Luis Diaz v. Cynthia Ortiz (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Luis Diaz filed an Application for Custody and Visitation dated May 7, 2014 against the defendant Cynthia Ortiz seeking custody and visitation of the minor child Nyleve Ortiz.

On October 8, 2015 the matter was tried to the court.  Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial and each was represented by counsel.  Testimony was received from the plaintiff, the defendant and other witnesses.  The Assistant Attorney General filed an appearance for the State of Connecticut for the Superior Court and IV–D Child support case but did not participate in this trial.

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 for custody and other relief was filed in this court on May 29, 2014.  The plaintiff Luis Diaz is the father and the defendant Cynthia Ortiz is the mother of the minor child Nyleve Ortiz who is four years old.  The applicant and the respondent are living separate and apart.  Connecticut is the home state of the child.  The court has jurisdiction to make custody and visitation orders.

The father testified that he has another child, not the subject of the this action with the defendant mother and has unsupervised visits with that child.  As to the child Nyleve, the father has not been a significant part of the child's life for most of her life.  He began supervised reunification counseling in June 2015 and has not completed said counseling at the present time.  He testified that the visits he did attend went very well and is seeking to complete the counseling and ultimately have unsupervised visitation.  The plaintiff testified that the visits with the reunification counselor have stopped in the last month or two due to the defendant not cooperating and making the child available.

The maternal grandmother of the subject child testified that she brought the child to the reunification counseling sessions with the father.  She further testified that while the plaintiff has had her cell phone number for many years, he has not provided her with his cell phone number.  The last visit she attended with the child may have been during the last week of August 2015.

A Family Relations Counselor testified that at the request of the court, she was involved with evaluating this case and met with both the plaintiff and the defendant.  She testified that there are two more reunification visits that still need to be completed by the plaintiff and that she was recommending a period of supervised visitation for the father in the community with the maternal grandmother being the supervisor.  The counselor testified that a four-month period of supervised visitation would be appropriate before the transition to unsupervised visits.  In addition, it would not be appropriate for third parties to be present during the period of supervised visitation.  The counselor also testified that the plaintiff and the defendant have very poor communication skills.

The defendant testified that the reunification visitation was interrupted due to insurance payment problems and not as a result of her actions.  She testified that she was willing to assist the plaintiff in resolving the insurance coverage problems.

The parties have a contentious relationship and a very poor level of communication.  The defendant mother has been the primary caretaker for the child during the child's entire life.  She has previously been found in contempt by this court for failing to obey court orders in connection with this case that involved with paternity testing.  The defendant needs to support and help the plaintiff reunify with their child for the benefit of the child.  The parties are fortunate to have the assistance of the maternal grandmother to facilitate the visitation by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff needs to demonstrate a consistent pattern of visitation with the child and complete the reunification counseling followed by a period of supervised visitation with the ultimate goal of unsupervised visitation.  If the parents are able to put the best interest of their child as the main priority as opposed to their acrimonious relationship with each other, the child will benefit for a lifetime in having a relationship with both parents.

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

1. The defendant shall be awarded the sole custody of the minor child, Nyleve Ortiz and the primary residence of the child.

2. The plaintiff shall complete the remainder of the recommended reunification counseling with Daryn Tenenbaum, LCSW, which shall consist of two sessions which shall be arranged between the parties and Mr. Tenenbaum.

3. When the plaintiff has completed the recommended reunification counseling, the plaintiff shall have access with the minor child for two hours periods of time on Saturdays, from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., said visitations shall be supervised by the maternal grandmother.  The plaintiff shall provide the maternal grandmother with his contact phone number.  No additional parties, spouses or significant others shall be present during said supervised access with the minor child.  The supervised access shall continue weekly for a period of four months.  At the end of three months of supervised access, the parties shall meet with Family Relations to arrange a schedule for unsupervised visitation between the parties to be effective after the completion of the four-month period.  The agreed upon schedule shall be presented to the Superior Court so that they may be entered as court orders.  Nothing herein shall prohibit either party from seeking additional court orders nor preventing the parties from agreeing to additional visitation and the terms of said visitation beyond those ordered herein.

Graziani, Judge

Graziani, Edward C., J.