Opinion
HHBFA166033748S
01-20-2017
Taisto J. Gonzalez v. Angelina Gonzalez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Barry C. Pinkus, J.
This action for dissolution of marriage and other relief was brought to this court on June 28, 2016. This case was tried to the court on January 4th and January 18th, 2017.
The court listened to and observed witnesses, and reviewed the exhibits. In addition the court carefully considered the criteria set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders below.
The court finds the following facts. The parties were married on November 8, 2014 in Waterbury, Connecticut. The plaintiff has resided continuously in the State of Connecticut for at least twelve months prior to the commencement of this action. The court has jurisdiction. One child was born issue of the marriage to wit: Taisto Gonzalez, DOB 08/11/15. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably. All statutory stays have expired.
The court has considered all of the statutory factors enumerated in Connecticut General Statutes section 46b-81 and 46b-82 in making the order set forth below. " A fundamental principle in dissolution actions is that a trial court may exercise broad discretion in awarding alimony and dividing property as long as it considers all relevant statutory criteria." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keenan v. Casillo, 149 Conn.App. 642, 663, 89 A.3d 912, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 910, 93 A.3d 594 (2014). " The distribution of assets in a dissolution action is governed by . . . § 46b-81, which provides in pertinent part that a trial court may assign to either the husband or the wife all or any part of the estate of the other . . . In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court, after hearing the witnesses, if any, of each party . . . shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the . . . dissolution of the marriage . . . the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Natarajan v. Natarajan, 107 Conn.App. 381, 392-93, 945 A.2d 540, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 924, 951 A.2d 572 (2008).
With regard to the issue of custody, the following quotation from the case of Raymond v. Raymond, 165 Conn. 735, 741, 345 A.2d 48 (1974) sets forth the rule of law upon the issue of custody: " Where custody and visitation rights have been affected, a court has the power and the duty to safeguard those rights while recognizing that such interests are subordinate to the welfare of the children. Neither parent's interests with regard to his or her children are a property right nor are they rights which cannot be terminated without his or her consent . . . A contest relative to custody, such as visitation rights, is not one primarily to determine the rights of the respective parties but rather a determination of the best interests of the child or children." (Citations omitted.)
In devising its orders, the court must look to the criteria of the various statutes dealing with custody of minor children. General Statutes § 46b-56(b) directs the court to enter custody orders " that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests." (Emphasis added.) That statute goes on to enumerate sixteen separate factors for the court to consider in devising such orders.
The " best interest of the child" standard is the ultimate basis of a court's custody decision. Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 789, 621 A.2d 267 (1993). The gender of the parents is not considered by the court and there is no automatic presumption favoring the mother as custodial parent. Presutti v. Presutti, 181 Conn. 622, 627-28, 436 A.2d 299 (1980); Hurtado v. Hurtado, 14 Conn.App. 296, 301-02, 541 A.2d 873 (1988). Either parent can be awarded custody and the issue " is not which parent was the better custodian in the past but which is the better custodian now." Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 283, 440 A.2d 899 (1981).
ORDERS
Based on the foregoing the court orders the following:
1. The marriage of the parties is dissolved on the basis of irretrievable breakdown.
2. The parties shall share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child. Such custody designation confers upon both parents the obligation to consult and discuss with each other regarding major decisions affecting the minor child's best interest, including, but not limited to matters of academic education, religious training, health and general welfare of the children. Neither parent will unreasonably withhold consent to matters affecting the child but shall endeavor to make decisions in such a way as the child's needs are timely and appropriately met, despite a parent's particular personal preference in relation to the other parent, and both the parents shall place the child's needs and interests above such individual and personal preferences. The parties shall be respectful to one another when communicating about issues relating to the child in a positive, prompt and nonconfrontational manner. The parties will communicate with one another on a regular basis and attempt, in good faith, to have fairly consistent rules and practices in both households. Neither party should do anything which may estrange the child from the other party nor injure the opinion of the child as to their mother or father nor act in such a way as to hamper the free and natural development of the child's love and respect for the other party. Neither party shall disparage the other parent or any significant other to the minor child, nor shall either party permit the child to be in the presence of or hearing of a third party that is disparaging the other parent. The parties shall not discuss the court proceedings with the minor child. The parties will not disclose any pleadings, documents or court orders in this action, to the child. Each will make reasonable precautions to make sure that the child does not have access to such documents. Neither party shall tell the child that he has the right to make decisions regarding parenting time. Neither party shall tell the child that their decisions are more important than the decisions of the other parent. The child shall be encouraged to discuss directly with a parent any scheduling issues which he may have during that parent's time. The child shall be further advised that all decisions will be made as a result of the discussion between the parents. If the parents disagree after a meaningful discussion between the parties, the parent whose parenting time is being impinged upon shall retain the final authority regarding any changes to their scheduled parenting time. All day-to-day decisions pertaining to the child should be made by the parent who has the children on the date in question. Promptly upon receipt, each of the parties shall furnish the other copies of any reports from third persons or institutions concerning the health or education of the child.
3. The plaintiff shall have parenting time with the minor child from Saturday at 9 a.m. until Tuesday at 12 p.m. The defendant shall have parenting time with the minor child from Tuesday at 12 p.m. until Saturday at 9 a.m.
4. The parties shall share the following holidays:
a. Mother's day shall be with the defendant from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m.
b. The parents shall alternate the Easter holiday. The Easter holiday shall be from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. The plaintiff shall have even years and the defendant shall have odd years.
c. The parents shall alternate the Thanksgiving holiday. The Thanksgiving holiday shall be from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. The plaintiff shall have odd years and the defendant shall have even years.
d. The parents shall alternate Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Christmas Eve shall be from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. and Christmas Day shall be from 9 p.m. on Christmas Eve until 7 p.m. on Christmas Day. Christmas Eve shall be with the plaintiff in odd years and the defendant in even years. Christmas Day shall be with the plaintiff in even years and the defendant in odd years.
e. Each parent shall be entitled to take up to two non-consecutive weeks' vacation each year. Vacation travel supersedes the routine parenting time but not the holiday schedule. Each parent shall notify the other at least 30 days prior of vacation plans including any travel itinerary and telephone numbers. The defendant has vacation preference in odd years and the plaintiff has vacation preference in even years.
5. The plaintiff shall pay the defendant $121 per week as child support in accordance with the child support guidelines. There was insufficient evidence to deviate from the child support guidelines based upon the shared parenting of the minor child.
6. Neither party shall receive alimony from the other.
7. The child support orders shall be subject to an immediate wage withholding.
8. The parties shall alternate the tax dependency of the minor child with the plaintiff taking odd numbered years. The plaintiff must be current in his entire child support obligation by December 31st of each year to claim the child as a dependent.
9. Each party shall be responsible for their own health insurance. The plaintiff shall provide health insurance for the minor children as made available to him by his employer or other group plan. The provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-84(e) shall apply.
10. Unreimbursed and uninsured medical, dental prescription, optical, orthodontic, psychiatric, psychological and/or counseling expenses for the minor children as well as work-related day care shall be paid 53% by the defendant and 47% by the plaintiff.
11. All extra-curricular activity expenses for the minor child shall be shared equally by the parties so long as they are previously agreed to in writing. Such consent and agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.
12. Each party shall retain the personal property currently in their possession, including automobiles, without any claim from the other.
13. Each party shall be responsible for the debts listed on their respective financial affidavits and hold the other harmless therefrom.
14. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorney fees.
15. Each party shall retain their own bank accounts and retirement accounts.
16. The court shall retain jurisdiction over educational support orders pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b-56c.
17. The plaintiff shall maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy during his child support obligation naming the defendant as irrevocable beneficiary thereon.