Megan A. Pehowdy v. Brian L. Pehowdy (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff wife by complaint dated April 27, 2015 and made returnable to this court on June 2, 2015.  Both the plaintiff and the defendant were self represented.  This matter was tried to the court on January 5, 2016.  Testimony was received from the plaintiff, the defendant and a witness called by the defendant.

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 July 7, 2012 in Columbia, Connecticut.  The plaintiff and the defendant have two children, issue of their marriage, Ethan who is ten years old and Zoe who is eight 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 and the children have received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut in the form of Husky Insurance benefits and food stamps.  The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

On January 5, 2016, at the start of the trial, the parties presented an agreement between the parties regarding the health insurance, unreimbursed health care costs, child care costs, post majority educational support, alimony and the restoration of the birth name of the plaintiff.  The court orders herein reflect said agreement.

Currently, there is a civil restraining order in favor of the plaintiff mother against the defendant father in Docket No. WWM–FA15–4017687.  That order is scheduled to expire on May 5, 2016.

The plaintiff and the defendant have been married for the past three and one-half years.  The parties separated in April 2015.  At the present time the plaintiff has the sole custody of the minor children.

The plaintiff mother has been responsible for the children's educational, medical and child care since the parties have been separated.  Despite the entry of child support orders the defendant father has accumulated a child support arrearage of $3,638.00 and has not made any child support payments on behalf of the minor children.  The defendant testified that he doesn't believe that he should have to pay any child support as he has made voluntary purchases of clothing and feeds the children.

The plaintiff has no criminal record and is currently employed as a cleaner for a school.  She works Monday to Friday in the evening.  She testified that she was the victim of domestic violence by her husband in April 2015 upon which the defendant was arrested and subsequently convicted of a violation of statute 53a–167, Interfering with an officer and resisting as well as a violation of statute 53a–63, reckless endangerment for which he was sentenced on October 19, 2015 to one year in jail, execution suspended with two years of probation.

The defendant has numerous criminal convictions in his past including aside from the above listed conviction a violation of condition of release for an offense committed on May 28, 2015 upon which he was found guilty on October 19, 2015 and sentenced to one year in jail, execution suspended with two years of probation.  The defendant is still on probation as of the date of the trial.  He is employed in food preparation and is currently employed at an educational institution.  He is seeking another position in a restaurant.

The court finds that the parties are unable to effectively co-parent the children due to the conduct of the defendant.  His actions have led to the issuance of civil restraining orders against him as well as criminal charges and convictions as a result of the domestic violence he has inflicted on the plaintiff.  The defendant fails to see how his abhorrent conduct towards the plaintiff is harmful to his children and limits his effectiveness in maintaining an effective role in their lives and allow him the authority to co-parent his children with the plaintiff.  The defendant also does not believe that he should have to contribute financially to the plaintiff for the benefit of the children and has not made child support payments to her.  He offered no substantive evidence of the voluntary purchases of clothing on behalf of the children that would negate his obligation to provide child support to the plaintiff.

It is the court's hope that the defendant will be able to resume a greater role in the lives of his children in the future and be able to be granted joint custody and co-parent the children for their benefit along with the plaintiff but that day has not come as of the trial.  During the trial, the defendant had to be directed by the court not to raise his voice to the plaintiff.

After taking into consideration the statutory criteria set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes as well as the applicable case law and the best interest of the children 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 sole custody of the minor children of this marriage as well as being designed the primary residential parent.  The defendant have access to the minor children on alternate weekends from Friday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. The plaintiff shall drop the children off at the defendant's residence for his visitation and the defendant shall return the children to the mother on Sunday unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

3. The defendant shall pay child support to the plaintiff in the amount of $107.00 per week with the father being found to be $3,638.00 in arrears of child support, said arrearage to be paid at the rate of $21.00 per week for a total payment of $128.00 per week.  The court attributes a minimum wage income of $366.00 per week to the defendant for purposes of the child support guidelines.  Said support is substantially in accordance with the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.  Said order is secured by an immediate wage withholding.  In addition, the plaintiff shall be responsible for 70% and the defendant shall be responsible for 30% of unreimbursed medical expenses in accordance with the guidelines.  The plaintiff shall also be responsible for 80% and the defendant shall be responsible for 20% of all work-related daycare in accordance with the guidelines.

4. Both parents shall maintain medical insurance coverage for the minor children if available at a reasonable cost defined as 7.5% of net income or 5% if a low income obligor.

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

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

7. 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.

8. The court shall have continuing jurisdiction to enter an educational support order pursuant to Connecticut General Statue 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 children for higher education or private occupational school.

9. The plaintiff has completed the parental educational program.  The defendant has sixty days to complete the parental educational program.

10. The plaintiff's birth name of Megan Ann LaPlant is hereby restored.

11. The restraining order in docket number WWM–FA15–4017687–S in favor of Megan Pehowdy against Brian Pehowdy is hereby modified to include only the provisions of CT01 and CT03 and delete all other provisions of the restraining order and the Clerk is instructed to process the restraining order to effectuate these orders.

Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.