Kimberly Cristina v. Anthony Cristina (2016)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action commenced by the plaintiff wife by complaint dated December 2, 2013 and made returnable to this court on December 24, 2013.  The defendant was self-represented.  The State of Connecticut Assistant Attorney General also appeared in this matter but did not participate in the trial other than by submitting proposed orders.  The Guardian Ad Litem was also present for the trial.  This matter was tried to the court over the course of three days.  The plaintiff was represented by counsel and the defendant was self-represented.  Testimony was received from the plaintiff, the defendant and other witnesses.  Exhibits were introduced by both 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 married on July 21, 2011 in East Haven, Connecticut.  The plaintiff and the defendant have one child issue of the marriage who is two 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 has received financial assistance from the State of Connecticut.  The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the marriage.

On the second day of the trial, December 10, 2015, the parties presented a partial agreement dated December 10, 2015.  The court orders adopt some but not all of the parties' agreement as listed in the order section of this decision.  Because the court did not adopt the agreement in its entirety it is not incorporating the agreement by reference.

The plaintiff is employed at a day care facility and grosses $253.50 according to her financial affidavit.  She also has received child support and previously received public assistance.

The plaintiff testified that during the marriage the defendant subjected her to years of anger, physical, sexual and verbal abuse.  She testified that the abuse began in February of 2012 and continued until she separated from her husband in November of 2013.  She left with the parties' child to reside at her parent's house.  She testified that the husband also drank alcohol and used drugs.  The plaintiff never reported the abuse to the police and did not seek medical treatment as a result of said assaults.  Curiously, during the period the plaintiff alleged she was subject to the assaults by the defendant, she sent the defendant Facebook posts and a birthday card expressing her contentment with her husband.  As an example, one of the posts sent by the mother after the child was born as evidenced by Defendant's Exhibit B reads as follows:  “To my husband ․ I Love you more than ever!  You are amazing!  God gave me the perfect man to be by my side throughout Marissa's birth and our journey through life with our little “munchkin” a real miracle!  You are the best husband “coach” and father of our baby girl that I could ask for!  We (heart symbol) you!”  The court finds that the sentiments expressed in this and other communications between the plaintiff and the defendant are inconsistent with the claims by the plaintiff that she had been living a life of horror at the hands of the defendant.

The defendant is employed at a casino and grosses $1,075.60 per week and nets $668.41 according to his financial affidavit.  In his testimony, he denies that he was responsible for inflicting domestic abuse on his wife and denies any substance abuse problem.  He testified that he wants to move forward with his life and in referring to his wife and all of the turmoil in his marriage, that “enough is enough” and that this “circus” has to stop.  He also denies that he would ever do anything to harm his daughter and wants equal time with her and to be part of her life.  The defendant introduced pictures showing the parties' child wearing an outfit that had an obvious stain on the leg.  The plaintiff in her testimony denied that the clothing was dirty and that it was simply a stain.  This is an example how the defendant is seizing any potential circumstance to embarrass and show that the mother is unfit in her care and treatment of the minor child.  The photographs do not show any inappropriate caring for the child but the defendant's emphasis on said photos does show the defendant's obsession with doing all that he can to turn the slightest circumstance into proof of his wife's incompetence.

Expert testimony was presented by Richard Loomis as to the value of the real estate owned by the parties at 66 Wauregan Road in Canterbury, Connecticut.  Both in his testimony and the exhibit entered by the plaintiff, Mr. Loomis valued the property at $185,000.00.  The court finds that the value of said property is $185,000.00.  The marital home is currently the subject of a foreclosure suit entitled Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Anthony Christina et al., Docket Number WWM CV 156009151 S, Superior Court, Judicial District of Windham at Putnam.  On January 4th, 2016, a Judgment of Strict Foreclosure was entered for the property with a law day set for April 4, 2016.  The debt was found to be $172,471.02, attorneys fees of $3,090.00 were ordered along with other fees awarded by the court.  The court also found the property to have a market value of $185,000.00 on January 6, 2016 leaving no equity in the property.  The court entered a judgment of strict foreclosure and not a foreclosure by sale.  The defendant Anthony J. Cristina filed an appearance in said foreclosure action.  The plaintiff in the dissolution of marriage case, Kimberly Cristina did not file an appearance in the foreclosure case.  This information was obtained by the court taking Judicial Notice of the foreclosure action as well as an examination of the exhibits.  The court does not enter any orders as to the real estate as it has no value to the parties and will soon be foreclosed out of their names.

The Guardian Ad Litem testified that after he conducted his investigation that he was extremely concerned about the safety of the child and her long-term health as the antagonism of parties has risen to such a level that there could be emotional neglect of the child.  He further testified that the parties' hatred towards each other is so powerful that he has great fear for the welfare of the child.  He is aware that there is conflicting evidence to support the mother's claim of being a victim of domestic abuse by the husband.  He did not observe any inappropriate conduct by the parties towards the minor child.  He did not have any concerns for the child when parented by the father.

The court finds that the marriage of the parties was tumultuous and dysfunctional commencing seven months after the parties were married in July 2011 and the negative relationship continues to the present time.  This case was first commenced over two years ago and has been vigorously litigated up to the time of trial.  The court trial was a display of the parties' inability to work together for the benefit of their minor child.  Each portrayed the other party in an extremely negative manner.  The court proceeding further divided the parties and weakened their already destructive relationship.  The court does not find that either party was credible.  Both parties are responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

It is the hope of the court that the parties will realize the effect that their behavior has on the innocent and totally dependent child that they share in common and that both parents can mature, evolve and work together for the benefit of the child.

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 and the defendant shall have joint custody of the minor child with the plaintiff having the primary residence of the minor child.  The defendant shall have the following “parenting time” with the minor child as follows:

A. The defendant shall have visitation with the minor child every Sunday from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday.

B. Child's Birthday.  To the extent that the defendant does otherwise have visitation on the child's birthday, August 10 in any given year, the defendant shall have visitation in odd years from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the child's birthday of August 10th.

C. Minor child's birthday.  To the extent that the defendant does not otherwise have any visitation on his birthday, October 20 in any given year, the defendant shall have visitation from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the defendant's birthday.

D. Father's day.  The defendant shall have visitation from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Father's day.

E. Easter. The defendant shall have visitation from 2:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

F. Halloween. The defendant shall have visitation in even numbered years from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. This visitation is in addition to the defendant's regular Tuesday/Wednesday visitation.

G. Thanksgiving. The defendant shall have visitation in even numbered years from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and in odd numbered years from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

H. Christmas Eve and Day. The defendant shall have visitation on the day of Christmas Eve, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the defendant shall also have visitation on Christmas day from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The plaintiff shall have physical custody of the minor child at all other times.  This provision replaces the defendant's regular scheduled Tuesday/Wednesday visitation for Christmas Eve and Christmas day.

I. New Years Eve. New Years Day. The defendant shall have visitation in odd years from 6:30 p.m. on New Years Eve to 9:00 p.m., or in the alternative, upon at least ten days written notice to the plaintiff, 6:30 p.m. on New Years Day to 9:00 p.m. This visitation is in addition to the defendant's regular Tuesday/Wednesday visitation.

J. Mother's birthday.  If the plaintiff birthday, March 23rd, occurs on a day in which the defendant has scheduled visitation, the defendant shall not exercise his visitation from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the mother's birthday.  The plaintiff shall have the physical custody of the child during said times on her birthday.

K. At all other times scheduled for visitation for the defendant, the child shall be in the care and custody of the mother.

L. Nothing herein shall prevent the parties from agreeing on any additional visitation to the father or in modifying any specific time or date of visitation on a case by case basis provided the parties agree in writing to said change which does not terminate the existing visitation orders which remain in full force and effect absent written agreement.

M. Exchanges for visitation shall take place:  (I) on weekdays, at the State Police Department (Troop E) located in Montville, CT (provided that in the event the plaintiff's work location changes, by written notice, the plaintiff may change the pickup location to the State Police Department (Troop D) located in Dandelion, CT, (ii) on weekends, at the State Police Department (Troop D) located in Danielson, CT, or (iii) such other place(s) as the parties may mutually agree in writing, except in the minor child is in school, child care, day care, aftercare or other program/activity, the plaintiff may specify the pickup location as the school, day care, aftercare or other program/activity, or police station in close proximity thereto by written notice from the plaintiff to the defendant.

3. The defendant shall pay child support to the plaintiff in the amount of $175.00 per week which is in accordance with the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.  The child support obligation shall be secured by an immediate wage execution.  The plaintiff shall pay 38% and the defendant shall pay 62% of any unreimbursed medical expenses in accordance with the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.  The plaintiff shall pay 38% and the defendant shall pay 62% of the child care contribution in accordance with the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines.

4. The court finds that there is an arrearage of $875.00 for cash assistance paid to the plaintiff for the period of January 27, 2014 to March 5, 2014 which was prior to the entry of the pendente lite orders of March 5, 2014, to be paid by the defendant to the State of Connecticut at the rate of $35.00 a week.

5. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be solely responsible for their own medical insurance at their own expense and each party shall be entitled to any medical insurance benefits that may exist under COBRA at their own expense for the maximum period allowed by law.  The defendant shall maintain the minor child on his medical insurance for the benefit of the minor child as available through his place of employment for so long as the child is eligible to remain on his existing policy at a reasonable cost to the defendant.

6. The plaintiff shall be entitled to claim the minor child for dependency exemption purposes, so long as she remains eligible in tax years ending in an odd number, beginning with 2017 and continuing thereafter so long as the child remains eligible.  The defendant shall be entitled to claim the minor child for dependency exemption purposes, so long as he remains eligible in tax years ending in even number, beginning in 2016.

7. The plaintiff shall retain ownership of the 2003 Saturn LW 200 automobile free and clear of any claims of the defendant.  The defendant shall retain ownership of the Ford–F–150 and the 2001 Volvo Wagon automobiles free and clear of any claims of the plaintiff.

8. Each party shall retain possession of and are entitled to all bank accounts, checking accounts, savings accounts, bonds, household goods, furnishings and possessions now under their possession and control except as otherwise provided for in this judgment.  The plaintiff has requested as part of the trial that the defendant deliver to her two bins of winter clothing that were stored in the basement of the marital home.  The defendant denies that he has possession of said bins.  If the defendant finds said bins, he shall arrange for their return to the plaintiff.  The court hereby makes it clear that it is not making a finding that the defendant has control of said items and is able to return them to the plaintiff.  The court's intent is only that if the defendant finds said two bins of clothing belonging to the plaintiff, that they belong to the plaintiff and he is not to assert ownership of said clothing.

9. The plaintiff shall retain the sole ownership of the 401K Charles Schwab account relating to her former employment at the Mohegan Sun Casino as listed on her financial affidavit, free and clear of any claim of the defendant.

The defendant shall transfer the sum of $7,000.000 to the plaintiff from the defendant's 401K held by Schwab relating to his employment at the Mohegan Sun Casino by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the cost of which shall be paid by the plaintiff.  Both parties shall cooperate with this process.  The court will retain jurisdiction of the terms of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order for enforcement purposes.

10. The plaintiff shall be entitled to keep the proceeds of her personal injury settlement in the approximate amount of $7,243.65 free and clear of any claim by the defendant.

12. Except as may be otherwise provided in this judgment, each party shall be responsible for their respective liabilities as listed on their financial affidavit and shall hold the other party harmless therefrom.

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

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

15. The plaintiff has completed the parental education program.  The defendant has not completed the parental education program and the courts orders the defendant to complete said program within sixty days.

16. The plaintiff's maiden name of Kimberly Marie Rodowicz is restored.

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

Graziani, Judge of the Superior Court

Graziani, Edward C., J.