Opinion
FA114010472S
07-30-2018
Lori A. WILK v. Stanley V. WILK, III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Michael Wu, Judge
The defendant, Stanley V. Wilk, III, came before this court for a hearing on his motion to modify the parenting plan (# 158) with a request, amongst other things, that the minor child attend Depaolo Middle School in Southington, Connecticut as set forth in the defendant’s proposed orders (# 155.50). The plaintiff, Lori Wilk, also came before this court for a hearing on her motion to modify residential custody and the parenting plan (# 159) so that, amongst other things, the minor child attend Schaghticoke Middle School in New Milford, Connecticut as set forth in the plaintiff’s proposed orders (# 160). The court heard evidence and oral argument regarding these motions and proposed orders over the course of two days on July 18 and 19, 2018.
Both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s motions (# 158 and # 159) are denied for the reasons hereinafter set forth. Likewise, both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s proposed orders (# 155.50 and # 160) are rejected. However, the parenting plan as set forth in the stipulation of the parties dated February 16, 2012 (# 118) is clarified as set forth hereinafter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2016, the defendant filed a similar motion seeking modification of the parenting plan to change the school the minor child was then (and is now) attending (# 129). The defendant filed proposed orders (# 132) to have the minor child attend school in Southington and the plaintiff filed proposed orders (# 133) that would grant primary physical custody of the minor child to the plaintiff and to have the minor child attend school in New Milford. On August 22, 2016, the court, after considering the evidence presented, found that the defendant did not clearly and definitely establish the occurrence of a substantial change of circumstances since the most recent court order that would render it unjust or inequitable to hold the parties to the original order under General Statutes § 46b-56. The court further stated that it could not find the defendant’s proposed changes to be in the best interests of the minor child (# 134).
The defendant filed a motion for modification of custody and visitation, postjudgment (# 135) on May 11, 2017. The plaintiff filed a motion to reopen judgment and modify custody and parenting plan, postjudgment (# 138) on June 7, 2017. After the first day of testimony and arguments on these motions on July 18, 2018, each party rescinded its respective request for sole custody of the minor child and amended their motions (# 158 and # 159).
Simultaneous with the filing of the aforementioned motions, each party also filed a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem ("GAL") (# 136 and # 139). Based on the mutual agreement of the parties, the court appointed Attorney Judith Dixon to act as the GAL (# 142) on June 19, 2017. After the GAL conducted an investigation and reported her findings to the parties, the defendant filed a motion asking the court to remove or suspend the GAL for this matter (# 148). After hearing arguments, the court denied the motion (# 149) on December 7, 2017.
TESTIMONY
The defendant called five witnesses at the hearing on July 18, 2018, and one additional witness on July 19, 2018. The plaintiff called three witnesses on July 19, 2018, one of those witnesses being the GAL. The defendant recalled one witness, the defendant himself, on July 19th. The witnesses (other than the GAL) provided positive input about the party calling them to the stand. The following is a summary of the testimony presented by each witness.
1. Kathleen Wilk ("Stepmother")
The stepmother married the defendant a few years after the divorce of the parties. She has known the minor child since 2013. She spoke positively about the neighborhood where she and the defendant reside, as well as the minor child’s friend in that neighborhood. She testified that the minor child is doing well academically in school, although she noted that she herself does not participate in the minor child’s school activities. Two and a half or three years ago, the minor child started having problems with her peers. She described the minor child as having a nervous cough, picking at the same spot on her head, and being out of school for a short time as a result of those issues. She stated that the issues were resolved. She had no concerns about the minor child, and described how she has her own room in the defendant’s and the stepmother’s house, and also has a separate set of clothes there. The stepmother shared her concerns about a dog at the plaintiff’s house that bit the minor child twice, and stated that the minor child was afraid of that dog. She also stated that the minor child showed up for visits in clothing and footwear that was too small for her, and with dirty/greasy hair. The issues of the clothing and hair had gotten better, but were not totally resolved. The stepmother stated that the minor child gets car sick easily even though she is otherwise a healthy, active child. She also commented that last year the minor child became aware of the issues giving rise to these court proceedings and was more anxious after learning of them.
2. Anthony Penna
Mr. Penna is a martial arts instructor and has been working with the minor child for about three years. He noted that prior to working with him, the minor child was enrolled in another karate program. Mr. Penna described the minor child as determined and driven, possessing the ability to mimic and learn martial arts actions and moves. She progressed very quickly in her coursework. He noted that she is becoming more self-confident. The minor child attends approximately four hours of sessions each week at his facility and the defendant is with the minor child quite often. The minor child received an award for always being well prepared for sessions. Finally, he noted that the plaintiff attended the belt advancement ceremony when the minor child received her black belt.
3. Tammy A. Thompson
Ms. Thompson is the sister of the defendant, lives about a mile away from him, and has a very close relationship with him. After the divorce, the defendant and the minor child lived in her house for three to four years. She has a son who is younger than the minor child, and the two get along very well. Ms. Thompson described the relationship between the defendant and the minor child as "two peas in a pod." Her older daughter also has a good relationship with the minor child, and the two engage in many activities together. She also described the defendant’s relationship with the minor child as fully involved. She noted that the defendant disciplines the minor child, spends time with her at places such as Lake Compounce and the mall, and that he maintains his self-control. She noted that the local middle school is approximately nine hundred feet from the defendant’s home. Ms. Thompson also stated that her communications with the GAL were not in depth, and she wanted to share more information about the minor child’s peers and cousins who live in the neighborhood. She sees the minor child approximately once a month, and is not aware of the minor child having any major health issues. She did note that the minor child has some anxiety and nervousness issues that are situationally based.
4. Cynthia Miller
Ms. Miller is a neighbor of the defendant who lives two houses away and across the street from the defendant’s residence. She testified that the minor child visits her home bringing goodies and Daisy the dog. The minor child talks about whatever she’s doing and how she has been. Ms. Miller stated that the minor child visits her two times a week and spends approximately fifteen minutes with her during a visit. Topics of conversation have included school, karate, the minor child’s neighborhood friend, Owen, and Daisy the. dog. She described the neighborhood as comprised of primarily elderly people, with few families with young children. There is more vehicular traffic in the neighborhood during school time, but otherwise it is a quiet street. She has known the minor child for more than two years, and stated that the defendant tries to include the minor child in whatever he does. For example, while performing some projects at her home, the defendant found ways to have the minor child actively work with him on the tasks. She also commented that karate has brought the minor child back to happiness. Ms. Miller stated that she spoke by phone with a female attorney who claimed to represent the defendant for about ten minutes. She noted that she wanted, but was not permitted, the opportunity to tell the attorney that she witnessed a healthy father-daughter relationship, similar to the relationship she herself had with her father.
5. Stanley V. Wilk, III
The defendant works at Danbury Hospital. His normal work week consists of three ten-hour night shifts on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. He sometimes works additional hours on Sunday night. The defendant noted that in the first few years after the divorce, he and the plaintiff had a good joint parenting relationship. A few weeks after the divorce, the parties mutually agreed to modify the plan. The modification was never embodied into an order of the court, as the parties were able to work things out between themselves. That changed over time, and while he is flexible with his parenting time with the minor child, the plaintiff is not flexible with his requests. The plaintiff only allows him to see the minor child as specified in the parenting plan. With respect to communications between the parties, he stated that in 2017 he was not informed of a certain dental visit nor of a growth plate study. The defendant later stated that he may have known about the dental appointment prior to it taking place, but claims almost no knowledge of the minor child’s medical treatments nor her mental health treatment. He only knows that the minor child is seeing a therapist. The defendant did note that he and the minor child went to a therapist in Hartford and notified the plaintiff of that visit an hour before arriving for the visit. In the 2017 timeframe, he also requested via e-mail and texts that the parties participate in family therapy. He believes family counseling would be helpful, but the plaintiff is not willing to participate. The defendant also raised his concerns about incidents where the minor child was assaulted by another child at the town pool and on her way home from school. As with the stepmother, he also testified about the dog that bit the minor child (the dog’s name being Marvel) and how he was not made aware of those incidents. On one occasion, the minor child was dropped off with him when she had a fever of over 102 degrees. The minor child also had an outbreak of a rash around the Christmas holidays, and the defendant testified that there was a period when the minor child always seemed to be angry with him. The defendant stated the following reasons for wanting the minor child to live with him and attend school in Southington: first, he has a meaningful relationship with the minor child; second, that if the current arrangement is maintained, he would not be able to see the minor child due to his work hours; and third, because he does not want to be the "bad guy" to the minor child. He noted that he cannot change his hours of work and that unless he gives the minor child everything she requests, he becomes the bad guy. Another reason for his request was to avoid the loss of a special relationship with the minor child. He recounted how he had a very close relationship with his stepdaughter (daughter of the plaintiff). The defendant treated his stepdaughter as if she was his daughter. However, after he was required to take certain disciplinary action related to two incidents (an automobile accident and the discovery of alcohol and drugs in the family vehicle), he lost that special relationship. The defendant noted he first learned that the minor child did not want to live with him during a meeting with the GAL and his attorney in December 2017. Finally, the defendant testified that he never asked and is not now asking for sole custody of the minor child. When recalled to the stand by his counsel, the defendant stated, in regards to the written recommendations submitted by the GAL, that he prefers visitation during school vacations on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays (rather than Tuesday through Friday) because he works on Thursdays and Fridays.
6. Collen Dewan
Ms. Dewan is a nursing supervisor at New Milford Hospital. She has known the defendant for thirty years and holds him in high esteem. She was his supervisor when she worked at Danbury Hospital. She confirmed the defendant’s work hours and the fact that he does not work weekdays. She noted that the defendant’s position was created with those specific workhours due to the operational needs of the hospital and that the workhours for that position cannot change.
7. Lori Wilk
The plaintiff testified that she agreed to the stipulation for dissolution of the marriage (including the parenting plan) reluctantly because of time and financial pressures. Notwithstanding, the parenting plan seemed to work except for Friday nights when neither of the parties was physically present with the minor child. The plaintiff first became aware of the minor child’s reluctance to spend time with the defendant at the end of the minor child’s first grade year at school. The school counselor called the plaintiff to let her know that she was leaving the school and that another counselor would be working with the minor child. The minor child seemed to be having a good year during second grade, and it was at the end of that school year that the minor child stated that she did not want to go to the defendant’s house. At the beginning of fourth grade, the minor child began vomiting and crying when being taken to the defendant’s house. The plaintiff took her to a counselor in Brookfield, but the relationship between the minor child and the counselor did not work well. The counselor did give the minor child some tools to cope with the situation. The plaintiff stated that car sickness was not an issue previously. Additionally, on the days before visits to the defendant, the minor child would begin acting negatively. She now gets angry as it gets closer to the time she is to visit the defendant, and her relationship with the defendant seems to have deteriorated over time up to the present. The plaintiff stated that on June 10 of this year, the minor child had a temper tantrum and after it was over, the minor child stated that she is angry over her lack of control over certain situations. The plaintiff discovered that the minor child scratched herself with a pencil during that incident, and the plaintiff reported the incident to the minor child’s therapist. Regarding her work, the plaintiff stated that her workhours are flexible. She has been with the same company for twenty-six years, and has held her current position for over twenty years. She adjusts her schedule to be able to be with the minor child when the minor child is out of school. The plaintiff is willing to take the minor child to Southington for karate lessons. In regard to the dog that bit the minor child, the plaintiff testified that the dog was given to their family by a friend of the defendant. Initially there were no issues with the dog, but when it reached about five years of age, the dog, when cornered, would lunge out due to anxiety. The dog bit a total of four people, and bit the minor child three times. The dog was sent to a trainer in attempts to correct its behavior. The plaintiff stated that when that did not correct the dog’s behavior, she asked the veterinarian to euthanize the dog. The plaintiff stated that the veterinarian was not willing to do so. Ultimately, the dog was given to the local dog shelter for evaluation and handling. The plaintiff provided further information about the incidents of assault on the minor child. The plaintiff took the minor child and a friend of the minor child to a local pool to swim. A friend of the friend accompanied them. When the plaintiff asked the three to get out of the pool, the friend of the friend shoved the minor child causing the minor child to hit her thigh. Thereafter, the plaintiff instructed the minor child not to interact with the friend of her friend who shoved her. On a later date, the minor child wanted to go back to the pool with her friend. They went, but without the third child. On their way home from the pool, the friend of the minor child’s friend did something to the minor child. The plaintiff characterized the minor child as having low self-esteem and as afraid of the defendant. The plaintiff stated that she encourages the minor child to call the defendant each evening, but does not know whether the calls take place. The plaintiff intends to keep the minor child in therapy, but not necessarily with the same therapist forever. She stated that she did not speak with the defendant about the minor child’s reluctance to go to him because the minor child asked her not to tell him about her feelings about it.
8. Jessica Richardson
Ms. Richardson is the daughter of the plaintiff and first became familiar with the defendant when he and her mother began their relationship. She testified that she never had a good relationship with the defendant. The relationship was not always bad, but they never had a warm relationship and the relationship deteriorated after she was in the sixth grade. Earlier on, they rode dirt bikes together and the plaintiff, the defendant and Ms. Richardson vacationed together. The defendant went to one of Ms. Richardson’s basketball games while she was in high school and some of her games while she was in middle school. At some point, the defendant offered to adopt her, but she did not want him to adopt her. Ms. Richardson described an incident at a Walmart store and a road-rage incident where the defendant had arguments with people with whom he did not have a prior relationship. She stated that the minor child was clingy and would only want to be with the plaintiff on Saturdays. On multiple occasions on Sunday nights, the minor child cried inconsolably. According to Ms. Richardson, this behavior was related to the minor child having to go to the defendant’s house on Sunday evening. She was aware of the incident when the minor child scratched herself. Ms. Richardson returned from an overnight stay and encountered the minor child crying in the child’s bedroom. She entered to kiss the minor child goodbye as she left for another commitment and saw that the minor child had scratches on her legs. With respect to her personal circumstances, she explained that she moved out of the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s then residence in the winter of her senior year in high school because she did not want to live with the defendant. She commented that the auto accident that the defendant described in his testimony was related to winter weather conditions and that she did not leave the scene of the accident without advising the property owner that she had slid into the property owner’s mailbox. In regard to the alcohol and drug incident described by the defendant, she stated that she provided two others with transportation from a party, that she did not consume any alcohol at the party, that the alcohol belonged to the other two persons, and that she insisted they place the alcohol in the trunk of the vehicle. Upon leaving them off at their destination, they forgot to take their alcohol and she did not think about it until the defendant found it in the vehicle. She also stated that there were no illegal drugs in the vehicle.
9. Attorney Judith Dixon ("GAL")
As previously noted, the appointment of this particular GAL was premised upon the mutual agreement of the parties. The primary issues for the GAL to determine were: first, what school the minor child should attend; and second, with which parent the minor child should live. The GAL has acted in this capacity for about a hundred times, and uses a set of standard questions for all the telephone interviews she conducts in her role as a GAL. It is part of her standard process to identify herself as a GAL when acting in that capacity. She read from her notes the comments Ms. Miller had shared with her, and all the comments were positive. The GAL described the minor child as bright, engaging and wanting to please all the adults in her life. The minor child does not want to hurt anyone, and the minor child loves the plaintiff, the defendant, and the stepmother. She also noted that both households are appropriate for the minor child. The GAL stated that she investigated the programs of the middle schools in both New Milford and Southington, and that both were suitable for the minor child. While each had its respective unique characteristics, neither was clearly better for the minor child than the other. The GAL stated that the minor child did not want to live with the defendant. She wants to live with the plaintiff and go to the local school in the plaintiff’s town of residence. The GAL stated that the minor child also stated the following in relation to her preference:
She is afraid of the defendant and she is scared when he is angry;
She does not want to do anything to make the defendant angry;
She is not concerned about being physically abused by the defendant but merely does not want him to be angry;
The defendant lied to her a lot and she did not like it;
She trusts the plaintiff but does not feel she can trust the defendant;
The defendant tells her at night that he loves her, but she’s not sure she can believe him;
She feels trapped when going to the defendant’s house; gets upset about having to go and vomits, but cannot run away because the defendant lives too far from the plaintiff;
She cannot stay with the plaintiff because it will get the plaintiff in trouble; and
The defendant only hears what he wants to hear.
The minor child made it clear that she told the plaintiff, her therapist, and her school counselor not to tell the defendant of her feelings in this regard. She wanted to tell the defendant herself. The GAL recounted that with the help of her therapist, the minor child wrote and sent a letter to the defendant stating that she did not want to live with him. The defendant stated to the GAL that he received the minor child’s letter. The minor child told the GAL that she has since spoken to the defendant about the letter and told him she is sorry for lying to him before about her preference. The GAL also shared the contents of an e-mail she received from the minor child this week stating once again her desire to live with the plaintiff and to attend school in the town of the plaintiff’s residence. The GAL stated that in her professional opinion, the minor child is expressing her own feelings and is not merely adopting the plaintiff’s perspectives. She noted that the minor child did not use words similar to those used by the plaintiff and the minor child gave examples to support her concerns that related to her personal interactions with the defendant rather than examples relating to any other party. The GAL submitted a written list of recommendations to the court during her testimony (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2).
Discussion of the Law
General Statutes § 46b-56 provides in relevant part: "(a) In any controversy before the Superior Court as to the custody or care of minor children ... the court may make or modify any proper order regarding the custody, care, education, visitation and support of the children ... (b) In making or modifying any order as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the rights and responsibilities of both parents shall be considered and the court shall enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests." However, "the parties and the minor children have an interest in the finality of judgments which arises upon the entry of a custody order incident to a final dissolution decree." Hall v. Hall, 186 Conn. 118, 122, 439 A.2d 447 (1982). Therefore, "[f]irst, modification of a custody award [must] be based upon either a material change of circumstances which alters the court’s finding of the best interests of the child ... Second, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider several factors." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Hamilton, 141 Conn.App. 208, 219, 61 A.3d 542 (2013). A finding of a material change in circumstances must be based on circumstances that have arisen since the previous order of custody. Simons v. Simons, 172 Conn. 341, 342, 374 A.2d 1040 (1977). "The burden is on the party seeking modification to show the existence of a substantial change in circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jaser v. Jaser, 37 Conn.App. 194, 204, 655 A.2d 790 (1995); Emerick v. Emerick, 28 Conn.App. 794, 802, 613 A.2d 1351, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 915, 617 A.2d 171 (1992); see also Walshon v. Walshon, 42 Conn.App. 651, 681 A.2d 376 (1996) (plaintiff’s motion for modification dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie case of a material change in circumstances).
"[T]he best interests of the child include the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [the child’s] environment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Feinberg v. Feinberg, 114 Conn.App. 589, 594, 970 A.2d 776 (2009), appeal dismissed, 302 Conn. 463, 28 A.3d 958 (2011); In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 625-26, 926 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924, 933 A.2d 724 (2007). Although our legislature has promulgated a series of criteria that a court may consider in determining a child’s best interests, the "best interests" standard remains "inherently flexible and fact-specific to each child, giving the court broad discretion to consider all the different and individualized factors that might affect a specific child’s welfare." In re Diane W., Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex (December 21, 2001, Frazzini, J.). No single statutory provision is controlling nor is the court limited to the criteria specified by the legislature in deciding what is best for a particular child in a particular situation. As our courts have long emphasized, a "best interests" determination "involves weighing all the facts and circumstances of the family situation. Each case is unique." Gallo v. Gallo, 184 Conn. 36, 44, 440 A.2d 782 (1981).
General Statutes § 46b-56(c) provides, in relevant part, that: "(c) In making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors: (1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child; (4) the wishes of the child’s parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child’s siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child; (6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders; (7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents’ dispute; (8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (9) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments; (10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child’s family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household; (11) the stability of the child’s existing or proposed residences, or both; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child; (13) the child’s cultural background; (14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child; (15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 46b-120; and (16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to section 46b-69b. The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers ..."
In this case, the court finds that neither party proffered evidence of a material change in circumstances since the dissolution decree was entered on April 25, 2012. The fact that the child is six years older today does not in and of itself constitute a material change, nor is the fact that the parents cannot agree upon the school the minor child should attend a material change sufficient to warrant a modification of the parenting plan.
While neither party fully agrees with all of the parenting skills and parenting decisions of the other, neither party proffered evidence that the parenting skills of or the ability to meaningfully participate in the raising of the minor child of the other has materially changed since the entry of the dissolution decree. There being no material change in circumstances, the defendant’s motion for modification of parenting plan, post-judgment (# 158) and the plaintiff’s amended motion to reopen judgment and modify residential custody and parenting plan, post-judgment (# 159) are denied. Likewise, both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s proposed orders (# 155.50 and # 160) are rejected.
The stipulation dated February 16, 2012 states that "[t]he parties shall use their best efforts to enroll the child beginning the 2012-2013 school year at St. Joseph’s in Danbury," but also allows the parties to enroll the child in "any other agreed-upon private school and shall equally share all costs related thereto." The stipulation clearly contemplates the minor child potentially changing schools during her academic career, and it is the understanding of the court that the minor child most recently attended St. Rose of Lima School in Newtown ("St. Rose"), not St. Joseph’s School in Danbury.
The parties placed on the record that there is mutual agreement that it is not in the best interests of the minor child for her to continue attending St. Rose. The record is also clear that the parties are unable to mutually agree on the school that the minor child should attend. Therefore, given the parties’ inability to mutually agree on the issue, the court will clarify the existing parenting plan and, amongst other things, determine the school which the minor child will attend.
In making its determination, the court first affirms the comment by the GAL that both households are appropriate for the physical needs of the minor child. The testimony of the other witnesses support that assessment. Furthermore, although the parties through their testimony expressed a preference for the school system in their respective communities, the court finds that the GAL conducted a credible assessment of the two potential middle schools for the minor child. The GAL determined that neither the New Milford nor the Southington school districts are significantly better than the other for the minor child. Therefore, in determining what will be in the best interests of the minor child, the court next focuses its attention upon relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child, and the past and current interactions and relationships of the minor child with the plaintiff and the defendant.
While a child’s requests are not per se what is in her best interests, the combination of the stated preferences of the child along with the evidence of emotional and physical distress that the minor child is experiencing must be accorded significant weight. The minor child stated to the GAL that she loves the plaintiff, the defendant and the stepmother. She does not want to hurt anyone with whom she shares her life. That notwithstanding, neither party disputes the fact that the minor child has in recent years demonstrated symptoms of anxiety and motion sickness. Based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, the court finds that the anxiety and physical symptoms of the minor child are related to visits with the defendant. The fact that the minor child would write a letter, with the assistance of her therapist, to the defendant expressing her wish to live with the plaintiff and go to school in the plaintiff’s town of residence is also indicative of the importance of that issue to the minor child’s emotional health and stability. As previously noted, the GAL reported that the minor child substantiated her preferences as to her living and schooling arrangements with her personal experiences with the parties, and the Court finds credible and adopts the GAL’s assessment that the minor child has articulated a meaningful and personal foundation for her stated desires relating to her living arrangements and schooling.
There was no evidence that the relationship between the minor child and the defendant cannot or will not improve in the future. The defendant should continue his efforts to establish a healthy, long-term and meaningful relationship with the minor child. However, at this point in time, the court finds that it is in the best interests of the minor child that she reside primarily with the plaintiff and attend the public schools in the town of New Milford.
ORDERS
The court therefore clarifies the parenting plan with the following orders:
1. The minor child will attend public school in the plaintiff’s town of residence (New Milford, Connecticut).
2. During the school year, the defendant will have parenting time:
a. on alternate weekends from Friday after school to Sunday at 7 p.m., unless it is a weekend with a Monday holiday, in which case the parenting time will continue to 7 p.m. on Monday;
b. one evening per week (from the end of the school day until 8:30 p.m.) with the particular evening being mutually agreed by the parties taking into consideration, among other things, the minor child’s extracurricular activities, academic requirements, social activities and the parties’ respective work schedules; and
c. during the minor child’s school’s annual spring recess (those weekdays when school otherwise would have been in session); when the defendant’s weekend precedes the spring recess, the minor child will remain with the defendant through 7 p.m. of the last weekday of the spring recess and when the defendant’s weekend follows the spring recess, the minor child will begin her spring recess day with the defendant at 9 a.m. on the first weekday of the spring recess.
3. During the summer when school is not in session:
a. Each party will have two weeks of vacation with the minor child; the plaintiff will have first choice in even-numbered years and the defendant will have first choice in odd-numbered years; choices to be designated by the party with first choice by May 1 and by the party with second choice by June 1;
b. The defendant will have parenting time from 9 a.m. Monday through 9 a.m. Thursday.
4. The minor child will continue in her karate classes during the school year with both parties facilitating her ability to continue the classes until she no longer desires to participate in the classes or it is not in her best interests to continue in the classes.
5. Each party will inform the other of the name and address of all physical and mental health providers who are treating or providing services to the minor child; each party will notify the other of scheduled appointments with such providers; each party will list the other as a parent of the minor child in the records of such providers and authorize the other to obtain information and records as reasonably requested by the other party; and each party will notify the other of any illness or condition of the minor child that requires or results in treatment by any of the providers.
6. The defendant and the minor child will participate in family counseling; if recommended by the counselor, the plaintiff will participate in such counseling sessions.
7. The parties will attend a minimum of six sessions of family and/or co-parenting counseling sessions with goals of improving communications, coordination and cooperation between the parties as related to the minor child, of developing a template for practical and effective communication and cooperation with respect to the minor child, and of assisting the parties in jointly understanding and addressing the needs of the minor child. The cost of such counseling sessions will be shared equally by the parties.
8. Upon receipt by either party of reports generated by third persons or institutions concerning the health, education or welfare of the minor child, the recipient of such reports shall promptly furnish a copy of said report to the other party.
9. Except as clarified above, all the provisions of the stipulation for dissolution of marriage dated April 25, 2012 remain in full force and effect.
The court has reviewed the periodic review worksheet of fees charged by the GAL dated July 17, 2018. As previously agreed, each party is responsible for one-half of the GAL’s fees and expenses. The outstanding balance due from the defendant as set forth in the worksheet is to be paid within thirty days of this order.