Kimberly Schrum v. James G. Schrum (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

A review of the record reveals that the parties, never married, are the parents of one child, Destiney Roberts, born January 16, 2006.   The parties appeared for a fully contested hearing on custody and visitation before the undersigned on July 20, 2011.   The court heard testimony from both parties, the Guardian ad litem, the mother's significant other and the father's aunt.

The court finds proven the following facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence:

1. The parties are the parents of one minor child, Destiney Roberts, born January 16, 2006.

2. The father, 36 years old, lives with his mother who supports him.   He has not been employed in more than three years and has a 10th grade education.   He has a history of some substance abuse with some minor criminal history.   He had been ordered on January 4, 2011 to complete a substance abuse and mental health evaluation through DCF and has not complied.   He had been ordered on February 23, 2011 to undergo a hair follicle drug test and he has not yet complied.   He has another child, 10 years old, with whom he has never had contact.   He claims that he has no idea why the mother of that child prohibits his contact but he has taken no steps to seek court-ordered visitation.

3. The mother has essentially had sole custody of the child since the child's birth.   She lives with this child, Steven Roberts and their three-month-old child.   Steven Roberts is the former boyfriend of James Roberts's mother.   Thus, Steven Roberts is the common-law stepfather of James Roberts, the common-law father-in-law of Kimberly Schrum, and the stepfather and common-law grandfather of Destiney Roberts.   Notwithstanding this unusual family dynamic, Kimberly Schrum and Steven Roberts appeared to be providing for Destiney with a stable, nurturing and loving home environment.   Kimberly Schrum is financially able to stay home and care for her two children on a full-time basis.

4. The paternal grandmother has been particularly vindictive in making threats to Ms. Schrum, communicating those threats through the child and making derogatory comments to the child about her mother.   James Roberts has participated in this conduct to a lesser extent and has tolerated or enabled this conduct.

5. The child made a drawing in her therapist's office depicting the paternal grandmother stabbing her ex-boyfriend, Ms. Schrum's present boyfriend, Steven Roberts.

6. Ms. Schrum does not believe that the child would benefit from any contact with the father whatsoever but that under no circumstances should contact commence unless and until he has produced a negative drug screen.   She reported that the child is afraid of her father and of her paternal grandmother.

7. A report from the child's therapist was admitted into evidence (Exhibit 6) in which she recommended supervised visitation at the most.   She also reported that the child's behaviors deteriorated following visits to her father's home and that the visits made the child feel “sad and worried.”

8. A report from the child's Head Start program was admitted into evidence (Exhibit 5) which chronicles Destiney describing a confrontation between the paternal grandmother and Ms. Schrum.   The child allegedly reported that “grammy was going to kill mommy.”   The report also noted that following overnight visits with the father, the child appeared oppositional, uncooperative, and tired.

9. Although the father claims that Ms. Schrum has a substance abuse issue, he produced no evidence to support that claim and she introduced into evidence a report (Exhibit 7) stating that “Ms. Schrum does not meet the criteria for a substance abuse diagnosis.”

10. A report from DCF was admitted into evidence (Exhibit 3) dated October 21, 2010 stating “the department requested father participate in a substance abuse evaluation through SCADD to rule out concerns for substance abuse.   A referral was made for father;  he did not follow through, and is currently refusing to submit to any evaluation.”   The report further stated that the mother has not sent Destiney to visit with the father and that “the department is in support of that decision.”

11. A report from DCF was admitted into evidence (Exhibit 4) dated February 9, 2011 wherein DCF labeled the complaints of the paternal grandmother about neglect in the mother's home to be unfounded.   The report concluded that “father has met minimal requirements but continues to struggle with the department's recommendations for services.”   To his credit, he completed a fatherhood initiative 13–week parenting class in June 2011.

12. In questioning by the court, the father was unable to articulate anything that he could contribute to his daughter's life.   His sole justification for wanting to be in his daughter's life is that they are biologically related.

13. The court regrets that it is unable to see how reintroducing the father into the child's life would be in her best interest at this time.

“Under Connecticut law, the trial court's discretion as to custody and visitation is not limited to [adopting the specific custodial arrangement sought by one of the parties].   It has long been established that the court has an independent duty to inquire into custody arrangements even when the parties are in agreement ․ Further, it has been recognized that in contested custody proceedings, the interests of one or both of the parents may be adverse to the best interests of the child.  (Citations omitted.)”  Feldman v. Feldman, 37 Conn.App. 397, 403–04 (1995).

In any custody order, the court is bound by what is in the best interests of the child.  Simons v. Simons, 172 Conn. 341 (1977), Krasnow v. Krasnow, 140 Conn. 254, 260 (1953), Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56.   The court must also give consideration to the preference of a child or children if that child is of sufficient age to be capable of forming an intelligent decision.   The rights, wishes and desires of the parents are also a factor to be taken into account.   Both considerations, however, must be subordinated to the best interest of the child.  Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 541 (1980).

ORDERS:

1. Judgment shall enter where the mother will have sole custody of the child.

2. The mother shall keep the father apprised of the child's curricular, extracurricular activities and medical information.

3. This court will defer to the magistrate's Court regarding any financial orders.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.