Terry Aliano v. Michael Aliano (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING CUSTODY AND ACCESS

The court bifurcated this trial holding hearings regarding the custody and access schedule of the minor child on August 25, September 21 and September 22, 2011.   The financial issues of alimony, property distribution, Guardian ad litem (GAL) fees and child support were addressed on separate days and in a separate memorandum of decision.

A review of the record reveals that the parties were married on February 24, 2007 and have one child, issue of their marriage, Giovanni Aliano born March 2, 2008.   The parties appeared, together with the GAL on August 25, September 21 and September 22, 2011.   The court has fully considered the criteria of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 46b–56 as well as the evidence, applicable case law, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and arguments in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue in this decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties previously resided in the spacious marital residence together with the wife's 22–year–old son and 11–year–old daughter from two previous relationships and the three-year-old son, issue of the marriage.

2. The parties have engaged in classic high-conflict litigation.

3. Living under one roof had proven to be intolerable for all concerned.

4. The police and DCF had been called to the home on numerous occasions.

5. The husband had owned this home for 13 years, well before the parties met and married.   He earns all of the money and pays all of the bills.

6. The court had entered previous orders giving the wife temporary pendente lite exclusive possession of the marital residence.   Thereafter, the court entered pendente lite orders giving the husband exclusive possession of the marital residence from approximately June 2011 until the present time.

7. On or about June 2011, the wife, together with her 11–year–old child, relocated into a condominium in Norwich which she shares with an acquaintance, Shelly Chenonceau.

8. Ms. Chenonceau testified at length and appears to have an abnormal involvement in the affairs, litigation and parenting concerns of the plaintiff.   She apparently allows the plaintiff and her children to live with her, rent free, and had been described as the plaintiff's “paralegal,” assisting her with her ongoing litigation.   She was in attendance during most of this three-day proceeding.

The plaintiff is now self-represented after having three different lawyers representing her.

10. The plaintiff called a large number of witnesses in support of her requested parenting plan of joint custody with primary residence and final decision-making in her.

11. The plaintiff's witnesses included Frank Cardarelli, a father figure who has known her for many years;  Shelley Chenonceau, her roommate;  Lori Utz, a self-represented litigant herself who met the plaintiff while engaged in her own litigation in this courthouse;  Virginia Salzer, a neighbor;  Dorothy Parker, a babysitter, and Judy Waterhouse, her daughter's previous babysitter.

12. All of these witnesses described the plaintiff as a loving mother, a perfect housekeeper, and a devoted friend.

13. The plaintiff was extremely critical of the Family Relations Officer (FRO) and GAL who investigated the family with a view toward rendering a custodial recommendation, primarily for their failure to contact each and every collateral reference of the plaintiff.   Both the GAL and the FRO testified credibly that they had spoken with each person who they deemed necessary.

14. The plaintiff acknowledged that in a 2007 psychological evaluation, she was found to have traits and tendencies of a Histrionic Personality Disorder.   The court observed the plaintiff over many days of trial and heard many witnesses describe her at various events.   The court finds that this psychological characterization is consistent with that which the court has observed and which the witnesses described.   The court finds that she puts her need to “win” ahead of the needs of her child.   Likewise, the GAL, having spent approximately 80 hours on this case testified that the plaintiff appears to be “addicted to this litigation,” self-absorbed and egotistical.   It is noteworthy that in a case involving a three-year-old child with few “collateral sources” such as a teacher, therapist, close friends or involved medical personnel, the GAL still spent 80 hours in preparing her recommendation.

15. Despite the fact that this psychological evaluation recommended that the mother engage in intensive psychotherapy one or two times per week for at least one year, the plaintiff acknowledged that although she has engaged in three or four different therapists since that time, she never shared the contents of that report or its findings with her mental health professionals.

16. The GAL was adamant in her opinion that “this is not a joint custody case.”   The GAL had been the GAL for the plaintiff's daughter in a previous divorce case in 2007 and observed that although the mother had mental health issues then, “she is bad and getting worse.”   The GAL further opined that mother's present living arrangements are temporary as she is a roommate or guest of Shelley Chenonceau and the GAL is concerned that the mother is presently unemployed and seeking employment both within and beyond the state of Connecticut.   The GAL adamantly recommended sole custody in the father with an access schedule for the mother of every Wednesday from after school or day care until Thursday morning and every other weekend from Friday evening until Monday morning.   Holidays and vacations would be shared or alternated.

17. The GAL did not opine improperly on the mental health of the plaintiff.   Rather, in assessing the best interests of the child, the GAL testified that based on her observations, the plaintiff's involvement with this litigation and her animosity toward the defendant consumed an unhealthy portion of her life and interfered with her ability to parent appropriately.   See In re Tayquon H., 76 Conn.App. 693, 704–06, 821 A.2d 796 (2003);  Clougherty v. Clougherty, 131 Conn.App. 270 (2011).

18. The court finds it telling that this eminently qualified GAL was more adamant, unequivocal and unwavering in her recommendations than this court can ever recall from this or any other GAL.

19. While the FRO recommended shared custody with final decision-making authority in the father, she did not have the benefit of having sat through the testimony of both parties and all witnesses in this three-day hearing as well as previous hearings.   The FRO spent only a small part of the two months she was assigned to this matter whereas the GAL had much more time and opportunity to gather facts.

20. It is clear to the court that these two parents could not possibly co-parent successfully.   For example, it was determined by this court on the third day of testimony that they both supported their child's attending a Montessori preschool at this time but since neither had spoken to the other, he had not been enrolled.   Despite the hundreds of e-mails and text messages, numerous court appearances and more than 135 pleadings, the parents had been unable or unwilling to discuss this most elementary and important issue presently facing their young child.

21. The court finds that the father is better suited for acting as the child's primary custodian.   He is a lifelong resident of Norwich and owns his own home, the only permanent home this child has ever known.   He owns several inter-related businesses headquartered approximately 1/8 of a mile from his home and is able to utilize employees and family members to assist him in his caregiving responsibilities.   While it is true that when this was an intact family, the mother was a stay-at-home mom and the primary caregiver while the father worked long hours, since these proceedings commenced, he has rearranged his work schedule to be available for his child's needs.   He testified credibly that his work responsibilities are flexible and that the child is more than comfortable at his workplace.   It is his intention to enroll the child in a Montessori preschool and to be with his child at all other times except when the child is with his mother.

22. The parties stipulated and agreed that the GAL's holiday and vacation recommendation was suitable although the mother suggested that the visits end earlier than 8 p.m. due to his young age.

ORDERS

1. The father shall have sole legal custody of the minor child.   He shall keep the mother informed of all curricular, extracurricular, medical, dental, psychological activities and appointments.

2. The mother shall have the child every Wednesday from after school or preschool or daycare until the return of school on Thursday morning unless there is no such activity that day and then her access will be from 9 a.m. on Wednesday until 5 p.m. on Thursday afternoon.   The mother shall have the minor child every other weekend from after school or preschool or day care on Friday (or at 5 p.m. if there is no such activity) until Monday morning at the commencement of school or preschool or day care.   If Monday is a holiday, mother's access shall be extended to Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. or at the commencement of school or day care or preschool.   The child will be with the father at all other times.

3. All transfers of the child shall take place at the child's preschool, school or daycare when possible.   If there is no school, day care or preschool at that regularly scheduled transfer, the transfer shall be accomplished at the Norwich McDonald's on Route 82.   Neither party shall engage in audio, video or photographic recording of the other or of the child during any transfers.

4. Absent an emergency, the parties shall communicate exclusively through e-mail and text communication on all issues regarding the minor child.

5. The parties shall alternate holidays as follows:

Mother shall have the minor child for the Christmas Eve holiday in all even numbered years.   Christmas Eve shall be defined as 9 a.m. on December 24 through 2 p.m. on December 25.   Mother shall have the minor child for the Christmas day holiday in all odd-numbered years.   The Christmas day holiday shall be defined as 2 p.m. on December 25 through 7 p.m. on December 26.

Mother shall have the minor child for the Thanksgiving holiday in all odd-numbered years.   The Thanksgiving holiday shall be defined as 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day.

Mother shall have the minor child for the Halloween holiday in all even-numbered years.   The Halloween holiday shall be defined as 4 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. every October 31.

Mother shall have the minor child for the Easter holiday in all even-numbered years.   The Easter holiday shall be defined as 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Easter Sunday.

6. The parties shall enjoy vacations with the child as follows:  each party shall be entitled to two nonconsecutive weeks of vacation with the minor child each year.   The mother shall have her first choice of weeks in odd-numbered years and each shall notify the other of the week they intend to exercise by April 1 each year.   Each party shall provide the other with a detailed travel itinerary for any plans to travel out of state with the minor child for more than 48 hours.   Said itinerary shall include dates, travel information, flight information, hotel contact information and the names, telephone numbers and addresses of any individual the child will be staying with overnight.

7. The above orders are conditioned upon the father immediately enrolling the child in a quality preschool/day care program for a minimum of four days per week, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at the father's expense.

8. Mother shall have telephone access with the minor child every Monday and Tuesday and every Sunday that she does not have the child, all at 7:30 p.m.

9. Each party shall be entitled to attend all school, preschool, day care, sporting, scouting and other extracurricular activities of the child.   The father shall provide the mother with all relevant contact information regarding the minor child's ongoing activities so she may request and receive updates directly from the program organizers.

10. Neither party shall make comments in front of the minor child regarding ongoing financial or parenting disputes or allow third parties to do so.   Neither party shall make disparaging remarks about the other in the presence of the minor child or allow third parties to do so.   Each party shall encourage a strong parent-child relationship with the other.

11. The father shall not permanently relocate the minor child from New London County without 90 days prior written notice to the mother.

12. Neither party shall introduce the minor child to new romantic partners within six months following the date of dissolution.

13. The minor child shall not be in the presence of Abe Chapman (except at the offices of American Ambulance) at any time.

14. The holiday access schedule shall take priority over vacation access and vacation access shall take priority over the regular access schedule.

15. In the event either party seeks to file a future motion to modify any aspect of this parenting plan, they shall be required to file a Request for Leave to Modify provided for in Practice Book Section 25–26, as amended.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.