Jamison Moore v. Melissa A. Hedding (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION # 106, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND # 109, MOTION TO INTERVENE, TRUDY LEBLANC

Here, the parties have been before the court on a number of occasions to address the merits of the above-referenced motions.   Today, the court enters final orders on the motions.   The parties, Mr. Jamison Moore and Melissa Hedding, now Melissa Carrier, first appeared before a number of judges with various temporary orders regarding custody and visitation with respect to their eleven-year-old son, Caleb Moore.   On or about July 1, 2011, the court, Boland, J., entered a temporary order of joint custody between the parents with primary residence with the mother.   Father was granted visitation on Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The court appointed attorney John Valliere as a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) to study the issues of custody and visitation.   On August, 22, 2011, the court, Goldberg, J.T.R., adopted temporary proposed orders of the GAL. After evidence and a hearing, this court, Nazzaro, J., denied a motion filed by the defendant's former husband, Clifford Carrier, to intervene and have visitation.   See Moore v. Hedding, Docket No. FA 11–4116211–S, and Memorandum of Decision in Re Motion to Intervene, November 2, 2011, N.L.J.D. [52 Conn. L. Rptr. 802].

With respect to Motion # 109, the movant, Mrs. Trudy Leblanc, seeks to intervene in this family action between Jamison Moore and Melissa Hedding (now, Melissa Carrier), the parents of Caleb Ashley Moore, age eleven.   Mrs. Leblanc seeks visitation of Caleb, the biological son of her son, Jamison Moore.   In her motion dated June 13, 2011, Mrs. Leblanc represents that she is a “Grandmother” of Caleb.   She states as follows:  “I have been constant in his life for eleven years.   For the first four (years) I had him four to five days & Night.”   Mrs. Leblanc claims the boy's mother, Ms. Carrier, will no longer allow Mrs. Leblanc to see the child and believes this will harm the child.   Here, the child's mother objects to the motion filed by Mrs. Leblanc.   All the parties appeared February 8, 2012 to testify and present evidence on this motion as well as motion # 106.   The court heard testimony from the parties, the GAL Attorney Valliere, Kris Hedding, a maternal aunt of Caleb, Shirley Hedding, the maternal grandmother to Caleb, and lastly, the petitioner with respect to motion # 109, Trudy Leblanc, the paternal grandmother to Caleb.

Because the evidence with respect to both motions overlaps and is intertwined, the court will discuss the merits of each motion together.

There apparently is no dispute that the applicant, Mrs. Leblanc, is the boy's paternal grandmother.   A preliminary issue is whether the plaintiff has standing to intervene here.   In Roth v. Weston, the Connecticut Supreme Court set forth the criteria a third party must establish to seek visitation.  259 Conn. 234–35, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).   The petitioner must show that he/she (1) has a relationship with the child that is similar in nature to a parent-child relationship, and (2) that denial of the visitation will cause real and significant harm to the child.  Id. The petitioner must prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence.  Id.

The court heard testimony from both parents, the petitioner, the GAL Attorney Valliere, a sister and the maternal grandmother to Caleb.   Since this motion was filed, a number of things have occurred.   The court can take judicial notice of existing orders in the case and findings previously made.   See e.g., Moore v. Hedding, Memorandum in Re Motion to Intervene, Nazzaro, J., November 2, 2011, Sup.Ct. New London Judicial District.   The GAL testified that Mr. Moore lives with Mrs. Leblanc in Lisbon.   The mother resides in Groton.   Caleb attends the Mary Morrison School in Groton.   Attorney Valliere testified the grandmother, Mrs. Leblanc, has been very involved with the rearing of the child since birth except for one period of time when it is claimed Ms. Carrier denied access to Caleb.   Attorney Valliere testified the boy goes virtually every weekend to Mrs. Leblanc's home and has a “strong bond” with Mrs. Leblanc.   Attorney Valliere notes that the mother has a busy work schedule and, in the words of Mr. Valliere, takes the position that she opposes further time between Caleb and Mr. Moore.   She refers, he says, to Mr. Moore's unreliable past.   She paints Mr. Moore essentially as an absentee father.   Mrs. Leblanc testified she was a cashier for Walmart in Lisbon for eleven years.   Her husband works at Electric Boat as a designer.   Mrs. Leblanc has seven grandchildren.   Mr. Jamison Moore was born of the former marriage between Mrs. Leblanc and Harold Moore whom she divorced in 1985.   Mrs. Leblanc states she used to have Caleb four to five days per week at her house.   After Ms. Carrier was arrested, Mrs. Moore testified, the mother refused visits to the petitioner's home.   Mr. Moore testified that Caleb was “devastated.”   Mr. Moore testified credibly that Caleb was with the grandmother petitioner from birth to the age of four for four to five days per week.

On the other hand, Ms. Carrier called a number of witnesses including her mother and one of her sisters.   Other than Ms. Carrier, the two family witnesses really did not offer substantive testimony critical of Mr. Moore or Mrs. Leblanc.   Ms. Carrier complains she is unaware of the location where Mr. Moore actually resides.   Mr. Moore and Mrs. Leblanc admit Mr. Moore stays occasionally with a lady friend in Mystic, Connecticut.

With regard to motion # 109, the motion to intervene, the evidence sways in favor of the petitioner.   Attorney Valliere describes the relationship between grandmother and child as very close.   Attorney Valliere testified that the child goes virtually every weekend to Mrs. Leblanc's home.   The child, he says, is doing well, has a great sense of humor, is getting his homework done, participates in class and is on track with respect to his goals.   The child, says Valliere, wants to be with both parents and loves each parent.   It is clear Mrs. Leblanc provides stability for both Caleb and her son in recovery.   The court makes a finding that Mrs. Leblanc has a relationship that is functionally like a parent-child relationship pursuant to the guideposts in Roth. Secondly, the court finds that denying intervention and certainly access by the paternal grandmother petitioner here would likely cause real and significant harm to the child, Caleb.   Mrs. Leblanc, the court further finds, has been an active presence in the child's life since birth, has a stable home environment and for now, anyway, is the glue between the seams of her son and his road to recovery and the child.   The court finds that granting the grandmother's motion to intervene here clearly is in the best interests of the child and consistent with the recommendations of the GAL, Attorney Valliere.   The petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, as is her burden, that denial of visitation will damage the child.   The court accredits the testimony of both the GAL and Mr. Moore, the father.   The court grants the petitioner's Motion to Intervene.

# 106 Moore Motion for Custody

In both the hearing leading up to the decision on the motion to intervene filed by the defendant's former spouse, Mr. Clifford Carrier, and the proceedings of February 8, 2012 regarding Mr. Moore's motion for custody and visitation and Mrs. Leblanc's Motion to Intervene, this court heard testimony about the estranged relationship between Mr. Moore and Ms. Carrier.   Ms. Carrier objects to access by Mr. Moore, describes him as a drug abuser and an individual with a criminal past, including drug offenses and incarceration on drug charges.   Mr. Moore, on the other hand, does not deny his past.   On the contrary, he admits he has made many mistakes but claims he has changed his conduct for the better.   The court credits Mr. Moore's testimony that he has remained drug-free for a period of years and is now gainfully employed at The Shack restaurant in Groton.   This action originally was filed by Mr. Moore on or about May 11, 2011.   On July 1, 2011, the court, Boland, J., entered a temporary order, granting the parties joint custody of Caleb with primary residence with the defendant mother.   Father was permitted visitation Saturdays and Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. On or about August 22, 2011, the court, Goldberg, J.T.R., adopted the proposed orders of the GAL which, among other things, continued joint custody and visitation by Mr. Moore.   The matter was then continued to December 12, 2011 for a six-month status review.   Throughout these proceedings Mr. Moore has regularly spent meaningful time with his son.   Mr. Moore works full time.   He states he does not work Mondays and Saturdays.   He works double shifts occasionally.   Caleb does spend considerable time with Mrs. Leblanc when Moore is working.   With assistance from Mrs. Leblanc and continued full-time employment, Mr. Moore has become an involved father.   With sobriety, Mr. Moore has changed both his life and that of his son's for the better.   Young Caleb has special needs including short-term memory issues.   He apparently is addressing these concerns to some extent at the Mary Morrison School.   Caleb sees the school's psychologist, Mr. Conrad.   Among other issues, the boy deals with changing schools six times in five years.   Attorney Valliere credibly testified although Caleb experienced problems including tics while on medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, he is doing better now.   As referenced earlier, he is participating in class and getting his homework done.

Ms. Carrier often works two jobs, from eleven in the morning until nine at night.   She resides in Groton and has the support of her mother and family.   Ms. Carrier notes that Caleb has an eight-year-old brother and wants Caleb to spend more time with him.   Ms. Carrier claims her “entire life is devoted to her children.”   She recently divorced Mr. Cliff Carrier.   She appears determined to attempt to decrease Mr. Moore's access to his son Caleb.   The witnesses called on behalf of Ms. Carrier, at best, offer dated criticism of Mr. Moore.   Since July 2011, Mr. Moore has maintained regular and meaningful involvement with his son.   It is the Guardian ad litem's recommendation that the parties share time with their son.

For the foregoing reasons with respect to motion number 106, the court adopts the reasonable proposed orders dated February 8, 2012 of the Guardian ad litem.

1. The parties shall share joint legal and joint physical custody of the minor child;  to wit, Caleb Moore, age 11.   The parties shall communicate only about the child through e-mail.   The protective order for the benefit of the father against the mother shall be modified to allow such e-mail and the parties shall continue to follow such protective order until modified.

2. The parties shall follow the recommendations of treatment and medicinal prescriptions by the child's treating physician in relation to child's ADHD diagnosis.   Child shall attend school on time and for the full day every school day barring any illness requiring hospital or doctor treatment.   Both parents are allowed to participate in all school activities that the minor child is involved in, both can participate in educational meetings, as well as any medical meetings that occur.   Each party shall be able to access any and all records, including educational and medical, as they see fit.   Each party shall be entitled to complete information from any teacher, physician, dentist, psychologist, psychiatrist, consultant or specialist attending to the child.   The parties shall inform each other of any medical and/or educational meetings that occur that they are aware, taking into consideration the current protective order.

3. The mother shall have access with the minor child Sunday night at 7:00 p.m. until Thursday morning at noon.   The father shall have access with the minor child Thursday at noon until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. The father may share his access time with his mother (child's paternal grandmother, Mrs. Leblanc) if he has to work;  however, father should maximize his time with the child during his access when he does not have to work.   Additionally, he shall have other non-overnight access during the week as his schedule allows if the mother is at work.   Each parent shall have reasonable telephone access with the child when the child is in the care of the other party, given the current protective order.   The mother shall have one weekend per month (from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 7:00 p.m.) twelve times per year and shall provide the father six weeks advanced notice of her intent to take the child.   If the child is returned 20 minutes or less early from his access with either parent, the receiving party shall accept the child if they are present at the drop-off point.

4. No party shall do or say (or allow others to do or say) anything that may estrange the child from the other parent or party or injure the opinion of the child as to the other parent or party or that may hamper the free and natural development of the child's love and respect for the other parent or party.   Such bar shall include comments about the amount of time the father or former stepfather has spent with the child through the child's life.   If injurious comments continue to be made, such shall be considered a substantial change in circumstances to modify the access and/or modify access to supervised access for the violating party.

5. The parents shall provide each other with their residential address within 48 hours and of any future change of address within 48 hours.

6. The parties shall share holidays by mutual agreement.   If they cannot agree, the Holiday Schedule A, previously filed and ordered by the court shall apply.

7. The child support order shall be modified in the magistrate court taking into consideration the parties' income and the relatively equal split access schedule.

8. The parents shall alternate the tax exemption for the minor child with the mother receiving the exemption in odd-numbered years and the father receiving the even-numbered years.   In order for a parent to receive the exemption for any given year, they shall be in substantial compliance with the child support order on December 31 of that given year.   If not, the other party shall have the exemption.

9. Father shall continue to have random urine drug and alcohol screens as available to him.   If there is none available to him, the father shall perform a 90–day hair follicle drug test upon the demand of the mother which the father shall pay for upfront and perform within ten days of the request in writing.   If the test is positive for the presence of drugs, the father shall continue to bear the cost of the test;  if the screen is negative, the mother shall reimburse the father for the cost of the test, which shall not exceed $225.   If the screen is positive, the father's access shall immediately be supervised and the parties shall return to court for revision of the access orders.   The mother cannot demand more than two screens per 365 days.   Father shall have sufficient hair growth to allow for such hair follicle test.

10. The parties agree that if either of them knows of any illness or accident or other circumstance seriously affecting the health or welfare of the child, he/she will promptly notify the other and both parties shall have reasonably unlimited access to the child, consistent with the circumstances, for so long as the situation continues.

11. At no time shall the parties attempt to resolve any conflict in the presence of the child.   At no time shall the parties negotiate directly with the child with regard to any change in the schedule of access time, either during their own access time with the child or over the telephone.   All changes in the access schedule shall be negotiated directly between the parties.

12. Parties shall ensure that the minor child has the proper medicines for the anticipated access with the other party.

13. Parties shall return to court on July 2, 2012 to determine which middle school the child shall attend.

14. The minor child shall only be transported by licensed drivers in properly registered and insured vehicles.

15. The minor child shall not babysit and/or have responsibility of his younger sibling.

16. The minor child shall not be left in the sole care of Cliff Carrier.

17. Mother shall attend an anger management course of no less than six sessions.   If she is required for such classes for her criminal issues, such shall count towards this stipulation.   The mother shall attend therapy to assess and assist her in dealing with her anger towards the father and shall attend until discharged by her provider.

18. All other previous court orders not contrary to the above shall remain in full force and effect.

By the Court,

Nazzaro, J.

Nazzaro, John J., J.