Jessica Cusson v. Barnaby Corriveau (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Jessica Cusson filed an Application for Custody dated October 2, 2012 against the defendant Barnaby Corriveau seeking custody of the minor child Morgan.   On August 16, 2013, the matter was tried to the court.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial and were self-represented.   The Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut filed an appearance on behalf of the State of Connecticut, did not appear for the trial but previously submitted proposed orders.   Testimony was received from the plaintiff and the defendant.   The plaintiff submitted two exhibits.

From the testimony and evidence produced at the trial and after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following facts to have been proven.

The application asking for custody and other relief was filed in this court on October 17, 2012.   The applicant, Jessica Cusson is the mother and the respondent, Barnaby Corriveau is the father of the minor child Morgan Jean Cusson born August 23, 2012.   The applicant and the respondent are living separate and apart.   The court has jurisdiction to make custody and visitation orders.

The plaintiff and the defendant both work multiple jobs at the present time.   The court enters child support, unreimbursed medical and child care expenses pursuant to the Connecticut Child Support guidelines based upon the financial affidavits submitted to the court by the parties.

The plaintiff gave credible testimony that the defendant has not exercised his court ordered visitation from November 7, 2012 until the present time for almost all of his visitation.   The defendant has not visited with the child from July 13, 2013 until the date of this trial.   As an example of the defendant's lack of visitation, for the period of November 7, 2012 until the end of March 2013, he only visited with his child three times.   The plaintiff has had the responsibility for caring for the child with little if any assistance from the defendant.   The plaintiff is actively involved in providing medical care for the child and is responsible for the day to day care of the child.   Her child day care obligations are the result of her working two jobs to support herself and her child.   The defendant testified that he does not know who the child's doctors are, he has not been involved in attending the child's medical appointments and he denies knowing the name of the day care provider nor knowing where the day care provider is located.   He also has not completed the parental education program testifying that it is it is of no value to him and he doesn't see why he should participate in the program.   He also testified that he doesn't have to pay the child day care expenses as previously ordered by the court as he doesn't have a contract with the provider.   He denies owing any money to the plaintiff for said expenses despite previous court orders and a voluntary agreement he signed to pay said amounts which was introduced as a court exhibit by the plaintiff.   The defendant testified that he lives with his parents and that they would look after the child when he is at work.   He testified that he believes the previous pendente lite order of November 7, 2012 giving him visitation on specific days from 4:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. is controlling as opposed to the most recent order of March 27, 2013 giving him visitation on specific days from 4:30 pm until 7:30 p.m. He asked the court to have the child live with him 50% of the time.

The court finds that the plaintiff's testimony during the trial was credible and the defendant's testimony was not credible.   The child of the parties has been cared for by the plaintiff since the date of her birth and the defendant has not been involved in the day to day activities of the child and has had little if any involvement in the child's life.   He testified that he doesn't know any of the medical providers for the child nor does he know the name, or location of the child's day care providers.   He also has not visited with his child for months at a time and has not seen the child since July 13, 2013.   He also is unwilling to transport the child for said visits at the maternal grandmother's home to accommodate her working schedule but will only transport the child to the mother's home.   The distances to either home are not prohibitive to the defendant transporting said child.   The court finds that the plaintiff's request that the defendant transport the child for his visitation at either her home or the maternal grandmother's as directed by the plaintiff is reasonable.

After taking into consideration the statutory criteria set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes as well as the applicable case law and applying the same to the evidence, the court enters the following orders.

1. The plaintiff mother and the defendant father shall have joint legal custody of the minor child, Morgan Cusson with the primary residence with the plaintiff.   The defendant father shall have reasonable access with the minor child including but not limited to the following:

The father shall have visitation with the child every Tuesday from 4:30 p.m. until Wednesday 7:30 a.m. He shall also have the child every Thursday from 4:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. He shall also have the child every Saturday at 12:00 noon until Sunday at 12:00 noon.

The defendant shall be responsible for the transportation of the child to exercise his visitation for both the pick-up and return at either the mother's home or the child's maternal grandmother's home or any other location no more than 30 minutes by car from the mother's home with the mother giving the father 24 hours notice to establish the pick-up and return location.   The parties may by mutual agreement modify said transportation rules for any visitation and the visitation orders herein.   These court ordered rules apply for any visits or transportation not altered by agreement.

For holidays, the parties shall rotate visitation with the minor child for Halloween with the mother having the child on odd numbered years and the father having the child in even numbered years.   The minor child shall spend Thanksgiving Day with the mother until 3:00 p.m. and the father shall have access from 3:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The father shall have access with the child on Christmas Eve from 12:00 noon until 9:00 p.m. and the mother shall have access to the child on Christmas Day. The father shall have access with the child on Easter from 3:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. with the mother having access at all other times on Easter.   The mother shall have the child on Mother's Day and the father shall have on the child on Father's Day. The parties shall share all other holidays and birthdays as mutually agreed upon and the parties may alter said court ordered holiday schedule as mutually agreed by the parties.

2. The defendant shall make child support payments to the plaintiff for the benefit of the minor child in the amount of $135.00 per week, said sum being in accordance with the Connecticut child support guidelines.   The obligation of support and maintenance of the child support obligations shall be subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statute Section 46b–84.   The child support obligation shall be secured by an immediate wage execution.   The plaintiff shall be responsible for 56% and the defendant shall be responsible for 44% of unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, opthalmoligical and pharmaceutical expenses pursuant to the Connecticut child support guidelines.   The plaintiff shall be responsible for 56% and the defendant shall be responsible for 44% of work-related child care expenses in accordance with the Connecticut child support guidelines.

3. The parents shall provide medical/dental insurance for the benefit of the minor child if such is carried by such parent and is available to such parent at a reasonable cost.   Health care coverage shall be deemed reasonable in costs if (I) the parent obligated to maintain such coverage would qualify as a low-income obligor under the child support guidelines established pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b–215a, based solely on such parent's income;  or (II) the parent obligated to maintain such coverage would not qualify as a low-income obligor under such guidelines and the cost does not exceed seven and one-half percent of such parent's net income.

3. The plaintiff has completed the parental education program.   The defendant has not completed the parental education program and is ordered to complete said program within 45 days of this order.

4. The court shall have continuing jurisdiction to enter an educational support order pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b–56c.

5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall alternate claiming the minor child as an exemption on the state and federal tax returns beginning with the plaintiff taking the child exemption in the first year.

6. The court finds that the defendant has an arrearage due the plaintiff for court ordered child care expenses in the amount of $1,051.00 as of the date of the trial of August 16, 2013 which shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the rate of $50.00 per week.

Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.