Carolyn Mona v. David Mona (2010)

Danaher, John A., J. Opinion:RULING ON MOTION FOR PENDENTE LITE (# 181) On August 4, 2010, the guardian ad litem (GAL) in this case moved for an order pendente lite, asking the court to determine, on an interim basis, where the parties' two minor children should attend school for the fall 2010 semester, and whether the children can be removed from Connecticut, mid-semester, to attend school in another state.   It is the order of the court that the minor children continue their enrollment in school in Connecticut and that they not be removed from school in Connecticut prior to the conclusion of the fall semester.   The two minor children are approaching their birthdays and will soon be twelve and fourteen years of age.   They are currently enrolled in school in Connecticut, where they live with their father, their stepmother and their four-year-old stepbrother.   Their mother resides in Minnesota, and the children spend their summers with her.   In the early spring of 2010, the defendant, David Mona, was forced to take new employment in Texas.   The defendant continues to live in Connecticut, but he leaves Connecticut at 6:30 p.m. on Fridays.   On June 11, 2010, the plaintiff, Carolyn Mona, moved that, in view of the aforementioned change in circumstances, it is in the children's best interest to reside with her in Minnesota.   The children have resided primarily with their father since 2002.   The GAL, in the course of carrying out her responsibilities, learned from the father that he intends to relocate to Texas, and that once that is accomplished, he intends to move the children to Texas, after the start of the school year, but prior to the conclusion of the fall semester.   On the basis of the foregoing, the GAL filed the motion for an order pendente lite.   This matter came before the court, and was the subject of a hearing, on August 24, 2010.   The GAL was appointed on June 28, 2010, and thereafter the office of family relations initiated a custody evaluation to assist the court in resolving the plaintiff's motion.   That study is not yet complete.   The GAL, moreover, intends to travel to Minnesota to carry out a home visit.   At the hearing on August 24, 2010, the defendant took the position that he does not intend to remove the children from school in Connecticut prior to the conclusion of the fall semester.   This simplifies the task before the court but, nonetheless, leaves the court with the need to choose between two less-than-desirable options.   If the children remain in Connecticut through the fall semester, they will have limited physical interaction with their father and none with their mother.   If the children are allowed to attend school in Minnesota, they will have full physical interaction with their mother, limited or no interaction with their father, and upon completion of the custody evaluation, the court could conceivably decide that it is not in their best interest to remain in Minnesota.   If the latter scenario comes to pass, the children would be removed from Connecticut, where they have attended school for years, and they would begin the 2010 fall semester in a new school system in Minnesota, even though they may end up relocating to Texas.   The court's decision in this matter will turn primarily on the best interests of the children.   See Perez v. Perez, 212 Conn. 63, 77, 561, A.2d 907 (1989).   There are multiple factors to consider in determining what constitutes the best interests of a child including, but not limited to, the following:  the temperament and developmental needs of the child;  any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child;  the wishes of the child's parents as to custody;  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;  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;  any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents' dispute;  the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child;  the child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments;  the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment;  and the stability of the child's existing or proposed residences, or both;  and the final custody evaluation report.   See General Statutes §§ 46b-3, 46b-6, 46b-7;  Practice Book § 25-60.   The court is cognizant of the fact that the fall term begins within approximately one week.   Taking into consideration the fact that the children have resided and attended school in Connecticut for years, they have a stepbrother with whom they live, and have lived, in Connecticut, and given that a custody evaluation is ongoing and incomplete, the court finds that it is in the best interests of the children to remain and attend school in Connecticut through to the completion of the fall semester.   They will continue to reside primarily with their father.   This ruling is not intended, in any way, to have any bearing upon the court's ultimate decision with regard to the plaintiff's June 11, 2010 motion to reopen judgment and modify custody, visitation and child support.   BY THE COURT John A. Danaher III, J.