Jay E. McGill v. Fatou M. Pyne (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter was commenced by a Custody and Visitation Application filed by plaintiff father on November 6, 2012.   Judgment was entered on April 17, 2013 wherein the parties share joint legal custody of the minor child with primary residence with defendant mother.   The plaintiff was afforded parenting time during a weekly overnight and every other weekend.

On July 3, 2013 the defendant filed a Motion for Modification seeking to relocate with the minor child.   An Issue Focused Evaluation was ordered by the court on September 25, 2013.   The evaluation was completed on November 18, 2013.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

When modifying a custodial order the court must determine if there has been a material change of circumstances since the entry of the last custodial order and whether the proposed modification is in the best interest of the minor child.  Malave v. Ortiz, 114 Conn.App. 414 (2009).   The defendant mother's proposed move from Hartford to Minnesota constitutes a material change in circumstances.

General Statutes § 46b–56d controls postjudgment relocations.   When faced with a postjudgment relocation the court must determine whether the proposed relocation is for a legitimate purpose;  whether the relocation serves that purpose and lastly, whether relocation is in the best interest of the child. § 46b–56d.

“Among the various factors the court may consider when determining the best interest of the child are the parties' parenting skills, the child's emotional ties to each parent, the psychological instability of the parent and whether the child is in a stable and loving environment.”  Malave v. Ortiz, supra, 114 Conn.App. 414, 424.  “The best interest standard ․ is inherently flexible and fact specific and gives the court discretion to consider all of the different and individual factors that might affect a specific child's interest.”  Id., 421–22.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Parties are the parents of Emmanuel, a 2–year–old boy.   The parties have never resided together.   Emmanuel has always lived primarily with the defendant mother and initially after the child's birth the parties were able to agree on parenting time for the plaintiff without court intervention.   Following father's custody petition, the parties agreed to joint legal custody of the minor child with father having parenting time every Wednesday from 10 a.m. to Thursday 10 a.m. and every other weekend from Saturday noon to Sunday at 5 p.m.

Ms. Pyne became engaged to Mohammed Sumoara, a resident of Minnesota.   Following the engagement, Ms. Pyne filed a motion to relocate to Minnesota.   Defendant Pyne and Mr. Sumoara were married in a traditional Liberian ceremony on August 25, 2013.¹  They are not legally married.

Ms. Pyne currently resides in Hartford with the minor child and a 6–year–old daughter from a previous relationship.   Ms. Pyne testified that Emmanuel spent time with Mr. Sumoara on several occasions and that the two have “a good relationship.”   Specifically, Ms. Pyne stated that Mr. Sumoara visited on 3 occasions prior to the marriage and that he currently visits every other month.

It appears that Ms. Pyne struggles with child care for Emmanuel.   She works braiding hair.   Ms. Pyne testified that she has no family in Connecticut but has an aunt and several cousins in Minnesota.   She stated that she will be able to rely on her family for assistance in Minnesota.

Plaintiff McGill resides in New Britain with his fiancée, her child from a previous relationship, and their two children in common.   Mr. McGill works evenings so he can attend to the children during the day.   Mr. McGill has a positive relationship with the minor child and no concerns were raised as to his parenting skills.

Mr. McGill testified that on several occasions he went to defendant Pyne's home and found the minor child alone, without any supervision.   He further testified that on other occasions, Ms. Pyne's home was without food and that she indicated that she was planning on sending the child to Africa.   These claims were unsubstantiated and the court affords them no merit.

Defendant's proposed relocation is purely for familial reasons and is not being sought for the purposes of negatively affecting the minor child's relationship with the plaintiff father.   It is in the best interest of the child to relocate and remain in the custody of his mother.

After reviewing the findings set forth above and applying statutory criteria applicable case law in light of the evidence presented, the court herby ORDERS:

1. Defendant's motion # 117 Motion for Relocation is granted.

2. Father should have parenting time in July and August.

3. Father may have parenting time in Minnesota with 72 hours' notice to defendant mother.

4. Father shall be responsible for transportation costs for the summer parenting time.

5. Plaintiff shall be entitled to weekly contact with the minor child via telephone, Skype, Face Time or other means of virtual visitation.   The parties shall keep the other parent informed of all telephone numbers and email addresses.

6. Defendant shall notify plaintiff of all important matters pertaining to the minor child.

7. Plaintiff's father's current support order of $75 per week is modified to $25 per week as he shall be responsible for the child's summer transportation costs.

SO ORDERED

BY THE COURT,

Ficeto, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Both parties are originally from Liberia..  FN1. Both parties are originally from Liberia.

Ficeto, Anna M., J.