Joseph R. DeLillo v. Jodi Lynn Johnson (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a limited contested dissolution of marriage action, which was tried on October 18, 2011.   Both parties were represented by counsel.

Judicial Findings

1. The parties were married on September 3, 2000 in Wethersfield, Connecticut.

2. The plaintiff has resided in the state of Connecticut for at least twelve months next prior to bringing this action.

3. There are two minor children issue of said marriage, to wit:

Joseph DeLillo, Jr. (D.O.B) 12/14/96) and

Tanner DeLillo (D.O.B.) 11/4/97

4. The children are enrolled in the HUSKY medical plan which is provided by the state of Connecticut.

Applicable Law

Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–81 sets forth the considerations to be used in determining the equitable distribution of marital assets.

These considerations include the length of the marriage, the cause for the breakdown, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each party and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of assets and income, and also the contribution of each party in the acquisition and appreciation of their respective estates.   Similar considerations apply to alimony considerations in accordance with § 46b–82 of the general statutes.

Discussion

At the time of the marriage the wife was thirty-three years of age and the husband was thirty-eight.   Both had high school diplomas but the husband had computer skills which enabled him to enhance his earnings around 2005 to 2008 from approximately $60,000 to $100,000 annually, when he was laid off.   He just recently (September 2011) obtained a job in Informational Technology at $100,000 annually.   His employment contract provides for sales commissions, but the details of that aspect are uncertain and there is no work history.

After the marriage the wife, who also has a high school diploma, went to a technical school to be trained as a esthetician, the $3,000 tuition was paid for by the husband.   In 2005 she opened her own salon which did hair jobs, facials, pedicures, manicures, skin treatments, etc.   His parents loaned her $10,000 for start-up costs.   The husband believed she netted about $500 per week.

During the husband's lay-off period his income was essentially his unemployment compensation.   The loan from his parents appears to have been repaid.

It should be noted that the wife has a son, Derek from a prior relationship.   He is now in college and the wife is paying that expense, (after any student loans or other financial benefit programs).

During the period of the husband's unemployment the marriage began to unravel.   In 2009 they had to file for bankruptcy protection and lost their home in Coventry.

They blame each other for the breakdown.   The wife claims the husband was physically and mentally abusive, while he denies it.   He claims she was so difficult and mean both to him and their children that she has alienated all of them.   In 2008 she brought a divorce action but in an attempt to save the marriage the parties reconciled and that action was withdrawn.   It seems that things went from bad to worse and the culmination was that the husband moved to a rental with the two boys and the husband brought this action.

The Court was impressed with the testimony of Attorney Leo Diana, who was appointed the GAL and has been involved with this family since the first action.

Attorney Diana has a wealth of GAL experience and is a neutral voice in this dispute.

Sadly, the two boys don't want anything to do with their mother.   They don't want to talk to her and blame her for her cruel treatment of their father.   Significantly, Attorney Diana reported that he still loved his wife and did all he could to keep the family intact.   He saw no evidence of parental alienation on the part of the father, and when he persuaded the boys to have a meeting with their mother, she was a no-show.

While he may not be a perfect person, there was no credible evidence of infidelity, or physical abuse.

In short, while there is fault on both sides, the fault scale tips against the wife.

The Court finds the marriage has broken down irretrievably and decrees that it be dissolved on those grounds.

The Court will turn now to the proposed orders of the parties, and enter the following orders:

1. Custody:  The plaintiff shall have sole custody of the two minor children.   The boys shall continue in therapy with Dr. Moyer and the defendant shall cooperate with the therapist's recommendations.

2. Child Support:  The defendant shall pay child support, in accordance with the child support guidelines, of $63.00 weekly, subject to a contingent wage withholding order (because the defendant is self-employed).   Unreimbursed medical and work related daycare are to be shared 11% by the defendant and 89% by the plaintiff.

3. Medical Insurance:  The plaintiff shall maintain medical and dental insurance as long as it is available to him through his employment at reasonable cost, and as long as the children are eligible dependants.   Each party shall be responsible for his or her own medical costs.

4. Alimony:  Neither party shall pay alimony to the other.  (In light of the totality of other financial and property orders.)

To protect the interests of the state of Connecticut, each party is ordered to pay $1.00 per year alimony, modifiable only by the state of Connecticut, as long as there is an obligation to the state of Connecticut.

5. Beauty Salon:  The defendant shall retain sole ownership of her beauty salon.

6. BAR:  This article of furniture, which is used by the defendant in her beauty shop shall be the property of the defendant.

7. Tax Deductions:  The parties shall file separate tax returns for the year 2011 and each shall take one child as a tax exemption (wife to take Joseph and husband to take Tanner).   If however, the defendant is not current on her child support obligations, the plaintiff shall take both children for that year.

8. Educational Support:  The Court will retain jurisdiction of post-high school education costs pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56c.

9. Miscellaneous Orders:  a) The plaintiff shall be responsible for any financial costs emanating from the enrollment of their son Joseph in the town of Rocky Hill.

b) The plaintiff shall retain ownership of his “Harley” motorcycle.   The defendant shall retain her motor vehicle.

c) Each party shall be responsible for his or her own counsel fees.

d) Each party shall be responsible for the debts on their financial affidavits only and hold each other harmless.

e) The defendant shall pay the balance of GAL fees owing to Attorney Diana within forty-five days.   Any GAL fees incurred henceforth shall be paid by the plaintiff.

f) The defendant shall turn over her son's Cat “FEDO.”

Klaczak, J.T.R.

Klaczak, Lawrence C., J.T.R.