Tina Coventry v. Charles Dzurenka (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING CUSTODY

A review of the record reveals that the parties, never married, are the parents of one minor child, Charles Dzurenka, Jr., born February 3, 2003.   The parties lived together for approximately 5 years.   The child lived with both parents until February 2009, lived with the mother from February 2009 until August 2009 and has lived with the father from August 2009 to the present while visiting with the mother on weekends.

The child receives special education attention in the form of PPT meetings, after-school tutoring and summer school.   He had been in counseling under the father's care but that recently ended.   He had been hospitalized at Natchaug Hospital for one week but both parents deny knowledge of any specific diagnosis.   DCF has been involved in the family but has recently closed its case, perhaps out of frustration and an opinion that the child's needs are being adequately met.

The father lives with his elderly father in Preston in a single-family home.   The paternal grandfather has numerous health issues and was recently hospitalized and then placed in rehab or convalescence.   He is scheduled to return home on August 8. Under the father's watch, the son has done rather poorly in school but his needs apparently are being met with the assistance of the paternal grandfather.   The father acknowledges that the son needs to return to therapy and is probably overdue for a doctor and dentist appointment.   The father works a midnight shift in Windsor requiring a one-hour commute in each direction after which he works for three or four hours in a friend's barn.   Upon returning home at approximately noon each day, he is able to sleep for four hours before he must pick his son up at school.

The mother lives with her elderly mother in Windsor Locks in a single-family home.   The maternal grandmother has some health issues but is generally healthy.   The mother works at the high school cafeteria from 9:15 until 1:15 each day and is home and available at all times when the child is not in school.   The mother claims that the child exhibits oppositional and sometimes violent behaviors while in her care.   The mother's parenting plan is sound but would require large upheaval in the child's curricular and extracurricular schedules, the result of which is largely unknown.

The Guardian ad litem, Attorney William McCoy, worked tirelessly and appeared frustrated by the lack of good choices to present to the court.   Unaware that the paternal grandfather was scheduled to return to the father's home in one week, he naturally recommended that the child should live with the mother and visit with the father due to the father's lengthy work and commuting demands.

The father's parenting plan would allow the child to remain in his school, in the home he has known for the past two years with the educational support systems already in place.   This plan depends entirely on the paternal grandfather remaining healthy and engaged while the father works two jobs and commutes long distances.

ORDERS:

1. Final judgment shall enter with the parents enjoying joint legal custody of the minor child with primary residence in the father.   The child shall attend the Preston school district.   Neither party shall injure the child's opinion of the other parent by their words or their actions.   Neither parent shall permit any third party to injure the child's opinion of the other parent by their words or their actions.   Neither party shall discuss any adult matters with the child, including, but not limited to, this trial or any other court-related matter.

2. The mother shall enjoy reasonable rights and visitation including every weekend from Friday after school until Sunday at 6 p.m. The parties shall meet at a mid-point between their homes for the exchanges or by any other mutually agreeable method.

3. The parties shall alternate holidays and school vacations.

4. The mother shall be entitled to six weeks of summer access.

5. The parties shall allow and encourage liberal telephone, e-mail and video communication (if accessible) with the other parent.

6. The father shall re-enroll the child in mental health counseling as soon as possible.

7. The father shall schedule a medical and dental appointment for the child as soon as possible.

8. The Guardian ad litem shall be compensated by the state of Connecticut at state rates.

9. If the paternal grandfather no longer resides in his home or is unable to care for the child while the father is working, he shall notify the mother immediately.   That fact shall constitute a substantial change in circumstances which would trigger a review of these custody orders.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.