Gary W. Kravetz v. Donna H. Kravetz (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter first came before this court on October 30, 2008, and December 2, 2009, when the court heard several post-judgment motions and rendered a written Memorandum of Decision on May 18, 2009.   The court's decision was appealed by the defendant and the appeal is still pending before the Appellate Court (docket number A.C. 31177).   Subsequently, the parties appeared on November 18, 2009, and counsel for both parties orally argued with respect to a number of subsequent motions filed following the appeal.   The court rendered a second Memorandum of Decision with respect to the post-appeal motions on March 5, 2010.   Thereafter, the plaintiff filed two post-judgment motions.   The first was a Motion for Attorneys Fees filed December 8, 2009 (# 269) and a second Motion for Modification filed December 8, 2009 (# 270).   The motions were heard by the court culminating in a final hearing on May 12, 2010.

The hearing of May 12, 2010 was conducted in the presence of the plaintiff and his counsel.   The defendant was represented by counsel and arrangements were made to have the defendant participate in the hearing telephonically.   Her counsel was unavailable but the defendant also had an appearance in the file and the matter had been continued in the past.   Both parties were sworn in and testified.   Throughout her participation in the hearing the defendant emphasized to the court that the parties' two oldest children, Emily and Brent should testify but neither she nor her counsel took any steps for them to appear at the hearing.

The court also entered orders (# 272) on March 5, 2010, pertaining to Motions 256, 259, and 265-68.   The court also entered an order (# 273) on May 12, 2010.   The court has not ruled on motions 269 and 270.   In Motion 269, the plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys fees in connection with defending against the defendant's post-judgment motion for contempt.   In Motion 270, the plaintiff seeks a modification of alimony, child support and the requirement that he pay for summer camp;  that the Guardian ad Litem's recommendations be ordered;  and that the current summer schedule be terminated.   The plaintiff abandoned his request for a modification of alimony at the hearing since his change in income did not fall within the requirements set forth in the judgment pertaining to a modification.

In its orders of March 5, 2010, the court denied the defendant's three motions for contempt.   The court awards the plaintiff $1,500 in connection with Motion 269, with payment to be made by the defendant within 60 days of this decision.

On May 12, 2010, the court terminated child support for Brent upon his graduation from high school.   The same statute (§ 46b-84) would apply to Reed and Chase.

The court further finds that the defendant has made it very clear that since the plaintiff is no longer paying child support for Emily and Brent, she will make no effort to encourage them to have a relationship with their father.   She equates his child support to a relationship.   The children have to go “behind her back” to avoid being accused of “sleeping with the enemy.”   The father's relationship with his children has suffered, and continues to suffer, due in large measure to the defendant's lack of effort to encourage them to see their father.   Further, the Guardian ad Litem's summer access shall control and each party will be solely responsible for any summer camp expenses incurred by either of them.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

CARUSO, J.T.R.

Caruso, John R., J.T.R.