Kevin Lathrop v. Stephanie Bradley (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (117) AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION (125)

The record reflects that the parties, never married, are the parents of one child.   Initially, the parties enjoyed joint legal custody with primary residence with the father with the child spending three months with the mother in Arizona and then three months with the father in Connecticut.   This was modified by way of an agreement dated April 5, 2010 which limited the mother's access to telephone calls from Arizona and visits in Connecticut on a monthly basis in a public place.   The mother had no physical access to the child from October 2008 until February 2010, when she was permitted a visit in Connecticut.   The matter reached a boiling point when suspicions arose that the mother had been sexually inappropriate with the child.   The child commenced counseling with Sally Miller, a licensed marriage and family therapist in July 2008 following the child's last visit in Arizona with the mother and the mother's boyfriend.

The child had begun exhibiting sexualized behavior, inappropriate for a four-year-old and thereafter, related actual claims of sexual contact by the mother.

The parties appeared, with counsel, together with the court appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) on August 4 and September 16, 2010.   The defendant was given an opportunity to further cross-examine one of the plaintiff's expert witnesses but on September 24, 2010, she notified the court that she would offer no further evidence and the proceedings were deemed closed.

The court heard testimony from the mother, the father, the father's present wife, Dr. James Connolly, the GAL and from Sally Miller, licensed marriage and family therapist.   Ms. Miller testified convincingly that she believes it is more likely than not that the child has been exposed to sexual abuse by the mother and that the child suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result.   Ms. Miller testified that the child requires therapy and that any contact whatsoever with the mother, physical, telephonic, electronic or via computer would be harmful and counterproductive to her healing process.   Dr. Connolly agreed that under such circumstances, no contact should take place outside of a controlled therapeutic setting with the mother's therapist and the child's therapist coordinating the reunification.   The court finds proven by a fair preponderance that the mother has sexually abused the child on multiple occasions.

ORDERS

1.  The mother's access, physical, telephonic, electronic or via computer to the child is suspended.

2. Prior to the mother having any access to the child, she shall engage in sexual offender therapy.   Her therapist can be in contact with the child's therapist and the two professionals shall begin a reunification protocol if and when they are both in agreement that the mother has reached an appropriate level of health and that such contact would be in the child's best interest.   Both therapists must be in agreement before any contact occurs and thereafter, both must be in agreement as to its scope, duration and form.   In the event of a disagreement, the opinion of the child's therapist shall prevail.

3. The father shall keep the mother apprised of the child's academic, medical and extracurricular activities but not of her therapy.

4. The defendant shall be 100% responsible for the GAL fees as the need for a GAL was solely hers.

5. The defendant's motion for contempt is denied.

6. The plaintiff's motion to modify visitation is granted.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.