Opinion
HHDFA175044357S
03-19-2018
Delanney YOUNG-DWYER v. George DWYER
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Robert Nastri, Jr., Judge
This action for dissolution of marriage was brought by writ of summons and complaint dated March 15, 2017 and returned to court on March 21, 2017. The dissolution trial was held on March 12, 2018, when the court heard testimony from both parties. The plaintiff was represented by counsel; the defendant represented himself. The plaintiff introduced bank statements from two of the defendant’s bank accounts for the period from July 2015 through June 2017.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The court finds all facts by a preponderance of the evidence presented. The court has listened carefully to the witnesses and assessed their credibility. " It is the sole province of the trial court to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses ... It has the advantage of viewing and assessing the demeanor, attitude and credibility of the witnesses and is therefore better equipped ... to assess the circumstances surrounding the dissolution action." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 107 Conn.App. 488, 497, 945 A.2d 1043, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 948, 960 A.2d 1037 (2008).
The court applies all relevant law.
The court unseals all financial affidavits and takes judicial notice of all pleadings in the court’s file. The judicial notice doctrine relieves a party of having the burden to prove a fact. See General Statutes § § 4-178, 52-163, 52-164; Conn. Code Evid. § § 2-1, 2-2. At any time during a proceeding, a court, at its discretion, may take judicial notice of any fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute. See Ferraro v. Ferraro, 168 Conn.App. 723, 731-32, 147 A.3d 188 (2016).
The parties were married on August 13, 2011 in Hartford, Connecticut. They have one child together: Kaleb Dwyer, born in October 2014. The plaintiff is not now pregnant.
The plaintiff lived in Connecticut for at least twelve months before she filed this action.
The court has jurisdiction in this matter.
All statutory stays have expired and the court is free to enter a judgment of dissolution of marriage.
The allegations of the complaint are proven and true.
The marriage has broken down and cannot be repaired.
Neither party is more at fault for the failure of the marriage than is the other.
The State of Connecticut has not contributed to the support of either party nor to the support of the minor child.
The plaintiff is a United States citizen of Jamaican birth. The plaintiff has worked for the same employer for eighteen years as a certified nurse aide. She currently earns a net wage of $702 per week. The plaintiff has three other sons who are not the defendant’s children: Melquan, Antoine and Bijon. Only Bijon, who is fourteen years old, lives with the plaintiff and Kaleb. The plaintiff’s other two sons are over twenty-one years of age.
The defendant is also of Jamaican ancestry. He is an undocumented alien. The defendant works for himself as a hair dresser because he cannot get a job legally. The defendant’s financial affidavit reflects a net income of $483 per week. He is paid for his hair dressing services in cash or by check; he does not accept credit card payments. The defendant has an adult son from another relationship.
As result of a domestic violence incident in May 2014, four months into her pregnancy, the plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order against the defendant, who moved out of the marital home. The parties have not lived together since.
The defendant accused the plaintiff of being unfaithful to him and initially denied Kaleb is his child. The defendant saw Kaleb twice in the first year of the child’s life and only one time since. Eventually, the defendant acknowledged his paternity of Kaleb, although at trial he again expressed doubt that Kaleb is his child.
The defendant has made no formal request for parenting access with Kaleb. He has made no effort to be Kaleb’s father. The court does not credit the defendant’s testimony that he did not seek parenting time with Kaleb because he was afraid the plaintiff would have him arrested.
The plaintiff expressed doubt about her ability to co-parent with the defendant. She accused him of slandering her name at her church by telling people she was unfaithful to him. She claimed he refers to her as a demon woman and a whore whenever they see each other in court. The defendant testified the plaintiff is a psychopath.
The plaintiff is familiar with the defendant’s business practices, at least until 2014. During their marriage, while they were still living together, the plaintiff helped the defendant with his hair dressing operation. Until 2014, the plaintiff was on the lease for the defendant’s business.
The defendant kept some of the cash payments he received for his personal use and deposited the rest in his bank accounts.
Between July 2015 and June 2017, the defendant deposited an average of $40,000 per year in his bank accounts. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 .
Neither party asked the court to award alimony.
Throughout the short time the parties were together, they kept their finances- liabilities and assets- separate. Neither one is making a claim to the other’s assets. Neither party is seeking a contribution to joint debt.
The court imputes net income of $769 per week to the defendant based on his deposits to his bank accounts during the period from July 2015 to June 2017.
The defendant is obligated to pay child support to the plaintiff in the amount of $153 per week, according to the state of Connecticut child support guidelines. The defendant is also responsible for 46 percent of Kaleb’s unreimbursed medical expenses and 46 percent of work-related child care costs.
The guidelines are official regulations established by the commission for child support guidelines pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-215a and approved by the legislative regulation review committee pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-215c. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies, § 46b-215a-1 et seq.
The plaintiff pays $120 per week for Kaleb’s child care.
ORDERS
In accordance with the findings enumerated above and in consideration of the various statutory criteria the court employs in entering a judgment of dissolution, the court hereby orders:
The plaintiff shall have sole legal and physical custody of Kaleb. The defendant may have visitation with Kaleb at the plaintiff’s discretion.
The defendant shall pay child support to the plaintiff in the amount of $153 per week. The defendant shall pay 46 percent of Kaleb’s unreimbursed medical expenses and 46 percent of work-related child care costs.
Except as specifically provided herein, the parties shall retain the assets listed on their financial affidavits, free from any claim by the other, with the right to change beneficiaries or hypothecate those assets as they may otherwise deem appropriate.
The plaintiff shall be solely liable for all debts and liabilities as listed on her financial affidavit or solely in her name and shall hold the defendant harmless and indemnify him from said debts and liabilities.
The defendant shall be solely liable for all debts and liabilities as listed on his financial affidavit or solely in his name and shall hold the plaintiff harmless and indemnify her from said debts and liabilities.
If in the future there is discovered a debt that, through the parties’ mutual mistake, has not been divided pursuant to this judgment and the debt accrued during the term of the marriage or went to the accumulation of marital property, the parties shall share equally in the costs of repayment of the debt, including all principal, interest and penalties. However, if one party incurred the debt, without the other party receiving any benefit, then the party incurring the debt, regardless of who is legally liable under the debt contract, shall be wholly responsible for its payment in full, including all principal, interest and penalties.
The parties shall keep their own bank accounts as listed on their most recent financial affidavits, free and clear of any claim by the other party.
The plaintiff shall be responsible for her attorneys fees.
In the event that either parent is able to provide medical and/or dental insurance for Kaleb through employment, that parent shall provide such insurance for Kaleb as it is available at a reasonable cost. Reasonable cost shall be 7.5 percent of net income. The health insurance coverage contemplated by this judgment shall remain in place for Kaleb until he reaches the age of majority, or as long as the medical plan allows for continued coverage beyond the age of majority.
The provisions of General Statutes § 46b-84(e) are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
The parties shall be responsible for their own health insurance.
Neither party is awarded alimony.
The plaintiff’s birth name is restored. Henceforth, she will be known as Delanney Young.
JUDGMENT
The foregoing findings are incorporated into the judgment. The court orders the marriage dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and declares the parties single and unmarried.