Karen Cavagnuolo v. Michael Johnson (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law:

The parties met on line in 2001 and remained involved with each other for eight tumultuous years, approximately seven years of which they lived together but never married.   In June of 2003 the plaintiff gave birth to the parties' only child, Jenna.   Jenna by all accounts is a happy, healthy, articulate child who does well in school, has no special needs and loves both her parents.   The parties permanently separated residences in the fall of 2009.   In February 2010, a parenting access plan was ordered by the court whereby the defendant father parents Jenna from 12 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. every other Saturday and Sunday and Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 4:00p.m.—6:30 p.m. Due to significant conflict between the parents, court orders bar physical contact between the parties, require curbside pick up and drop off of the minor child, and permit only limited communication between the plaintiff and the defendant.   Court orders also dictate that neither party involve the minor child in adult issues or use the minor child as a messenger.

The plaintiff seeks sole legal and physical custody of the minor child.   The defendant seeks joint legal custody and an expansion of his parenting access to include overnight parenting time with his daughter.   Over three half days of trial,¹ the court heard testimony from the parties, a family relationship officer who prepared a court ordered custody evaluation, a co-parenting counselor, and neighbors and friends of the parties.

Legal Custody

Both parents love Jenna very much and Jenna loves both of her parents.   Sadly, the parties cannot cohesively coparent their minor child.  C.G.S. § 46b–56(c) outlines sixteen factors the court may consider in arriving at a custody order which is in a particular child's best interest.   Noteworthy to this case are subsections:  (3) “any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preference of the child”;  (7) “any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents' dispute”;  (9)” the child's adjustment to his or her home ․” (12) “the mental ․ health of all individuals involved ․”

The parents are unable to effectively communicate and consequently they are presently unable to coparent Jenna.   The breakdown in communication stems from the defendant's anger issues, his control issues, his obsessiveness about the plaintiff and his narcissism.   Interventions in 2010 attempted to address the parties' issues, and included limiting the parties' communication solely through Our Family Wizard, (absent exigent or emergency situations) and limiting the content of the communications to be solely about Jenna.   Father had difficulty accepting the fact that his relationship with the plaintiff was over except for the parties' parenting of Jenna.   For example, the defendant father parents Jenna four times a week during week one and two times a week in week two and father enjoys nightly telephone access with the child.   Nonetheless, over an eleven-month period commencing in March of 2010, three thousand messages were posted by the parties on Our Family Wizard.   Father breached the court order regarding limiting the content of his communications with the plaintiff and he monitored the plaintiff's movements, by appearing at a restaurant she was patronizing, commenting on her gym attendance and knowing what clothing she wore when she was out in public.   The defendant was observed driving by the plaintiff's house even on non-parenting access days.

Testimony from Ms. Carl–Stannard, LCWS, the coparenting counselor,² revealed the defendant, a year after physically separating from the plaintiff, had outstanding feelings for the plaintiff.   Ms. Carl–Stannard's attempt to assist the defendant in gaining insight into how his behavior was threatening and disconcerting to the plaintiff and therefore adversely impacting on the parties' ability to effectively coparent were unsuccessful.

Testimony from various witnesses revealed a common theme:  the defendant attempts to manipulate and control the plaintiff and utilizes any means available to him, including Jenna.   The court credits the testimony in which the defendant enlists the minor child to ask the plaintiff if he can have additional parenting time.   In an ongoing attempt to manipulate and control, the defendant is not forthcoming in a timely manner about his work schedule which then allows him to manipulate or control the weekly parenting access schedule due to allegedly work-related conflicts.   Once it was agreed that his work scheduled would be made available to the plaintiff via the computer, the defendant's work schedule became only a verbal work schedule and not subject to document verification.   Father is so erratic and noncompliant with being timely in the scheduled pick up and drop offs that the guardian ad litem has recommended if the father is more than fifteen minutes late, absent adequate and legitimate prior notice, that he forfeit his next scheduled parenting time.³

On a positive note, it appears the defendant is in the initial stages of substantively engaging in much needed mental health counseling.⁴  The defendant's denial of any anger and control issues and his mistaken perception that he effectively communicates with the plaintiff need to be addressed in therapy.   Father must be disabused of the belief that the plaintiff is the manipulating and controlling figure in the relationship.   To the contrary, the plaintiff, despite the personal difficulties she has had with the defendant, has worked diligently at optimizing the father-daughter relationship.   Ideally, over time and with sustained mental health treatment, the defendant will come to realize the plaintiff is an ally and not a foe in his quest for expanded parenting time with Jenna.

For all of the foregoing reasons, sole legal custody shall vest with the plaintiff.   The plaintiff shall keep the defendant informed about all major parenting decisions.   Primary physical residence of the minor child shall be with mother.   The parenting plan outlined in paragraph one shall remain in force until further order of the court.   Pick up and drop off shall remain the same, namely, the defendant shall transport the child to plaintiff's curbside or the Derby police station if maternal relatives are scheduled to be Jenna's care givers.   If the defendant is more than fifteen minutes late for pick up he shall forfeit his parenting time scheduled for that day or the next immediate parenting day, forfeiture shall be at the discretion of the plaintiff.   If the defendant is more than fifteen minutes late in dropping Jenna off then he shall forfeit the next scheduled parenting time.

The parties shall continue to communicate solely through Our Family Wizard absent exigent or urgent circumstances.   The parties' communications shall be solely about Jenna.   Neither parent shall disparage the other parent to the child and both parents shall always act and speak in a manner which fosters healthy and positive parent-child relationships for both parties.   Neither parent shall use Jenna to convey messages or information between the parties nor shall Jenna be involved in either parent's attempt to seek additional or alternative parenting time.

Overnights

The defendant resides with his mother and his stepfather.   The defendant occupies the second of two bedrooms in the home.   Jenna has reported to the guardian ad litem that she prefers the parenting access plan as it presently exists and Jenna does not wish to spend overnights at her paternal grandmother's house at this time.

Encompassed either within or in addition to the defendant's mental health treatment, father needs to acquire greater understanding about the growth and development of children in general and Jenna in particular.⁵  Jenna is not afraid of her father and wants to spend time with him but she is afraid of his anger and his obsessiveness.   With greater insight into and management of his anger and control issues, the defendant will hopefully modify his behavior so that over time, as his coparenting skills improve, Jenna will eventually desire to expand her time with her father to include overnights.   It is clear to the court, the plaintiff will support overnights, if and when Jenna expresses a genuine desire for overnights.   The defendant shall not pressure Jenna about overnights but rather work in therapy to gain the necessary skills to optimally parent Jenna.

Nightly Telephone Calls

By court order Jenna and the defendant have a fifteen-minute telephone conversation every night.   As noted previously, four days/evenings a week in week one and two days/evenings in week two, the defendant parents Jenna.   Sometimes Jenna is reluctant on the days/evenings she spends with her father to then be required to speak to him on the telephone after her arrival home.

Father-daughter telephone calls shall occur only on father's nonparenting days at 7:30 p.m. Termination of the telephone call shall be at the sole discretion of the minor child and the minor child is not required to remain on the telephone with the defendant for any minimum period of time.   Jenna shall be allowed telephone access with her mother upon Jenna's request when in her father's care.

Holidays

Christmas Day:  Father shall parent the child from 1:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in odd numbered years.   Easter:  Father shall parent the child from 1:30—7:00 p.m. in even numbered years.   If community Easter Egg Hunt is on mother's weekend, father shall do the hunt with child from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Halloween:  Mother shall dress the child and Father shall parent the child from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in even numbered years.

Thanksgiving:  Father to parent the child from 1:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in even numbered years.   Mother's Day:  Mother shall parent the child.

Father's Day:  Father shall parent the child from 1:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Vacations

During the summer months, the parenting schedule outlined earlier shall remain in effect with the following exceptions:

During school vacations, the schedule shall remain the same except father shall parent Jenna one day during the vacation week from 10:00 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Mother shall have the opportunity to one uninterrupted week with the minor child during either the winter or spring school break.   In the event the mother has one uninterrupted school vacation week, father shall parent the child two days during the other school vacation week from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff remained represented by the same counsel during the first two days of trial.   On the last day of trial, the defendant elected to represent himself..  FN1. The plaintiff remained represented by the same counsel during the first two days of trial.   On the last day of trial, the defendant elected to represent himself.

FN2. Ms. Carl–Stannard terminated her co-parenting sessions with the parties because “they were not getting anywhere” with the sessions.   The parties could not agree to disagree, they argued and on the occasions the parties agreed, the defendant would tend to alter the plan according to his needs.  (Plaintiff's exhibit 3.)The defendant appeared at Ms. Carl–Stannard's office and confronted her about the authenticity of her report.  (Plaintiff's exhibit 3.) Ms. Stannard testified the defendant's behavior corroborated the stalking-like behavior the defendant exhibited toward the plaintiff..  FN2. Ms. Carl–Stannard terminated her co-parenting sessions with the parties because “they were not getting anywhere” with the sessions.   The parties could not agree to disagree, they argued and on the occasions the parties agreed, the defendant would tend to alter the plan according to his needs.  (Plaintiff's exhibit 3.)The defendant appeared at Ms. Carl–Stannard's office and confronted her about the authenticity of her report.  (Plaintiff's exhibit 3.) Ms. Stannard testified the defendant's behavior corroborated the stalking-like behavior the defendant exhibited toward the plaintiff.

FN3. Although adjustments in the parenting schedule were justifiably made when the defendant was temporarily employed in New York, he now has local employment and therefore the unpredictability of his prior out of state commuting is no longer an issue.   The Guardian ad litem concedes her proposal that father forfeit parenting time is draconian in nature but believes it is necessary to bring stability and consistency to her ward's life..  FN3. Although adjustments in the parenting schedule were justifiably made when the defendant was temporarily employed in New York, he now has local employment and therefore the unpredictability of his prior out of state commuting is no longer an issue.   The Guardian ad litem concedes her proposal that father forfeit parenting time is draconian in nature but believes it is necessary to bring stability and consistency to her ward's life.

FN4. Father initially testified on January 31, 2011, the first day of trial, that he had sought out a counselor to undergo a ‘self evaluation’ to determine if he has an issue or issues and/or whether he is in need of treatment.   The defendant reports this self evaluation occurred in November of 2010.   The defendant testified said session was not a negative experience and his intent was to continue with follow up appointments, although he also testified on cross examination on February 1st that the evaluation confirmed he did not have an anger problem, and that he and the plaintiff communicate effectively with one another.   Noteworthy to the court is the defendant's claim that he had learned things and had benefitted from the sessions but then he declined the GAL's request that she be permitted to talk to father's counselor, stating not enough sessions had yet occurred.As this decision reflects, this court finds the defendant is in extreme need of mental health treatment and expansion of father's future parenting time is contingent on his improved mental health..  FN4. Father initially testified on January 31, 2011, the first day of trial, that he had sought out a counselor to undergo a ‘self evaluation’ to determine if he has an issue or issues and/or whether he is in need of treatment.   The defendant reports this self evaluation occurred in November of 2010.   The defendant testified said session was not a negative experience and his intent was to continue with follow up appointments, although he also testified on cross examination on February 1st that the evaluation confirmed he did not have an anger problem, and that he and the plaintiff communicate effectively with one another.   Noteworthy to the court is the defendant's claim that he had learned things and had benefitted from the sessions but then he declined the GAL's request that she be permitted to talk to father's counselor, stating not enough sessions had yet occurred.As this decision reflects, this court finds the defendant is in extreme need of mental health treatment and expansion of father's future parenting time is contingent on his improved mental health.

FN5. The court declines to articulate the factual events testified to at trial upon which the court draws its conclusion.   Suffice it to say, an integral aspect of father's mental health treatment needs to focus on the defendant gaining knowledge and empathy with Jenna's age-related needs and interests..  FN5. The court declines to articulate the factual events testified to at trial upon which the court draws its conclusion.   Suffice it to say, an integral aspect of father's mental health treatment needs to focus on the defendant gaining knowledge and empathy with Jenna's age-related needs and interests.

Conway, Bernadette, J.