Elizabeth R. Waldron v. Simeon R. Waldron (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This dissolution of marriage case was tried before the court on July 3, 2013.   Neither party was represented by counsel.   Both parties testified as did the court appointed guardian ad litem.   The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria and relevant case law regarding the dissolution of marriage, alimony, child support, custody, property division and other related issues.   The court has heard all the evidence and observed the demeanor of the parties.   Based upon the credible evidence, the court makes the following findings:

The court has jurisdiction over the marriage.   The plaintiff resided within the state of Connecticut continuously for at least twelve months prior to the commencement of this action.

The parties were married on July 27, 2011.   There is one child issue of this marriage, namely, Juliana R. Waldron, born on March 3, 2012.   Mr. Waldron has four other children, not issue of this marriage.   Ms. Waldron is not currently pregnant.   The child is covered under the State of Connecticut Husky health plan.   The parents and child receive no other public assistance.

Ms. Waldron is 22 years old.   She is currently a full-time college student, having completed two and a half years toward her baccalaureate degree.   She aspires to be a marriage and family counselor.   She also is employed as an instructor at a residential group home.   She works full-time nights and her mother and brother assist her in caring for the child while she is at work.   Her weekly net income is $424.00 per week.

Mr. Waldron is 36 years old and has a high school degree.   He works six days a week as a driver for a window cleaning company.   Mr. Waldron's net income for child support purposes, taking into consideration his imputed child support obligation for his other children, is $206.00 per week.

During Ms. Waldron's pregnancy, she learned that Mr. Waldron had engaged in extramarital affairs and that he had fathered two other children since the date of the marriage.   Although there were some attempts to salvage the marriage, Mr. Waldron's continued infidelity eventually led Ms. Waldron to seek dissolution of their marriage.

The court finds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and that Mr. Waldron's infidelity and lack of candor were the primary cause of the breakdown of the marriage.

CUSTODY

Ms. Waldron has been the primary caretaker of Juliana since her birth.   Mr. Waldron has had supervised visits with Juliana on a regular basis, however, his relationship with his child has been hampered by a lack of consistency in his visitation.   He has often arrived late, and on occasion, he has not arrived for visitation and the child and mother have been left waiting.   The current orders allow Mr. Waldron to visit in Ms. Waldron's home every other Saturday and Sunday from noon to 3:00 p.m. Mr. Waldron does not have his own form of transportation, and during the pendency of this action, he did not have a consistent residence.

Ms. Waldron seeks sole legal and physical custody and asks the court not to order any visitation.   She argues that Juliana has some health issues that require close monitoring and Mr. Waldron has shown little interest or understanding in how to attend to Juliana's needs.   Mr. Waldron seeks joint legal custody and primary residence with Ms. Waldron, with every other weekend, including Saturday overnights and all day Sunday.   He argues that Ms. Waldron is overprotective and that his visits have been regular and consistent, and that the visits would be far more productive if he could take Juliana to his home overnight.

The guardian ad litem recommends that Ms. Waldron have sole legal and physical custody of Juliana and that Mr. Waldron continue with his supervised visitation until he develops consistency.   She also recommends that the visits be regular.   However, she recommends that the parties schedule those visits around both of their work schedules.   She notes that Ms. Waldron and Juliana have scheduled their planned activities around the court order and have often been left waiting.   The guardian ad litem also notes that Ms. Waldron has been an appropriate caretaker and has diligently monitored her daughter's health issues.   The guardian ad litem was unable to comment on the suitability of Mr. Waldron's home or his parenting in that Mr. Waldron refused to co-operate with the guardian ad litem, despite the guardian's significant efforts to meet with him and to visit his residence.

The court finds that Mr. Waldron has failed to show consistency and an appreciation of Juliana's medical issues.   Although the parties disagree on many issues, the evidence shows that they are able to communicate.   Clearly, Juliana can benefit from their continued communication and a consistent schedule of regular contact with Mr. Waldron.   Considering her age and the lack of consistency in her visits with her father, Juliana would most benefit from a minimum of regular and consistent weekly contact with her father.

FINANCIAL ISSUES

The parties have divided all of their personal property prior to the date of trial.   On March 25, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement that was made a pendente lite order of the court, resolving all the financial issues between the parties, except the issues concerning support.   Mr. Waldron has not complied with that order as of the date of trial and requests additional time to comply.   The parties have requested that support orders be made part of the final decree.

The most recent court order regarding child support was entered on March 25, 2013.   At that time, Mr. Waldron was ordered to pay $26.00 per week in child support in accordance with the child support guidelines and $10.00 per week toward an arrearage of $1,744.00.   Since that time and up to the date of trial, the court finds that Mr. Waldron has paid $800 ¹ in support to Ms. Waldron, $200 of which was attributable to his 20% of child care contribution.   The court further finds that, as of the date of trial, the arrearage amount had been reduced to $1,544.00.

The parties stipulated and the court finds that they had intended to provide financial support for their child's post-secondary educational costs in accordance with 46b–56c.

ORDERS:

Accordingly, the court hereby enters the following orders:

1. The marriage is dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

2. Ms. Waldron shall have sole legal and physical custody of the minor child.   She shall inform Mr. Waldron of all major issues concerning the health, education and welfare of Juliana.   Ms. Waldron shall invite and consider input from Mr. Waldron concerning all such major issues, however, the final decision on any such issues shall be hers.

3. Mr. Waldron shall be entitled to spend at least three hours per week with Juliana in a supervised setting, the setting and supervisor to be determined by Ms. Waldron.   The time of such visits shall be arranged by mutual agreement of the parties at least a week in advance, taking into consideration the needs of the child and the respective work schedules of the parties.   The agreed upon times and days shall be set forth in writing, in email or text to ensure that there is no confusion as to date and time.   In the event that Mr. Waldron has not arrived for a scheduled visit within 20 minutes of the agreed upon time, the visit shall be cancelled, except in situations where Mr. Waldron has communicated to Ms. Waldron, in advance, a reasonable basis for the delay and his expected arrival time.²

4. The court, having found that it is more likely than not that the parties would have provided support to the child for post-secondary education costs, retains jurisdiction over the post-secondary education expenses for the minor child in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–56c.

5. Mr. Waldron shall pay child support in the amount of $40.00 per week to Ms. Waldron in accordance with the child support guidelines.   He shall also pay $4.00 per week toward the arrearage of $1,544.00 for a total weekly child support payment of $44.00 per week.   Any credit for payments to the arrearage or accumulated arrearage since the date of trial shall be applied to the arrearage of $1,544.00.

6. Mr. Waldron shall be responsible for 31% and Ms. Waldron shall be responsible for 69% of the unreimbursed medical and dental costs.   In addition, he shall be responsible for 20% of the qualifying day care costs.   Said percentages are in accordance with the child support guidelines.

7. The parties shall maintain health insurance for the minor child through their respective employment if it is available at reasonable cost.   Reasonable cost is determined to be 5.0% of their respective net incomes.   The court reserves jurisdiction to the State of Connecticut to open and modify these orders in light of the State's interest in this matter.

8. Neither party shall pay alimony to the other.

9. Within one year of the date of dissolution, Mr. Waldron shall pay to Ms. Waldron the sum of $7,200 for past household and family debts as set forth in the court's order of March 25, 2013.

10. Mr. Waldron shall return the iPhone to Ms. Waldron within one week of the date of dissolution.

11. Except as otherwise provided herein, the parties shall each be responsible for their own debts and each shall indemnify and hold the other harmless thereon.

12. Each party shall be entitled to retain any and all assets, property and possessions currently in their possession free and clear of any claim by the other.

BY THE COURT

Maureen M. Murphy, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Ms. Waldron was not sure how many payments Mr. Waldron had made and could not contradict his testimony that he had paid $120 on the first visit of each month and $220 on the second visit of each month from the first visit after the order until the first weekend in June ($340 in April, $340 in May, and $120 in June).   No further payments had been made at the time of trial..  FN1. Ms. Waldron was not sure how many payments Mr. Waldron had made and could not contradict his testimony that he had paid $120 on the first visit of each month and $220 on the second visit of each month from the first visit after the order until the first weekend in June ($340 in April, $340 in May, and $120 in June).   No further payments had been made at the time of trial.

FN2. Neither party requested a holiday schedule.   Accordingly, no holiday visitation orders shall enter at this time..  FN2. Neither party requested a holiday schedule.   Accordingly, no holiday visitation orders shall enter at this time.

Murphy, Maureen M., J.