Alisha Eldridge v. Alex Ramirez (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION (# 112)

On June 22, 2009, the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the father, filed a Motion to Modify the Judgment entered January 8, 2002.   Since June of 2009 both parties have filed numerous motions for contempt and modifications and in the past year they have returned to court on at least seven occasions wherein the court approved multiple agreements regarding the appointment of the guardian ad litem, provisions for reunification therapy with Angelo Farenga of the Litchfield Visitation Services, and therapy sessions for the child with the mutually agreed upon therapist, Julie Mazzone, in order to determine if the child was ready to reunify with the father after an eight-year lapse of time during which the child had no contact with the father.

The parties and the guardian ad litem appeared before this court for hearing on January 13, 2011 after they were unable to reach an agreement in order to address the issue of father's visitation.   The court, having heard the sworn testimony of both parties, the therapist Julie Mazzone, and the guardian ad litem, Attorney Mark Volpe, and having considered the exhibits entered into evidence finds the following facts.

The parties, having never been married, are the parents of one minor child, Marcus, born June 10, 1998.   The parties lived together after the birth of the child for only two weeks when the mother returned to her familial residence with the child.   The father had exercised a visitation schedule with the child one weekday per week and alternating weekends until the child reached approximately three years of age.   On January 8, 2002, the court entered a final judgment granting custody of the minor child to the mother and setting forth a visitation schedule for the father.   The father was unable to identify for this court the last date he exercised his visitation rights but believed that it was a shortly after the judgment entered.   From that time to the present, the father has had no contact with Marcus with the exception of a recent meeting with a counselor.   The father is presently married and has two children, ages one and two years, and now seeks to exercise visitation with Marcus expressing to this court that he is now stable and responsible and hopes that Marcus will have contact with his new family.

During the hearing, Ms. Julie Mazzone, LMFT, a licensed family therapists, selected by the parties and the guardian ad litem testified.   The principal issue Ms. Mazzone was asked to address related to whether or not Marcus was ready to participate in reunification counseling with his father.   Ms. Mazzone met with Marcus on October 26, 2010, and again on November 22, 2010, and presented to this court her report and her opinions regarding the reconciliation with the child's biological father.   Ms. Mazzone testified that the child expressed anger and frustration toward his father, stating very specifically that he was not interested in reunification and simply does not want to see his father.   Ms. Mazzone further expressed concern for Marcus's frustration in that he felt he was not being heard by the adults surrounding this issue.   Marcus was described by Ms. Mazzone as well mannered child who enjoys music, participates in the Boy Scouts, is interested in robotics and who is well adjusted although she found him to have some level of anxiety concerning school and social interactions.   In her report, she makes clear Marcus's decision rejecting reunification with his biological father is based on his belief that he has two caring parents, his mother and stepfather, who have provided the stability and support he needs and he does not wish his existing life or family to be altered.   Ms. Mazzone supports Marcus in his decision.

The guardian ad litem met the minor child on one occasion, in February of 2010, and Marcus expressed to him that he did not want to meet with his biological father.   The GAL recommends Marcus continue therapy sessions with Ms. Julie Mazzone and that she provide a report every four months to the parties and their attorneys indicating whether or not the child wishes to resume reunification therapy.   The GAL further recommends that the father, although he has not done so in the past, should send letters and/or gifts to the child through the therapist in order that the child understands that the father is still available and interested in reunification in the event the child should choose to reunite.

The authority to render orders of custody and visitation is found in Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56, which provides in pertinent part:  (a) “In any controversy before the Superior Court as to the custody or care of minor children ․ the court may at any time make or modify any proper order regarding ․ custody and visitation” and further, under subsection (b), “in making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation, the court shall consider the best interests of the child.”

The court has further considered all the factors set forth in § 46b-56(c) in determining the best interests of Marcus and finds the following. (1) the developmental needs of the child are being met by the mother and stepfather;  (2) the child has lived with his mother and stepfather for the past eight years and it is a stable and supportive environment;  (3) the 12-year-old child's preference and wishes are that he have no contact with the biological father;  (4) there has been no past or current relationship between the child and biological father for the past eight years by which facilitate or continue the parent-child relationship;  (5) if visitation were to be court ordered, it is likely to impose stress and anxiety upon the child.

For the above stated reasons, the court vacates the previous orders of visitation ordered on January 8, 2002, and accordingly the father's Motion For Modification # 112 is hereby denied.   Further, the court finds no basis in law or in fact upon which to order continuing therapy for the child and hereby orders that visitation issues shall be revisited only in the event that Marcus expresses an interest in reunification with his biological father.

BY THE COURT

Markle, J.

Markle, Denise D., J.