Opinion
No. CV 99-0720905
January 29, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION NOS. 206 AND 209.10
Presently Pending Motions:
No. 205, P's Motion to Modify Parenting Plan (filed 11-5-07)
No. 206, P's Motion for Psychological Evaluation (filed 11-5-07)
No. 207, GAL's Motion for Advice (filed 11-21-07)
No. 208, D's Motion for Modification of Custody (filed 11-28-07)
No. 209, Emergency Motion for Change in Visitation (filed 12-17-07)
No. 209.10, D's Motion for Gennarini Hearing (filed 12-21-07)
No. 210, P's Objection (to 209.10) (filed 1-4-08)
The parties in this matter were married in June of 1990. Their marriage was dissolved in this court in July 1999. They have two sons, Jackson, presently 16 years of age, and Samuel, presently 14 years of age. A review of the file reflects that one or both of the parties has sought the intervention of this court in the family's matters on many occasions. The motions listed above constitute the most recent activity in the court file.
At present, the boys reside with their father in New Hartford, Connecticut. The younger son visits with his mother, who resides in New York City. The older son does not engage in communication or visitation with his mother at this time.
In the recent hearing in this matter, the court heard much testimony from the father and his spouse, and the mother and her spouse. Each and every one of these individuals is bright, educated and articulate, and each one of them is totally convinced of the correctness of his or her position, and able to convey his or her position very well, very passionately and very convincingly.
The evidence presented to this court on the pending motions was very disturbing. The mother and the stepfather related painful incidents occurring during the 14-year-old's recent visits with them at their home in New York City. In one of these, the boy, having suffered a cut to his hand from a porcelain figurine that had been smashed against a wall, used blood from the cut to write on the mirror "You can't fool me, Sam." The stepfather described another incident in which he took a knife from Sam, after the latter had punctured a household door with that knife. The mother further testified that Sam relates how unhappy he is in Connecticut and she and the stepfather claim that the child did not want to return to his father's home on one recent occasion and the boy left their vehicle while they were leaving the city and roamed the streets of the city alone before his mother and stepfather found him. The boy returned to Connecticut only when the father picked him up.
Another troubling factor about the above is that the father and the Guardian ad Litem first heard of some of these incidents in the courtroom during the testimony of the mother and the stepfather.
Father's testimony, as well as that of his significant other, reveals a significantly different picture in which Sam gives all indications, direct and indirect, of being very happy and adjusted while living with them and fearful of the pressures of his mother. They also reported that Sam complains of being pressured by his mother, sometimes in a threatening way, to live with her.
The Guardian ad Litem believes that Sam is suffering significant troubles.
Mother states that she and Jackson were re-united, but their lack of ability to continue a relationship is because of father's intervention. Father states that Jackson point-blank refuses to have anything to do with his mother and father denies any influence on his part in any way whatsoever as to either boy. Father's spouse testified to that as well.
Father relates that the boys' therapist, Elaine Morisano is providing all the help that the boys need and that the therapist believes the boys would suffer setbacks should they be exposed to additional evaluation.
Subsequent to the hearing on the Mother's Motion for a Psychological Examination and Father's motions to alter access, Father moved for the court to conduct a so-called Gennarini hearing in this matter. Essentially, father has asked the court to meet in private with the parties' sons, who are 14 and 16 years of age, so that the boys can relate directly to the court what they perceive to be their needs, their perspectives on what has happened, and what they would like to happen. Mother has filed her opposition to this motion.
In Gennarini v. Gennarini, 2 Conn.App. 132 (1984), the Connecticut Appellate Court held that constitutional protections prohibit the court from conducting "in-camera," in-chambers, interviews of a minor child unless both parents consent to such a procedure. Some of the rationale of the Gennarini court is worthy of mention in the present case. The Appellate Court noted that, even when the child's preferences and feelings may be a significant factor,
. . . the information may be of questionable accuracy. A child caught up in the maelstrom of family strife may produce, to the psychologically untrained eye and ear, distorted and thus misleading images not only of the child's parents but of the child's own feelings; and those feelings themselves may be transient.
Id., 2 Conn.App. at 137.
Clearly, pursuant to the directives of Gennarini, this court cannot conduct a private, in-chambers conference with the parties' sons, without both parents' consent to same. Furthermore, it is this court's belief that the above-quoted excerpt from the Gennarini case is especially applicable in the instant matter. Certainly this case is one in which the turmoil that has existed, and that continues to exist, and the disturbing and contradictory facts related to this court about the boys requires some professional intervention. This court further believes that, in the best interests of the parties' children, and in the ultimate best interest of resolving these conflicts for the benefit of these children, a trained and experienced psychological professional should become involved in this matter.
Consequently, Father's Motion for a Gennarini Hearing (Motion No. 209.10) is denied. Mother's Motion for a Psychological Evaluation of the boys and the parents (Motion No. 206) is granted. In her motion, the Mother requests that the evaluation be conducted by Dr. Sydney Horowitz, and that should be the first individual contacted. However, it is the court's belief that, because of scheduling difficulties, Dr. Horowitz may not be able to accommodate the parties as soon as is necessary, and, therefore, the court suggests that other specialists in this field such as Dr. John T. Collins of New Haven or Dr. John Connolly of Waterford be contacted. Mother has agreed to pay for all of the costs involved in these evaluations and that is ordered by the court.
As to the other motions pending, and as listed above, it is the court's understanding that the parties have reached some agreement as to the continued visitation of Sam with his mother. To the extent that other motions request action by the court, none can be taken until the evaluation issue is addressed.
A status conference can be arranged by the parties, through the Family Caseflow Office, to follow on this matter. In the interim, the parties are ordered to proceed with the evaluations as soon as possible.
SO ORDERED.