Natasha Williams v. Otis Williams (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a dissolution of marriage action filed by the plaintiff, Natasha Williams, against the defendant, Otis Williams, on March 17, 2011.   The plaintiff married the defendant on April 14, 2001 in Hartford, CT. Her name prior to the marriage was Natasha K. Brissett.   She resided in this state for at least twelve months prior to bringing the action.   The parties have two minor children:  Otisha Williams, born May 6, 2002 and Charity Williams, born September 6, 2005.   The plaintiff bore no other children during the marriage, and she is not now pregnant.   The family has not received aid from any municipal, state or federal source, except for HUSKY insurance.

The court finds that the allegations of the Complaint have been satisfactorily proven and are true.   The marriage has broken down irretrievably without reasonable hope for reconciliation.   The court makes the following factual findings from the testimony and exhibits presented at trial.

The plaintiff is thirty-two years old.   She enjoys good health and graduated high school in Jamaica.   She trained as a certified nurse's assistant in 2006 and has been so employed since then.   She has worked for Utopia Health Care for the past two and a half years.   She earns $548.00 per week ($461.00 net).   She has been a waitress and has some hair dressing skill and experience.   She hopes to complete formal training in cosmetology and one day to own and run her own beauty salon.

The defendant is forty-two years old.   He did not complete high school.   He presents as healthy, but he complains of a hip injury in 2002 which he says limits his ability to stand for extended periods of time.   The injury does not appear to have limited his performance at Rockbestos Surprenant Cable Corporation where he has worked as an extruder operator for the past eight years.   He testified that his earnings regularly include at least five hours of overtime every week in addition to the usual forty hours.   He was clearly the primary breadwinner during the marriage.   The parties stipulated during the trial that child support would be $184.50 per week in accordance with Connecticut's Guidelines.   They determined defendant's annual gross income to be about $60,000.00, but they used net figures for their calculations.

The plaintiff came to this country from Jamaica to join her mother.   The mother introduced the parties, and they married three months later.   The defendant now claims that the marriage was one of “convenience” and that the plaintiff's attitude toward him changed for the worse after she attained legal status in the United States.   The court does not credit his testimony in this regard.

The parties bought a house in Bloomfield in 2008 for $215,000.00.   The defendant withdrew $10,800.00 from his 401K account and used this money for the down payment and closing costs.   The current monthly mortgage cost is $1,681.00.   It has not been paid for months, and there is a real threat of foreclosure, but no court action is currently pending.   The house once was and is currently on the market.   The listing agreement expired months ago, but the defendant did not renew it until just before the commencement of this trial.   There had been a purchase offer of $180,000.00 as a “short” sale, but this fell through due to bank complications and the defendant's delay.

The parties separated their finances throughout the marriage.   The defendant kept the accounts and actually paid the bills.   The plaintiff paid for the household's food and the children's clothing.   She initially contributed $1,200.00 toward the monthly mortgage but soon realized that she could not afford this amount.   She reduced her mortgage share to $1,000.00 with the defendant's consent.   He paid the remainder and the utilities.   This arrangement lasted through March 2010 when she found that he had not been paying the mortgage.   The couple then renegotiated their relative contributions to the household:  60% him;  40% her.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 is a statement from the U.S. Department of the Treasury concerning the couple's 2009 federal income tax refund.   It shows a refund due the parties of $10,027.86 and a reduction from the total of $4,489.94 applied to a child support obligation owed by the defendant for the benefit of his children by another relationship.   The plaintiff claims that she should have received half of the total refund but never got a penny.   The defendant disputes this, but the court finds the plaintiff's version of these facts more credible based on the couple's practice of keeping separate finances throughout the marriage.

There was an incident of domestic violence between the parties on November 6, 2010.   Plaintiff claims the defendant came home “drunk and crazy”.   He denies this.   She says that they argued over the volume of music he was playing;  that he disconnected the computer she was using;  that he hit her repeatedly, bloodying her face.   He admits to “mushing” her, meaning he shoved her in the face with an open hand.   He says she came at him with a knife and that he was defending himself.   The police responded to her call.   They arrested him and not her.   There was no evidence presented about plaintiff's use of a knife except for the defendant's bald assertions.   A protective order was issued against the defendant on November 8, 2010 and remains in effect.   The criminal case pending against the defendant in GA 14 will next be heard in March 2012.   The court finds the plaintiff's version of these facts to be far more credible than that of the defendant.

The protective order allowed the defendant to return to the marital home once—and only once with a police escort.   However, he did so several times, taking not only his clothing, but also many other household items.   He removed parts from the family minivan that was paid for, causing his plaintiff and children anxiety, inconvenience and expense.   Feeling unsafe after the incident, she purchased another used vehicle costing $86.00 per week.   She testified about finding a rag stuffed under her car's brake pedal rendering the brakes inoperable.   She suspects the defendant but could offer no proof.   He cancelled her health insurance without her knowledge.   He caused the gas to be shut off to the marital home.   He did the same with the household's cable, internet and phone service.   She was forced to put these services in her name and assume a debt of about $1,000.00 to the gas company.   She incurred $788.62 in health care costs when she was without coverage.   He has not reimbursed her these health-care expenses despite being ordered to do so by this court.   He currently owes $190.00 in back child support.   Based on the credible testimony of the plaintiff, the court finds the defendant's conduct during the marriage to be the main cause for its breakdown.

The defendant has had little contact with his daughters at least since the imposition of the protective order about a year ago.   The order requires a third party to arrange access.   The defendant claims that he has been unable to make these arrangements and has seen his daughters perhaps five times in the past year.   The plaintiff acknowledges that the girls miss their father.   She would agree with any reasonable adult as a facilitator and supervisor for access.   She says the nine-year-old has tried to contact her father without result and that she, not he, is the initiator of any contact.

Clearly, the plaintiff with the help of her mother provides the children's primary care.   Viewed in the best light for the defendant, this is so because he worked two jobs to support the family and now works a good deal of overtime to do so.   If plaintiff's view is adopted, she cares for the children by default.   He is simply not around to provide care because he chooses to party and drink with friends.   He currently has no home, claiming to stay with friends or in his car because he has no money—despite showing a weekly rental expense of $400.00 on his sworn financial affidavit dated November 19, 2011.   The Protective Order also presents an obstacle to his access with the children at least until March 2012.   The court credits the defendant as a hard worker, but his testimony about the marriage is less credible than that of the plaintiff.

After a careful review of the testimony and exhibits in evidence and a complete consideration of all relevant criteria pursuant to CGS Sections 46b–56, 62, 81, 82 and 84, based on the court's findings, above, the court orders as follows:

The marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown;  the parties are declared single and unmarried.

Plaintiff shall have sole custody of the minor children.   Defendant shall have access with the minor children by agreement of the parties as arranged and supervised by either the plaintiff's mother, Joan Barnes, the parties' pastor's wife, Pauline Beason or another third-party agreeable to the parties.   If there are no other options, the defendant may seek and employ a professional access supervisor such as Kid Safe at his sole expense.   The court makes these orders in light of the Protective Order currently in place.

Defendant shall pay child support in accordance with Connecticut's Guidelines, currently $184.50 per week, to be secured via immediate wage withholding.   As of December 1, 2011 there is an arrearage of $190.00 which shall be paid at the rate of $35.50 per week, also by wage withholding.

Defendant shall maintain health insurance for the minor children through his employer at reasonable cost to him not to exceed 5% of his net income.

The parties shall divide the children's unreimbursed medical, dental, mental health, orthodontia expenses, reasonable work-related daycare costs, reasonable extracurricular expenses, school uniforms and other reasonable school related expenses equally (50—50).

Defendant shall purchase and maintain life insurance sufficient to secure his child support, alimony and any post-secondary education obligations.   Any such policy or policies shall total a minimum face value of $150,000.00 and list the children as irrevocable beneficiaries.   Such policy or policies shall not be encumbered.   He shall provide proof that such policy or policies remain in effect at least once a year to the plaintiff.   Any policy or policies he currently has may count against the total ordered.

Plaintiff shall have exclusive use and possession of the marital home.   Defendant shall immediately Quit Claim his interest in the home to the plaintiff.   She shall make all reasonable efforts to modify or refinance the loan in order to remove the defendant's name from the mortgage.   If she is unable to do so within eighteen months of the date of this decision, then the marital home shall be sold, or transferred to the mortgage holder via a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.”   Defendant shall fully cooperate in any such sale, deed in lieu or other matters related to the home and the mortgage necessary to fulfill this intent.   If there is any deficiency judgment, the defendant shall be solely responsible for it and hold the plaintiff harmless thereon.   The court retains jurisdiction over the real estate until the above-stated purposes are accomplished.

Defendant shall pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $200.00 per week for a period of 4 years.   This period allows her to receive any training she requires to gain or sharpen her vocational skills and increase her employability.   This award shall be non-modifiable as to duration only and shall be secured via an immediate wage withholding.

Defendant shall immediately pay $788.62 to reimburse plaintiff in full for her medical expenses incurred when he ended her health coverage.

Defendant shall retain the 2000 Chrysler Town and Country and the 1995 Dodge Neon (if it is still owned by one or both of the parties).   He shall be solely responsible for any costs and expenses related to these vehicles and shall hold the plaintiff harmless thereon.   The plaintiff shall retain the 2002 Nissan Exterra.   She shall be solely responsible for any costs and expenses related to this vehicle and shall hold the defendant harmless thereon.

A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall enter, transferring $5,000.00 from the defendant's 401K to the plaintiff to compensate her for her share of the parties' 2009 federal income tax refund.   The defendant shall bear the full cost of drafting and preparing the QDRO. A qualified professional shall prepare the QDRO within forty-five days of the date of this Judgment.

The defendant shall submit to plaintiff's counsel a written list of any personal property he seeks from the plaintiff within thirty days of the date of this decision.   Any such property that the plaintiff does not contest shall be returned to him as soon as practicable through a third party.   The ownership of any contested items shall be determined by means of a “Yankee swap” conducted by a neutral third party such as the parties' pastor's wife, Pauline Beason as follows:  the plaintiff shall have first pick of the contested items;  defendant the second and so forth until all contested items have been selected.   If the defendant's list is not timely submitted, time being of the essence, he shall forfeit any claim he has, had or might have had to any such property.

Each party shall retain any other assets listed on their most-recently filed Financial Affidavits as their sole property without further claim by the other.

The plaintiff shall claim both children for income tax purposes for Tax Years 2010 and 2011 to compensate her for other costs she incurred during the marriage because of the defendant's actions or inactions.   Starting in Tax Year 2012 the parties shall each claim one child for purpose of a dependency exemption.   When only one child is available for such purposes, they shall alternate with the plaintiff claiming in odd-numbered years;  the defendant in even.   Notwithstanding the above, the defendant shall only claim an exemption so long as he is in substantial compliance with all aspects of his child support obligation.   The plaintiff may claim any exemption for which the defendant fails to qualify.   The parties shall cooperate in the execution of any forms necessary to take these deductions (i.e. Form 8332).

The parties shall be solely responsible for the provision of and payment for their own health insurance coverage.

The parties shall be solely responsible for the debts listed on their respective financial affidavits, and they shall hold each other harmless thereon.

The court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of the children's post-majority educational support orders.

Each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees incurred in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Carbonneau, J.

Carbonneau, John L., J.