the defendant and to attend school. The children have begun to build a therapeutic bond with their new therapist, Britney Webber.
Both children are aware of the consequences of not attending school. Both children are willing to attend school daily; however, they are both adamant about not going to school when they have to return to the defendant's home after school. When the CHR therapist addressed the issue of going to the defendant's home, the oldest child shuts down, fiddles with his hands and paces back and forth. When the issue of going to the defendant's home is addressed with the youngest child, he puts a pillow over his head and hums quietly.
The CHR therapist has suggested to the parties that they remove the transition place from the school. The therapist suggested that the plaintiff drive the children to the defendant's home after school. The defendant originally agreed to the change, but later withdrew his consent. He believes that the proper way of getting the children to school on his parenting time, is for him to show up at the plaintiff's home in the morning with the Glastonbury police resource officer, the Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services, CHR and " with a show of force." The defendant has also suggested that the children should not be told that they are going to his house and should just be brought over. The CHR therapists, however, do not believe those approaches are appropriate. They believe that to do so would undermine all trust the children have gained and the progress they have made. The CHR therapists are of the opinion that the best approach would be to continue to engage the children in individual therapy, have the parties engage in individual therapy and when the children are ready, introduce the defendant back into the children's lives in family therapy.
The defendant does not believe that there is any reason for the children to be afraid of him. He believes that the children's fears of him are exaggerated; he believes that the children should respect him and fear is a part of respect. According to the defendant, all he needs is twenty (20) minutes alone with the children to resolve the children's problems.
The defendant claims that he is " absolutely not responsible for the children missing school." He is incapable of recognizing how his behavior affects his children and has not expressed any personal responsibility therefore. He claims that the children's truancy is " all the plaintiff's fault." He blames her for the children not being in therapy and he claims that she is alienating the children from him. He refers to her as the " troubled" and " abusive" mother.
The defendant's communications with the plaintiff through emails, texts and OFW are accusatory, abusive, and derogatory. The plaintiff is frustrated and fearful of the defendant to the extent that she will not participate in school meetings with him present. However, her communications with him are, to a lesser extent, also confrontational.
See Exhibits 17, 27, B, G, H, I, M, N, O, Q, A1, J1.
The defendant is understandably upset and emotional over his children. His emotions, however, manifest themselves in an angry and aggressive manner. That is clearly evident in the tone of the communications in which he engages the plaintiff, her attorney, service providers, and DCF. This is also reflected in his court filings, his behavior in court and the manner in which he testifies. His testimony is evasive, nonresponsive, confrontational, and self-serving.
The defendant's testimony is not credible. He attempts to manipulate evidence in his favor. He denies that he alters documents, but admits that he provides " content" to them. The defendant misleads service providers to believe he is the custodial parent of the children with final decision making authority. He claims that on July 11, 2012, the court, (Carbonneau, J.), granted him temporary final decision making authority. However, that order was superseded by the October 11, 2013, court orders. When confronted on the issue, he claims no knowledge that the October 11, 2013 order modified the July 11, 2012 order to joint custody and shared decision making. That claim is simply not credible. The defendant asserted that he has worked in the legal field most of his career and is fully aware of his rights having worked with hundreds of attorneys in the second largest law firm in the State of Connecticut and having been published in law journals.
Exhibit 6.
The children's behaviors are a direct consequence of the parental conflict. The children are fully aware of the parties' battles with each other. The parties are also aware of the harm their conflict is causing the children. However, they are incapable of disengaging with one another. The parties' anger towards each other is so great that it eclipses their ability to act in the best interest of their children. Just like the court articulated in its October 11, 2013 orders, this court is skeptical that the parties will agree to do anything in the best interest of their children.
The best interests of the children are served by having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These two parties have completely ignored the very detailed orders for therapy and conflict management issued by the court on October 11, 2013 to effectuate that meaningful relationship between the children and the parties. This court's primary concern at this time is to fashion orders that ensure the children attend school on a full-time basis and regain a sense of comfort with the defendant.
After carefully considering the testimony of the parties and the other witnesses, including their demeanor on the stand; having reviewed all evidence presented to the court; and having considered the criteria set forth in Connecticut General Statues § 46b-56, together with the applicable case law, the court finds there has been a material change in circumstances since the last court order and that the following orders are in the best interest of the children.
ORDERS
1. Custody
a. The parties shall share joint legal custody of their minor children primary residence with the plaintiff.
b. Each parent shall have a full and active role in providing a sound social, economic and educational environment for the children. Both parents shall reasonably consult with each other using only OurFamilyWizard.com (OFW), on all substantive non-emergency matters affecting the health, safety, welfare and education of the minor children before such actions involving the children are taken. These substantive matters shall include, but shall not be limited to, educational programs, medical treatment, religious upbringing, enrollment and participation in sports and extracurricular activities, attendance at camp and travel/vacation plans.
2. Routine Parenting Schedule--Academic School Year
The defendant shall have parenting time every other weekend starting on Saturday from 10 a.m. to Sunday at 7 p.m. The defendant shall have a midweek dinner visit on Wednesdays from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
3. Transitions
All transitions shall occur at the Glastonbury " Fountain" at the corner of Hebron Avenue and Main Street.
4. Routine Parenting Schedule--Summer Recess Schedule
a. Each party shall have two non-consecutive weeks of summer vacation with the children. The parties shall communicate with each other through OFW on or before May 1 of each year their proposed vacation weeks. In the event the parties are unable to agree on the summer vacation weeks, the plaintiff shall have preference in odd numbered years and the defendant in even numbered years.
b. If summer school or an extended school year program is recommended by the school/PPT for either minor child, absent a written agreement of the parties on OFW or court order, that child shall attend every summer school session that is scheduled. Failure to comply with this provision may be considered by the court as a basis for modification of the routine parenting schedule to ensure the child's attendance at summer school sessions.
5. Religious/Holiday Parenting Time
a. Thanksgiving
The defendant shall have parenting time for this holiday in 2017 and all odd numbered years thereafter and the plaintiff shall have parenting time for this holiday in 2018 and all even numbered years thereafter. This holiday is defined as Wednesday at 6 p.m. through Friday at 6 p.m.
b. Christmas Eve/Day
In 2017 and all odd numbered years thereafter, the plaintiff shall have parenting time from 12 noon on December 24th until 12 noon on December 25th, and the defendant shall have parenting time from 12 noon on December 25th until 6 p.m. on December 26th. In 2018 and all even numbered years thereafter, the defendant shall have parenting time from 12 noon on December 24th until 12 noon on December 25th, and the plaintiff shall have parenting time from 12 noon on December 25th until 6 p.m. on December 26th.
c. Easter
The defendant shall have parenting time on this holiday in 2017 and all odd numbered years thereafter. The plaintiff shall have parenting time on this holiday in 2018 and all even numbered years thereafter. This holiday is defined as 9 am. on Easter Sunday until the end of school on Monday.
d. Mother's Day and Father's Day
The plaintiff shall have parenting time on Mother's Day, and the defendant shall have parenting time on Father's Day each year. These holidays are defined as 6 p.m. on the Saturday prior to the holiday until the end of school on Monday.
6. School Vacation Periods
a. Spring Vacation
i. In 2017 and all odd numbered years thereafter, the plaintiff shall have parenting time for the spring vacation period. In 2018 and all even numbered years thereafter, the defendant shall have parenting time for the spring vacation period.
ii. These school vacations are defined as Monday at 9 a.m. through Friday at 6 p.m., except that if a parent has routine weekend parenting time the weekend immediately prior to the vacation period, there shall be no " transfer" on Monday morning.
7. Counseling/Pediatrician
a. The plaintiff shall engage in individual therapy with a licensed therapist to address issues of appropriate discipline and parenting skills; development of skills to remove the minor children from the parental conflict; anger and stress management; boundary issues; communication skills; and post-dissolution issues.
b. The defendant shall engage in individual therapy with a licensed therapist to address issues of appropriate discipline and parenting skills; development of skills to remove the minor children from the parental conflict; anger and stress management; boundary issues; communication skills; and post-dissolution issues.
c. The minor children shall continue in therapy with CHR for as long as they are eligible to participate in that therapy. Thereafter, the children shall be enrolled in individual and family therapy with a licensed therapist. Neither parent shall interfere with the children's therapy and appointment schedule. The frequency, duration of and participation in the therapy shall be determined solely by the therapist. Neither parent shall change the minor children's therapist without prior written consent of the other parent on OFW or prior court order.
d. When appropriate, at the discretion of the children's therapist, the defendant shall be included in the children's therapy sessions.
e. Dr. Adamenko and/or Dr. Post of ProHealth Physicians shall be the pediatrician(s) for the minor children. The children's pediatrician shall not be changed by either parent without prior written agreement of the other parent on OFW or prior court order. Either parent scheduling an appointment for either child with the pediatrician shall notify the other parent on OFW of the appointment date and time, provided there is at least seventy-two (72) hours between the date the appointment is scheduled and the date the appointment is to occur. If there are less than seventy-two (72) hours between the date the appointment is scheduled and the date the appointment is to occur, the scheduling parent shall notify the other parent immediately by text message. If the appointment is scheduled as an emergency appointment (defined as an appointment scheduled the day of or the day after the scheduling phone call to the pediatrician's office), the scheduling parent shall immediately notify the other parent via telephone call/message.
8. Conflict Management
The parties shall utilize the services of Dr. Bruce Freedman or any other conflict manager mutually agreed to in writing, for conflict counseling and the resolution of disputes that otherwise cannot be resolved by the parties. The cost for any involvement with a conflict manager shall be equally divided, subject to the allocation of fees by the court, as provided herein. The parties shall sign any necessary releases or authorizations to allow the conflict manager to speak with the children's health care providers, education providers and other third parties as may be required by the conflict manager in his/her role of resolving disputes.
a. The parties shall utilize the following process for resolving disputes related to the children's education and extracurricular activities:
i. Either parent may contact the other using OFW with a proposal related to the children's education or extracurricular activities.
ii. If the other parent agrees with the proposal, they shall so indicate in writing on OFW, and the proposal is deemed accepted.
iii. If the other parent does not agree with the proposal, the proposing parent will contact the conflict manager via email to alert him/her of the disagreement. However, this email shall not contain information about the details of the proposal, the nature of the dispute or substantive matters. All such information shall be communicated solely through OFW so that the other parent shall have full and comprehensive copies of all communications by the other to the conflict manager. No communication by the parents shall include personal attacks, or derisive or derogatory comments about the other parent.
iv. The parents shall provide all information the conflict manager requires to resolve the dispute. The conflict manager may schedule a meeting with the parents if he/she deems it necessary for either or both parents to have a reasonable opportunity to provide relevant information to him. He/she will then post a written recommendation to the parents on OFW.
v. The parent whose position is supported by the conflict manager's recommendation may proceed unilaterally to implement the proposal.
vi. The parent whose position is not supported by the conflict manager's recommendation may seek relief from the court. Any motion filed by this parent, including any ex-parte application, shall include a copy of the conflict manager's written recommendation.
vii. The court may allocate the conflict manager's fees, attorneys fees, witness fees, marshal's service fees and court fees/costs associated with the filing of a motion to a parent whom the court finds has unreasonably filed such a motion.
b. The parties shall utilize the following process for resolving disputes related to the children's medical and mental health needs:
i. Either parent may contact the other using OFW with a proposal related to the children's medical or mental health needs.
ii. If the other parent agrees with the proposal, they shall so indicate in writing on OFW, and the proposal is deemed accepted.
iii. If the other parent does not agree with the proposal, the proposing parent shall contact the conflict manager via email to alert him/her of the disagreement. However, this email shall not contain information about the details of the proposal, the nature of the dispute or substantive matters. All such information shall be communicated solely through OFW so that the other parent shall have full and comprehensive copies of all communications by the other to the conflict manager. No communication by the parents shall include personal attacks or derisive or derogatory comments about the other parent.
iv. The parents shall provide the conflict manager with all information he/she requires to resolve the dispute including releases and authorizations to speak with the children's medical and mental health professionals. The conflict manager may schedule a meeting if he/she deems it necessary to provide either or both parents with a reasonable opportunity to provide relevant information to him/her. He/she will then post a written recommendation to the parents on OFW.
v. The parent whose position is supported by the conflict manager's recommendation may proceed unilaterally in implementing the proposal.
vi. The parent whose position is not supported by the conflict manager's recommendation may seek relief from the court on the proposal. Any motion filed by this parent, including any ex-parte application, shall include a copy of the conflict manager's written recommendation except that personal medical information shall be redacted from the copy to protect the children's privacy.
vii. The court may allocate the conflict manager's fees, attorneys fees, witness fees, marshal's service fees and court fees/costs associated with the filing of a motion to the parent whom the court finds has unreasonably filed such motion.
viii. The conflict manager may be changed only by prior court order or prior written agreement of the parties on OFW and timely joint written communication to the conflict manager.
9. OurFamilyWizard
a. Both parties shall exclusively utilize OFW to communicate about all child-related matters, scheduling, appointments, notifications, etc., except as noted herein. Text messaging and emails shall be utilized for bona fide urgent matters and telephone for emergency matters relating to the minor children. This provision cannot be modified unless the modification is agreed to by the parties in writing on OFW with the assistance and input of the conflict manager.
b. Messages exchanged using OFW shall relate solely to matters pertaining to the minor children.
c. Both parents shall check OFW on a regular, timely basis, but not less than once per week, for new messages to review information placed there by the other and to respond if necessary.
d. The minor children shall not be used by anyone as conduits for any parental communication, delivery or exchange.
10. Insurance
a. Within seventy-two (72) hours of any change in any insurance coverage for the minor children, father shall provide mother with the changed information. This shall include the insurance provider's name, the identification numbers (and copies of the insurance cards) and the specifics for life insurance coverage required to comply with all court orders.
b. Within seventy-two (72) hours of any change in any insurance coverage for the minor children, mother shall provide father with the changed information. This shall include the insurance provider's name, the identification numbers (and copies of the insurance cards), and the specifics for life insurance coverage required to comply with all court orders.
11. Miscellaneous
a. If either child suffers a serious illness or injury, both parents have the right of reasonable access to that child for the duration of the emergency in addition to other rights provided with joint custody. If either party has information about the health or welfare of the child, that parent will promptly notify the other on OFW. In those instances where a child's serious illness, injury or hospitalization requires that action be taken without prior notice to the other parent, the parent shall inform the other of the action as soon as possible.
b. Either parent traveling outside the State of Connecticut with the children for a period of time greater than 48 hours shall provide the other parent with a written itinerary including current phone number(s), address(es), airline flight information, and local accommodations at least five (5) days prior to travel.
c. Neither parent, absent emergency, extraordinary circumstances or mutual written agreement on OFW, shall schedule the minor children for conferences, events or activities during the time the children are scheduled to be with the other parent.
d. Each parent shall ensure the children's completion of any homework or other assignment(s) which is/are due during their parenting time. If the completion of any assignments reasonably overlaps the parental access, the parties shall communicate with one another on OFW, in advance, as to what was done and what still needs to be done to complete the assignment(s).
e. Absent an emergency or during vacation parenting time, each parent shall be entitled to daily telephone contact with the children at 7 p.m. If the children are not available to receive a parent's phone call, the calling parent shall leave a message and the parent having parenting time shall ensure that the telephone call is returned no later than 9 p.m. During periods of vacation parenting time, the traveling parent shall have the children contact the other parent immediately upon arrival at, and arrival home from, their vacation location. During these vacation periods, there shall not be daily phone contact with the non-vacationing parent except as initiated by the children or as previously arranged by the parties on OFW.
f. The minor children shall be free to initiate telephonic and electronic (computer/text/email) contact with either parent at any reasonable time. Neither parent shall remove telephone or electronic (computer/text/email) contact capabilities as a form of discipline.
g. Neither parent shall discuss the parenting plan, modifications or changes to it, pending court matters or negative discussions about the other parent or any such adult matter to or in the presence of the minor children. They shall not allow others to do so. h. Neither parent shall permanently remove the minor children from the State of Connecticut absent further order of the court. The parent seeking to permanently remove the minor children from the State of Connecticut shall give the other parent at least ninety (90) days advance written notice on OFW.
i. Except as provided herein, holiday and vacation parenting time represents exceptions to, not modifications of, the routine parenting schedule. The routine parenting schedule is in effect prior to, and resumes immediately following, the designated conclusion of a period of holiday or vacation parenting time.
j. Routine decisions shall be made by the parent with whom the children are then residing, whether that be during the regular schedule, holidays or vacations. Each party shall be listed as the primary contact for school, camp or for any other third party for which contacts are required.
k. Each party shall make direct arrangements with the children's providers, included but not limited to: school, doctors, coaches and any other professionals to secure the providers' records, reports, schedules and the like.
12. Child Support
The plaintiff has not provided a financial affidavit and neither party has provided a Worksheet for the Connecticut Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines. The parties have submitted insufficient evidence for this court to enter child support orders. Therefore, the court is unable to modify any child support orders.
SO ORDERED.