Alisha Eldridge v. Alex Ramirez (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION (# 112)

I. Procedural History

On June 22, 2009, the defendant filed a Motion to Modify the Judgment entered on January 8, 2002, requesting this court to order therapeutic reunification and parental access with the minor child.   Since June of 2009, both parties have filed numerous motions for contempt and modification and have returned to court on at least eight occasions in the past year.   The court has approved six agreements regarding the appointment of the guardian ad litem and provisions for reunification therapy.   The parties were unable to reach agreement regarding future therapy and visitation arrangements and requested a hearing before the court.   The parties appeared, represented by counsel, and a hearing was held on January 13, 2011, and again on March 29, 2011.

The court, having heard the sworn testimony of the parties, Alisha Mundle (formerly Alisha Eldridge), and Alex Ramirez, as well as testimony from the minor child's individual therapist, Julie Mazzone;  the reunification therapist, Angelo Farenga, the guardian ad litem, Attorney Mark Volpe, and the step-father, and after having considered the exhibits entered into evidence as well as Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56 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 on a sporadic basis 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 on Wednesdays from noon until 6:30 p.m. and every third Saturday of the month from 7:45 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. The court records reflect that Mr. Ramirez was not present at the final hearing.

The father was unable to identify for this court the last date he exercised his visitation rights but testified that he believed it was shortly after the judgment entered.   From the testimony offered by the mother, Alicia Mundle, whom the court finds credible, it is clear that Mr. Ramirez ceased all communications and visitation with Marcus at some point in the year 2001, prior to the final judgment.   Mr. Ramirez's own testimony confirms the he has had no contact with Marcus with the exception of a meeting that took place in Mr. Farenga's office in 2010.   Mr. Ramirez is presently married and has two young children and has expressed to the court that he is now “stable and responsible” and hopes that Marcus will have contact with him and his new family.

On August 24, 2009, the parties came to court and entered into an agreement to appoint the guardian ad litem, Attorney Mark Volpe.   Thereafter, on January 25, 2010, the matter was referred to Family Services for a mediation.   The parties originally reached an agreement that Marcus would attend counseling sessions with Dr. Robert Horowitz in New Haven.   After several appointments, and at the request by Marcus to terminate these sessions because he was uncomfortable, the parties returned to court.   On May 10, 2010, the parties further agreed that Marcus would attend reunification therapy with Angelo Farenga of the Litchfield Visitation Services.   Mr. Farenga met with each parent separately and then with Marcus.   Mr. Farenga testified that he set up the first reunification session between Marcus and Mr. Ramirez in his office and that Marcus prepared a written statement he presented to his father expressing his desire for Mr. Ramirez to cease the court intervention in efforts to force Marcus to visit with him.   During this session Mr. Farenga observed Marcus was under stress and cut the session short, from one hour to just ten minutes.   After consultation with the guardian ad litem, the parties returned to court and entered into an agreement terminating sessions with Mr. Farenga.   The parties agreed that Marcus would receive individual therapy and counseling from Julie Mazzone, LMFT.

At the hearing on January 13, 2011, Julie Mazzone testified that the primary issue she was asked to address with Marcus related to whether or not Marcus was ready to participate in reunification counseling with his father.   Ms. Mazzone conveyed that Marcus 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 and expressed that he was fearful Mr. Ramirez's actions would impact on his family life now.   Ms. Mazzone further expressed concern for Marcus's frustrations attributed to his beliefs that his wishes were not given any weight by the adults involved in this case.   Marcus was described by Ms. Mazzone as a 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 who support his needs and as a result he does not wish his existing life or family to be altered in any manner.   Ms. Mazzone supports Marcus in his decision and therefore recommends no further individual counseling or forced reunification counseling take place because she believes it would be most stressful to Marcus.

The guardian ad litem met with Marcus 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.

On March 29, 2011, Mr. Farenga testified that it is his opinion that continued counseling is in order based on his belief that Marcus has been unduly influenced by his custodial parents and as a result Marcus is unable to draw his own conclusions about his father.   He further opines that if Marcus had accurate information regarding Mr. Ramirez he could better understand his own feelings towards his father.

This court finds this position to be unpersuasive in this particular case.   There is simply no evidence that the custodial parents attempted to unduly influence or alienate Marcus from his father in any manner.   The fact remains that it was Mr. Ramirez who did not seek any contact with his son for a period of close to ten years.   Further, the court finds credible the testimony of Alicia Mundle and Mr. Mundle regarding the early visitation years when they had appeared with a very young Marcus at the police station for visitations and that Mr. Ramirez simply did not appear.   This court further finds credible the testimony by Ms. Mundle that she has observed Marcus becoming very upset and agitated over the topic of reunification and that she would not interfere with any decisions regarding reunification so long as that is “what Marcus would want.”   Ms. Mundle has cooperated in bringing the child to at least three counselors and has followed the suggestions of the guardian ad litem.   The evidence further reflects the fact that the Mundles have been actively engaged in both school and extra curricular activities with Marcus and that Marcus has been brought up in a stable, loving and caring home.

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 nine years in a stable and supportive environment;  (3) Marcus'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 ten years by which facilitate or continue the parent-child relationship;  (5) if court ordered reunification were to occur it is likely to impose stress and anxiety upon Marcus at this time.

This court, after having considered the criteria above, finds it to be in Marcus's best interests to suspend all reunification efforts at this time.   Any future reunification efforts shall be made only if initiated by Marcus.   Thus, 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.

BY THE COURT

Markle, J.

Markle, Denise D., J.