Jeniferlyn Hatstat v. Gary A. Hatstat (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage which was tried on February 23, 2011.   The parties both represented themselves.   The court has carefully considered all of the evidence, statutory criteria, and common law pertaining to dissolution of marriage, alimony, assignment of interest in the marital estate, health insurance, and debts, as well as all other issues about which the court will enter orders.

The plaintiff, whose maiden name was Sudick, and whose previous name was O'Neil, married the defendant, Gary A. Hatstat, on May 10, 1998 in Sherman, Connecticut.   The court has jurisdiction over this matter because both parties have lived in Connecticut for at least one year prior to bringing this action.   The parties have two minor children of this marriage:  Damon A. Hatstat, born November 13, 1998, and Brielle L. Hatstat, born February 25, 2000.   The children are on HUSKY insurance.

The parties are separated.   The plaintiff lives with the children and her aunt and uncle.   The defendant is incarcerated pending disposition of criminal charges including sexual assault in the first degree.   Based upon the evidence, the court will find that the marriage has broken down, irretrievably.

The plaintiff works part-time and attends school full-time.   She will graduate in May with an Associates Degree.   She has current net income of approximately $300 per week.   She intends to work full-time for a few years before returning to school to get her bachelors degree.   She has no major assets or debts.

The parties own a home in Canaan, Connecticut which is in the midst of a foreclosure by Deutsche Bank in which they are both named as joint owners and defendants.   Only the defendant signed the promissory note.   Following the defendant's arrest, the plaintiff stayed in the home for awhile, trying to maintain it.   When the financial demands of the home became too great, the plaintiff abandoned it to move in with her aunt and uncle.

The defendant has earned his living as a carpenter and mechanic.   He has had no income since he was incarcerated approximately one year ago.   He has no major assets or debts.

There were only two issues in dispute.   First, the defendant seeks joint legal custody of the children and the right to communicate with his son by mail and telephone while he remains incarcerated.   Second, the defendant claims that the plaintiff violated the automatic orders and wishes an accounting from the plaintiff of a multitude of personal property which he testified was located in the garage and shed of the marital home at the time he was arrested.   The plaintiff seeks sole custody of both children and wishes to have them have no contact with their father.   The plaintiff testified that she sold some personal property with the consent of the defendant before she abandoned the home.   She says she left the balance of the property where it was.

As to the children, they have had no contact with the defendant since his arrest in January 2010.   It is premature to think of changing that situation.   The defendant's criminal charges must be resolved first.

As for the personal property in the house at the time of the defendant's arrest, the court finds credible the plaintiff's testimony that she obtained the defendant's consent to sell at least some of the property, and that all of the funds were used for customary and usual household expenses.

The court orders the following:

1. The marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

2. The plaintiff mother shall have custody of the minor children.   At the present time, the defendant shall not have contact with the minor children.   Once the defendant's criminal charges are resolved, the defendant will be free to file a motion to establish contact with one or both children.   That motion will be resolved based upon best interest of the children at that time.

3. There will be no child support orders issued at this time.   If the defendant is released from incarceration, the plaintiff will be free to file a motion to establish a child support order.

4. Neither party will pay alimony.

5. The minor children shall remain on HUSKY insurance.   However, if either party has health insurance available at work at reasonable cost (defined as no more than 5% of net income) the children shall be enrolled in that plan and removed from HUSKY.   The plaintiff will pay 100% of the children's unreimbursed health care expenses at the present time.   If the defendant is released from custody, and a child support order is established, the unreimbursed health care expenses will be allocated in accordance with the child support guidelines.

6. The State of Connecticut reserves all its rights, statutory or otherwise, against the plaintiff and the defendant.

7. The parties shall maintain their joint ownership of the marital home as tenants in common.

8. The defendant shall be the sole owner of the remaining contents of the marital home, garage and shed.   The defendant may dispose of that property as he sees fit, free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff.

9. The plaintiff shall retain any personal property which she has in her possession, free and clear of any claims of the defendant.

10. The court will retain jurisdiction to enter educational support orders for the minor children.

11. The plaintiff shall be entitled to claim both children for income tax purposes.

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

Pickard, John W., J.