Brian Bennett v. Laura Bennett (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT (# 148) AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (# 148.50)

The above-referenced Motions were heard before the court on March 23, 2012.   Based on the testimony and evidence provided at the hearing, the court makes the following factual findings:

1) The parties' marriage was dissolved by Order of the Court dated October 17, 2005 (Dubay, J.).   The parties' marriage produced one child, Emily Claire Bennett, born July 29, 1999.   Plaintiff has since remarried.

2) As part of the above-referenced Order, the parties entered into a shared parenting arrangement.   Plaintiff was ordered to pay plaintiff $85.00 per week in child support.

3) The aforementioned Order also required plaintiff to pay an equal share of both of the cost of “agreed upon activities” and “all uninsured or unreimbursed medical expenses.”

4) Plaintiff was laid off from his job in 2010 and, as a result, his child support obligation was reduced to $50.00 per week by Order dated June 1, 2010 (Gordon, J.).

In March 2011, while plaintiff was still unemployed, he and his wife relocated to Illinois because her job was transferred there.

6) Plaintiff has since procured employment in Illinois, currently earning $720.00 in gross weekly income.

7) Defendant currently earns $751.00 in gross weekly income as a self-employed design consultant.

8) The changed circumstances of the parties make their current custody/visitation arrangement unworkable.

9) Both parties enjoy a close relationship with their daughter and it is currently in her best interest that she spends an extended period of time with her father during the summer.

10) From June 1, 2010 through October 24, 2011, plaintiff failed to fully meet his child support obligation, resulting in a $4,817.57 arrearage.   He also failed to pay his share of expenses incurred during this period totaling $582.72, for a total arrearage of $5,400.29.   However, defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the amount of $402.00 for unpaid medical insurance costs, lessening the total arrearage to $4,998.29.

11) In October 2011, the parties' child got orthodontic braces over plaintiff's objection, as he wished to wait a few years until his financial situation improved.   The cost of the braces is $120.00 per month for a period of 23 months.   Defendant has made the monthly payments thus far.   The court finds that delaying the braces would not have been in the child's best interest.

ORDERS

1) Plaintiff is hereby found in contempt for his failure to pay child support and his share of the expenses when due.   He is hereby ordered to pay the defendant $4998.29 arrearage in weekly installments of $50.00 until paid in full.

2) Plaintiff shall pay defendant $126.00 per week in child support effective the date of this Order.   Plaintiff shall be responsible for 48% and defendant 52% of unreimbursed medical expenses, not to include the cost for the child's orthodontia, responsibility for which is specifically dealt with herein.

3) Defendant shall be responsible for the first twelve (12) monthly orthodontia payments of $120.00 and plaintiff shall be responsible for the succeeding eleven (11) monthly orthodontia payments of $120.00.

4) The parties' child shall stay with plaintiff in Illinois, or wherever he may hereafter reside, for her entire summer vacation with the exception of the first week and the last week of her vacation, which will be spent with defendant in Connecticut, or wherever defendant may hereafter reside.   In addition, the child will spend one week during Christmas vacation and her entire April vacation with plaintiff.¹  Plaintiff will be responsible for all transportation costs attendant to these visits.   The child will remain with defendant during the Thanksgiving holiday.   Defendant shall make reasonable efforts to make the child available for visitation with plaintiff if and when he visits Connecticut, provided he provides defendant with reasonable notice of his intent to visit.

5) The parties shall each be 100% responsible for all extracurricular and activity expenses incurred during their parenting time with the child.²

6) The parties shall be responsible for their respective attorneys fees.

7) The parties shall exchange their W–2s, 1099s, and K–1s by February 15th of each year and shall exchange their federal and state income tax returns immediately upon filing.   These obligations shall remain in effect so long as either party has a child support obligation to the other.

James W. Abrams, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. It is the court's expectation that, regardless of the child's close relationship with plaintiff, she will grow less enthusiastic about the prospect of spending her entire summer vacation away from her school friends as she progresses further into her teenage years.   It is the court's hope that the parties, if they are confronted with this issue, will hold the best interests of their child paramount and be flexible about the visitation arrangements..  FN1. It is the court's expectation that, regardless of the child's close relationship with plaintiff, she will grow less enthusiastic about the prospect of spending her entire summer vacation away from her school friends as she progresses further into her teenage years.   It is the court's hope that the parties, if they are confronted with this issue, will hold the best interests of their child paramount and be flexible about the visitation arrangements.

FN2. The court recognizes that this will cause the financial burden for these expenses to fall more heavily on defendant as the visitation arrangement outlined herein gives her the lion's share of the parenting time.   However, the court finds this arrangement to be in the best interest of the child as it will eliminate a significant source of conflict between the parties.   The court has attempted to equalize the financial burden by making plaintiff fully responsible for all transportation costs related to the child's visitation..  FN2. The court recognizes that this will cause the financial burden for these expenses to fall more heavily on defendant as the visitation arrangement outlined herein gives her the lion's share of the parenting time.   However, the court finds this arrangement to be in the best interest of the child as it will eliminate a significant source of conflict between the parties.   The court has attempted to equalize the financial burden by making plaintiff fully responsible for all transportation costs related to the child's visitation.

Abrams, James W., J.