Summer E. Polanco v. Marcello Polanco (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff wife by complaint made returnable to this court on August 26, 2014.  The defendant husband filed an appearance in this matter.  The matter was tried to the court on September 14, 2015.  The State of Connecticut Assistant Attorney General also has an appearance in this matter.  Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial.  The plaintiff was represented by an attorney and the defendant was self represented.  Testimony was received from numerous witness.  The plaintiff introduced five exhibits.  The defendant did not introduce any 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 parties were intermarried on February 23, 2012 in Norwich, Connecticut.  The plaintiff and the defendant have one child issue of the marriage under the age of 23 years old, being Mikail M. Polanco born in 2012.  The plaintiff has received aid or assistance from the State of Connecticut.  Both parties have resided in the State of Connecticut for more than one year immediately prior to the filing of the complaint.  The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

The plaintiff testified that she is currently living with her parents with her child that is the subject of this action and another child she has as a result of a prior marriage.  She gave credible testimony that the defendant had previously lived with her along with her two children, and that he was physically and mentally abusive to her daughter from the prior marriage.

The plaintiff is not currently employed and is receiving state assistance and receives HUSKY insurance benefits for herself and child.  She does not own any assets and owes past due utility bills as listed on her financial affidavit.

Her testimony was credible.  She testified that the defendant was a very controlling person and had subjected her to numerous incidents of domestic violence, some in the presence of their child.  The defendant's conduct resulted in her obtaining both civil and criminal protective orders and the defendant being found guilty of numerous violations of criminal protective and civil protective orders.  The criminal protective order is a lifetime order that prevents the defendant from having any contact with the plaintiff among other prohibitions.  She has been both emotionally and physically bruised by the defendant.  He has engaged in a course of conduct during the marriage that has damaged his relationship with the plaintiff as well as subjecting his child to emotional trauma by virtue of his actions, particularly in his failure to responsibly transfer the child after exercising his visitation.  She is afraid for her safety from the defendant based upon his previous disregard for court orders and his hostility exhibited towards her.

The defendant has an extensive criminal record dating back to 1993, the most recent of which were convictions in 2015.  He has been in prison multiple times since 1993 and most recently was in prison in 2015.  Some of his convictions have been for felonies.  His criminal record includes convictions for sale of narcotics, threatening, probation violations, disorderly conduct, failure to appear, breach of peace, violation of protective orders, and violation of restraining orders.  His criminal conviction record was introduced as an exhibit by the plaintiff.

The defendant, was convicted of violation of a protective order in case W11D–CR14–0154038 S for an offense having occurred on August 30, 2014 in which the plaintiff was the victim.  A criminal protective order was issued in that case which is in effect until December 31, 2099, in essence a life long protective order against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff which includes a no contact provision, a stay away provision and applies not only to the plaintiff but to her parents, brother and sister and in-laws.  For that case, the defendant having been convicted for violation of a protective order was sentenced on February 26, 2015 to three years in jail, execution suspended after one year with three years of probation.  The Criminal Order of Protection was entered as an exhibit by the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff obtained a civil restraining order against the defendant on September 19, 2014 which stayed in effect until September 10, 2015 in Docket # WWM–FA14–4016705–S which included a stay away and no contact order which also applied to the minor child of the parties.  While that order expired on September 10, 2015, under the existing pendente lite order in the present family action, entered on September 10, 2014, the defendant has no access to the minor child until further order of the court and that order has not been terminated at the time of the trial.

The plaintiff entered as exhibits the State Police records of those cases in August 2014 in which the defendant violated the protective orders in favor of the plaintiff which resulted in the defendant's arrest and subsequent convictions.

Upon questioning of the defendant by the plaintiff's attorney, he testified that he recently started working part time in a cell phone store assisting with sales.  He detailed his property and his debts but did not submit a financial affidavit.  He testified that he is seeking to meet up with the DCF recommended counselor and has done some anger management and domestic violence counseling and is counseling with his pastor.

After the plaintiff rested her case, the defendant declined to enter any exhibits, call any witnesses nor testify himself.  During the trial, he did participate in cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.

Credible testimony was presented by a DCF investigative social worker in regard to domestic violence incidents that resulted in the arrest of the defendant in 2014.  The social worker testified that the defendant was referred for therapeutic and batterer intervention services in 2014 as a result of her assessment that the defendant had significant mental health impairment.  She believed that the defendant had domestic violence issues and patterns of coercive control.  She is unaware if the defendant engaged in treatment.  The social worker also was concerned that the father had brought his minor daughter, not the child that is the subject of this case to a court hearing in 2014 that she believed was inappropriate for the child.

The maternal grandmother testified in the case that she was to pick up the minor child of the parties from the defendant after a visit that he had with the child but that he refused to release the child to her resulting in police intervention.  She further described the defendant as a very angry man who was very controlling and isolated both the child and her daughter from her and her husband.

The court finds that the breakdown of the marriage is attributable to the abhorrent behavior of the defendant.  He has during periods of his marriage engaged in a pattern of intimidation, manipulation and control to the detriment both to the plaintiff and the parties' child.  The defendant fails to recognize how his actions are emotionally damaging to his child by subjecting her to the uncertainty and disorder that accompanied his exercising his visitation and that his actions against the child's mother make for a very difficult environment for the child.  The defendant wants to regain a place in his child's life but his disdain for the plaintiff prevents him from doing so.  He uses his child as a pawn in an attempt to exercise hostility towards his wife.  The plaintiff has a lifetime criminal protection order in her favor against the defendant, the result of his behavior.

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. A decree is entered dissolving the marriage of the parties on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown.

2. The plaintiff shall be awarded the sole custody of the minor child of this marriage and the primary residence of the child.

The defendant shall have no visitation with the minor child but may file a motion seeking in the first instance supervised visitation upon his completion of the parenting education program and his enrollment and attendance for at least six weeks at a therapeutic domestic violence counseling program detailing both the program and his attendance in said motion.

3. The defendant shall pay child support to the plaintiff or State of Connecticut as their interest may appear in the amount of $79.00 per week in accordance with the Connecticut Support Guidelines with the court having imputed a minimum wage to the defendant as to his income.  The child support obligation shall be secured by an immediate wage execution.  The defendant owes an arrearage of child support to the State of Connecticut in the amount of $3,952.00 which shall be payable at the rate of $16.00 per week for a total support order of $95.00 per week.

4. The plaintiff and the defendant are obligated to provide health insurance for the benefit of the minor child at a reasonable costs to them.  Said cost shall not exceed 7.5% of their allowable net income, unless they are low income obligors, then at 5% of net income.  Presently, the child is on HUSKY.  The parties shall split all unreimbursed medical expenses as follows:  plaintiff shall pay 62% and the defendant shall pay 38%.  The defendant shall pay 20% of the plaintiff's qualified child care costs.

5. The court does not award alimony to either party.

6. The court finds that it is more likely than not that the parents would have provided support to their child for higher education or private occupational school if the family were intact.  The court shall have continuing jurisdiction to enter an educational support order pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b–56c.

7. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be solely responsible for their own medical insurance at their own expenses.

8. The plaintiff shall be solely liable for all debts listed on her financial affidavit and shall hold the defendant harmless therefrom.  The defendant shall be solely liable for all debts that he testified to in court at the trial and any other debts in his name and hold the plaintiff harmless therefrom.

9. Each party shall retain possession of and are entitled to all household goods, furnishings and possessions now under their possession and control free and clear from any claim by the other except as provided for in this judgment.

10. The plaintiff shall claim the minor child as an exemption on the state and federal tax returns.

11. The plaintiff's former name Summer Elizabeth Ethier is restored.

12. The plaintiff is excused from completing the Parenting Education Course having previously completed the course.  The defendant has sixty days to complete the Parenting Education Course.

13. Each party shall promptly execute all documents necessary to effectuate these orders.

Graziani, Judge, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.