Genevieve N. Sandoval v. Scott M. Weaver (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff wife by complaint dated May 9, 2014 and made returnable to this court on June 24, 2014.  The defendant husband appeared by counsel.  The matter was tried to the court on November 10, 2015.  Both the plaintiff and the defendant were present for the trial.  The plaintiff was self represented and the defendant was represented by an attorney.  Both the plaintiff and the defendant testified.  Both parties filed financial affidavits with the court.  Exhibits were entered by the parties.

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 December 20, 2009 in Brooklyn, Connecticut.  The plaintiff and the defendant have one child, issue of the marriage, Wyatt Rafael Weaver who is now six years old.  Both parties have resided in the State of Connecticut for more than one year immediately prior to the filing of the complaint.  The plaintiff is not receiving any state, federal or local assistance with the exception of Husky insurance benefits for herself and the minor child.  The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

On November 10, 2015, at the start of the trial, the parties presented an agreement between the parties regarding the custody and the visitation issues and the court orders hereinafter reflect said agreement.

The plaintiff is currently employed as an assistant manager in a residential group home for disabled people.  She has been at this employment for the past three years and has four to five employees under her supervision.  The plaintiff earns approximately $13.50 per hour for her employment and does have some occasional overtime pay.  Her financial affidavit reveals that she earns $450.00 a week from her employment.  She also receives child support from another party and nets $379.00 per week.

The plaintiff does not believe that the defendant is honestly reporting all of his financial income.  However, the tax returns submitted by the defendant are not inconsistent with the claimed income of the defendant as reflected on his financial affidavit.

The defendant is self employed doing fencing and snow plowing.  His financial affidavit reflects he nets $388.00 per week as a result of his employment.  He testified that his income is seasonal in nature and varies during the year and disputes the plaintiff's assertion that he is failing to report his income.  He testified that most of his income is as a subcontractor and that he doesn't typically get paid in cash receiving a 1099 from the contractors for his services.  He is also paying child support for other children not subject of this marriage.  The defendant also agreed to solely pay the tax debts as listed on his financial affidavit.

The parties have been sharing custody of the minor child since approximately the spring of 2014.  The mother acknowledges that the real estate known as 145 Wauregan Road, Brooklyn, Connecticut has been owned by the defendant since prior to the marriage of the parties and she is not making any claim for said property.  The parties have had a tumultuous relationship.  There was a dearth of evidence presented as to the cause of the breakdown of the marriage.

The parties have been married for less than six years and have been separated since approximately May 2014, approximately four and one-half years since the parties' marriage.  This is a short-term marriage.  The parties do have few assets aside from the marital home which was owned by the defendant prior to the marriage of the parties.  Both parties are employed and make approximately the same amount of income.  The parties have been exercising and are seeking a shared custodial arrangement.  An award of alimony under the facts of this case is not appropriate and the court also finds that the shared custodial arrangement of the parties justifies a deviation from the presumptive support under the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.  The custodial orders entered herein reflect the agreement of the parties.

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. Both the plaintiff and the defendant shall have joint and shared physical custody of the minor child Wyatt Weaver.  The Defendant shall have access with the child every Monday after school until Wednesday's return to school.  If there is no school scheduled, the defendant's access shall begin at 8:00 a.m. The Plaintiff shall have access every Wednesday after school until Saturday at 4:30 p.m. The Plaintiff and defendant shall have alternating weekend access beginning on Saturday at 4:30 p.m. until the return to school on Monday.  Each parent shall have the right of first refusal if they cannot parent during their assigned parenting time (overnight and due to work obligations).  If the parent cannot accept the extra parenting time, then it is incumbent upon the parent whose time is affected to find an appropriate adult baby sitter and pay for said childcare.  The child's birthday shall be shared between the parties.  Neither parent can remove the child from school for celebrations, but may have time during their parenting time.  If the parents are having a public party then both parents have an automatic invitation.  Travel outside of the State of Connecticut longer than 48 hours will require the vacationing parent to notify the other parent of where they will be and for how long.  If they will be gone for a week or longer then the parent shall obtain the written permission of the opposing parent.

Holidays as are follows:

Halloween:  The parties shall alternate with mother having even years and father having even years.

Thanksgiving:  The parties shall alternate with mother having odd years and father having even years.

Christmas Eve:  The parties shall alternate having the child Christmas eve with the mother having the child Christmas eve in odd years and the father having the child Christmas eve in even years.

Christmas day:  The parties shall alternate having the child Christmas day as follows:

The mother shall have the child from 12:00 noon in even years through the morning of the next day with the father having the child from 12:00 noon in odd years through the morning of the next day.  The regular visitation schedule shall apply for both parties after the conclusion of the Christmas day visitation.

New years eve shall alternate between the parties with the mother having the child in even years and the father having the child in odd years.

New years day shall alternate between the parties with the mother having the child in odd years and the father having the child in even years.

Easter shall alternate between the parties with the mother having the child in even years and the father having the child in odd years.

Memorial day shall alternate between the parties with the mother having the child in odd years and the father having the child in even years.

Independence day shall alternate between the parties with the mother having the child in even years and the father having the child in odd years.

As to vacation each parent shall have two weeks of vacation time during the summer or when school is not in session.  The parties shall make their choice known in writing at least 30 days prior before the party wishes to engage in the vacation period.  The plaintiff shall have the first choice in even years and the defendant shall have the first choice in odd years.

Nothing herein shall prevent the parties to agreeing on visitation for holidays and/or vacation for their child.

3. The court does not award any child support due to the shared custodial arrangement of the parties and approves the deviation from the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines presumptive support for the mother in the amount of $70.00 and the presumptive support of the father in the amount of $106.00.

4. The parties shall equally share the costs of any unreimbursed medical expenses and child care expenses allowed under the Child Support Guidelines.

5. The parties shall share the costs of any agreed upon extracurricular activities.

6. The plaintiff shall be entitled to claim the minor child as a deduction for state and federal income tax purposes in even tax years and the defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor child as a deduction for state and federal income tax purposes in odd tax years.

7. Both the plaintiff and the defendant shall each maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of the minor child in the amount of $10,000.00.

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

9. The plaintiff and the defendant shall each be solely responsible for their own medical insurance at their own expense.

10. Each party shall retain possession of all motor vehicles, bank accounts, checking accounts, savings accounts, household goods, furnishing and possession now under their possession and control.

11. Each party shall retain respective retirement plans, if any, as listed on their financial affidavits.

12. Each party shall be solely responsible for their own attorneys fees, if any.

13. The defendant shall retain ownership of the real estate known as 145 Wauregan Road, Brooklyn, Connecticut, free of any interest of the plaintiff.  The defendant shall be responsible for all expenses to said property, including, but not limited to any mortgage, taxes, insurance and other expenses associated with the maintenance of the property and shall pay, indemnify and save the plaintiff harmless from any liability thereon.

14. Each party shall be responsible for their respective liabilities as listed on their financial affidavits and shall hold the other party harmless therefrom.

15. The court shall have continuing jurisdiction to enter an educational support order pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b–56c.  It is the finding of the court that it is more likely than not that the parents would have contributed to the educational support of the child for higher education or private occupational school.

16. Both parties have completed a parental education program from a previous family matter and are excused from taking the course a second time.

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

Graziani, Judge, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.