Geoffrey Zampiello v. Kathleen Zampiello (2010)

ORDER

The Court must decide whether it is more appropriate for the State of Utah to exercise jurisdiction in the above captioned matter that was made returnable to this court on August 24, 2010.   While there is an action pending in Utah this court must first relinquish jurisdiction.   In Lippman v. Perham-Lippman, 2006 WL 852169, at page 4, in a well articulated decision by Wolven, J., the court laid out eight criteria that the court should follow in deciding this significant issue.

First, the court must find that family violence has occurred by means of acts perpetrated by the husband and there is no evidence that said conduct will abate.   Husband's conduct is the result of serious psychiatric problems that have been ongoing for some time.   The court finds that the wife has genuine fear of what might occur if she continued to live in Norwalk.   While husband claims any medical testimony he may require would be best made available in this jurisdiction assuming he has the right to proceed in an individual capacity the other criteria trump this claim.   The minor child is living in Salt Lake City surrounded by the mother, mother's family and friends who provide tremendous support.   While the period of the child's absence from Connecticut is not lengthy the father's mental health demands preventive action.   The length of time, the second criterion, weighs in favor of the mother.   The third factor i.e., the distance between Connecticut and Utah creates a dilemma for the father but visitation orders can be tailored to protect the child and provide appropriate contact.   The fourth criterion makes the court's order more facile because the income and assets of the parties do not project a wide differential.   It is obvious that the fifth criterion is not met because there is simply no agreement between the parties-with the exception of husband's physicians the nature and location required to resolve this pending litigation will be mainly in the Utah Court.   Any psychiatric testimony to be offered by the father can be dealt with by deposition as it would if the case were to remain in Connecticut thus, the sixth criterion supports this claim.   There is nothing to indicate that any postponement is likely when this matter is commenced in the Utah court.   A claim of delay merits little consideration so the seventh criterion is resolved in favor of the mother.   Other than the issue of the exercise of jurisdiction the court in Connecticut has spent no time on the merits of the case including facts and issues.   The eighth criterion has been carefully considered.

This Court finds that Connecticut should relinquish jurisdiction over this dissolution matter as well as the issues relating thereto.   Connecticut is an inconvenient forum for the reasons articulated herein and declines jurisdiction.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.