Opinion
No. MMX FA950074621S
January 18, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the Court is the tragic, never-ending saga of Carol Krukiel, (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff), and Michael Krukiel (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant). The Krukiel litigation has aged long past the length of their marriage; long past their divorce; long past their children's tender years; long past a decade of litigation; and long past any sense of reason. The parties are chronically engaged in a debilitating exchange of their dysfunctional personalities and have completely failed to see how they have victimized their two children, almost since birth.
The Krukiels now bring four post judgment Motions to the Court. They are as follows:
1) Plaintiff's July 14, 2006 Post judgment Motion for Contempt, wherein the Plaintiff seeks to have the Defendant held in Contempt for failing to pay childcare and medical expenses;
2) Plaintiff's July 14, 2006 Post judgment Motion for Contempt, wherein the Plaintiff seeks to have the Defendant held in contempt for failing to abide by the March 5, 2002 Parenting Plan;
3) Plaintiff's Post judgment Motion for Order, dated July 14, 2006, wherein the Plaintiff seeks an order of the Court that the Defendant pay all the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) and Attorney for the Minor Children (AMC) fees from July 2002 to the current date; and
4) The Defendant's Motion for Immediate Transfer of Custody, dated July 28, 2006.
By way of brief background, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were divorced on February 23, 1996. At the time of dissolution, the Court (Gordon, J.) approved the parties' stipulated agreement, which provided for joint custody of the minor children: Michael, (d.o.b. 5/24/93), and Paul, (d.o.b. 9/21/94), primary residence with the Plaintiff. The Defendant was awarded reasonable rights of visitation, including Wednesdays from 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., every Saturday from 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. with Michael only; and every Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with Paul only.
There have been two substantive modifications of the Parenting Plan since the original Order of February 1996. The first modification is dated January 6, 1997. This stipulated agreement, approved by Judge Gordon, provided for joint custody, with the children's primary residence remaining with the Plaintiff. The Defendant was provided visitation the first, second and fourth weekends of each month, as well as Tuesday overnights. The second modification, which is the parenting plan currently in force, is dated March 5, 2002. The attendant stipulated agreement, approved by Judge Frazzini, provides for joint custody, the children's primary residence with the Plaintiff, and a two-week cycle of access for the Defendant. In Week One, the Defendant has access with the children from Monday after school until Wednesday morning, and in Week Two, from Friday after school until Tuesday morning.
Since the institution of the current Parenting Plan on March 5, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have persisted in battling with one another, using the children, the provisions of the Parenting Plan, the doctors, the lawyers and the Court as their weapons of choice.
The main complaint before the Court at this time is the Defendant's. It is the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiff has alienated the boys from him. This is not the first time that such a claim has been raised by the Defendant. The Plaintiff dismisses the Defendant's claim outright, however, the evidence clearly supports his position that the boys' affection for the Defendant has been alienated. The evidence further supports that, although the Defendant is not without fault, it is the Plaintiff who bears the vast majority of the responsibility for the current state of alienation.
The Defendant testified that almost since its inception, the March 5, 2002 Parenting Plan has not been followed. Although the evidence generally supports this contention, the Court notes that at least on three occasions, the Parenting Plan was not followed because of incidents occurring in the Defendant's own home, in which the Plaintiff was not involved. A September 2003 conflict between the Defendant and his current wife, Magdelaine Krukiel, brought about a lapse of visitation until November of 2003. An incident between Magdelaine Krukiel and her teenaged son in March of 2004 interrupted visitation until August 6, 2004.
The last incident occurred on February 8, 2005. At this time, it was alleged and the Defendant readily admitted, that he slapped Michael. It was actually the Defendant who first reported the incident to Dr. James C. Black. Dr. Black, a well-qualified child psychiatrist who has been involved with the Krukiels since 2001, referred the matter to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and recommended suspending visitation until DCF completed its investigation. The Defendant, although opposed, cooperated with Dr. Black's recommendations. DCF completed its investigation on April 28, 2005, and found no abuse or neglect. Thereafter, Dr. Black recommended immediately resuming the March 2002 Parenting Plan. Despite DCF's report and Dr. Black's subsequent recommendation, the March 2002 Parenting Plan has not been followed since February 2005, an inexcusable and detrimental lapse of parental access. It was not until this trial in October 2006 that the 2002 Parenting Plan was resumed. When asked why he did not seek to enforce the March 2002 Order, the Defendant responded that he was trying to cooperate with Dr. Black and the other professionals involved, including Attorney Emily Moskowitz, the court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). The Defendant did, however, make efforts to speak to the boys on the phone during this hiatus from access, which efforts were either ignored or didn't go well. After a period of more than a year had transpired, the Defendant tried to see the boys at their school and at summer camp, however, both efforts proved unsuccessful. There was no evidence that during this time period (February 2005 to the fall of 2006), the Plaintiff made any efforts at all to establish, re-establish or otherwise somehow facilitate the boys' contact with their father.
In any event, since March of 2002, whenever the boys visited the Defendant, he was met with resistance, verbal abuse, disrespectful behavior and hate, for no apparent reason. There was no substantial, significant and/or persuasive evidence offered that could support the boys' hate for the Defendant. The Court does not accept the Plaintiff's excuse that the situation is just "boys being boys." The boys' hate even projected itself onto Mikayla Krukiel, their younger half-sister, a truly innocent victim in this dreadful saga. Defendant's Exhibits H and I and the AMC's Exhibits B and E, all writings by the boys, are disturbing in and of themselves. What is even more disturbing is that in the face of these exhibits, the Plaintiff continues to insist that there is no alienation or, if alienation exists, that it is the Defendant's fault. The Plaintiff is either completely out of touch, or in such deep denial that she is wholly unable to appreciate the amount of pain and conflict her two boys are enduring, or that she has played any part in it. Alone, all unto herself, the Plaintiff may be an appropriate parent. But, in the context of this family constellation, her psychological makeup and personality disposition currently stand in the way of the boys having an appropriate relationship with their father.
Dr. John A. Crouch, a clinical psychologist, performed extensive psychological tests on both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The test results and Dr Crouch's findings support the parties' individual and coordinated psychological dysfunction.
As she did at trial, the Plaintiff expressed to Dr. Crouch her hate for the Defendant. Much to Dr. Crouch's concern, the Plaintiff disclosed to Dr. Crouch that "she secretly wishes Mike was dead." Dr. Crouch noted the Plaintiff's lack of accepting responsibility for the state of the current family situation. Dr. Crouch reports, ". . . Ms. Krukiel repeatedly states that she is in no way responsible for their currently [sic] legal conflict and does not agree with previously made decisions in this matter. This stands as worrisome in that Ms. Krukiel may have trouble altering her behavior in response to future legal decisions that do not agree with her perspective."
Dr. Crouch further noted, "Her responses on the MCMI-III indicated a tendency to deny psychological problems. This response pattern could be indicative of various issues, including a desire to impress others, naiveté regarding psychological issues, and/or reduced insight into emotional matters."
Dr. Crouch's test results and findings indicate that the Defendant is riddled with issues from his past, which manifest themselves today in paranoia, distrust, anxiety and challenged relationships. Dr. Crouch noted relative to Mr. Krukiel's response to the MCMI-III, "such respondents tend to seek warm emotional attachments, but have marked insecurity when involved in close relationships due to fundamental trust issues with others." Further, "Passive-aggressive patterns of behavior are common in such respondents as are occasional outbursts with others he feels are unreasonably demanding or who are not supporting him sufficiently."
The Defendant's MMPI-2 results were noted as follows: "Interpersonal relationships are likely to be problematic for this examinee due to his tendency to avoid close interactions and vulnerability to being hurt by others. Marital relationships are often difficult for these respondents due to their anger and tendency to be self-absorbed."
Dr. Black testified extensively, at trial. The Court finds Dr. Black's testimony and reports to be fair, balanced and comprehensive. He is most familiar with this case and has exceptional expertise in the area of children involved in post-dissolution conflict. His most current reassessment, which is his third for this family, is dated August 2, 2006.
Dr. Black found the Defendant credible and the Plaintiff evasive and prone to rationalize the boys' adverse behavior. This Court agrees.
Dr. Black noted, as did Dr. Crouch and this Court, the Plaintiff's visible anger toward the Defendant as well as her totally inappropriate response to the boys' behavior toward their father. Although Dr. Black believes the Plaintiff has understandable reasons for her anger toward the Defendant, he testified that the problem is the Plaintiff has "projected" that anger by way of vilifying the Defendant and distorting events, all the while accepting anything the boys do or say as appropriate and true, without consequence.
Dr. Black states, "One of the tragic realities of this circumstance is that, in spite of the fact that both of the Krukiels are excellent parents in their individual relationships with the children, apart from any areas of conflict with the other, or their perceptions of the other, the children are alienated from their father."
Further, Dr. Black concludes, "No one is to blame for this matter. It happened because of the conscious state of anger and even hatred existing between the Krukiels for several years, recently fueled by Mr. Krukiel not taking a sufficient level of responsibility for the problems that occurred in his residence that contributed to this state of affairs, and for Ms. Krukiel, the more responsible party, not taking clear and decisive action by insisting that the children will see their father, and that they will stop mocking, and denigrating him and their half-sister."
Dr. Black noted that he has witnessed throughout the years of his involvement with the Krukiels a "growing state of alienation." "As of June, 2005, there was substantial alienation on both boys parts, and especially Michael. While he loved his father and frequently showed it, the distance he created between himself and his Dad widened as time progressed. He dramatically distorted events so as to put his father in a negative light, and even fabricated so as to do so. The state of alienation had progressed as time went on, and Michael became increasingly aligned with his Mother's position so as to advocate for her. It resulted in internal polarization, substantial discomfort and anxiety when with his father, and despite the fact that Michael reported feeling unsafe in his father's residence, it was this evaluator's conclusion that feeling such to the extent it was reported did not substantially emanate from concern that conflict might break out at any moment, or, as his mother feared, his father would become aggressive toward him." "Paul was less affected by the alienation than was Michael, but he too, was alienated, especially in support of his brother, but also because he unconsciously felt compelled to support his mother and advocate for her. Paul has engaged in some of the same hostile and antagonistic behavior toward his father as did his brother, but Paul was far more self-deprecatory, which was a source of worry at the time."
By the time of the August 2006 evaluation, the "state of alienation" had progressed. Dr. Black wrote, "At this juncture, Michael is substantially alienated from his father. He adamantly refuses to see his father, is very derogatory toward him whether in his presence or when talking alone about him, and has sustained that position for the past year." "On the other hand, Paul is not as alienated as is Michael, and he even, when not in his brother's presence, acknowledges to his father that he would like to see him. But Paul is adhering to the code of sibling loyalty and will not violate what he considers to be Michael's trust by letting his guard down when his brother is present. Therefore, Paul presently is internally torn between his loyalty to his father and his brother."
Dr. Black concludes, "It was this evaluator's belief that Ms. Carol Krukiel did not overtly sabotage Mr. Krukiel's relationship with his sons, but her negative attitude, repetitive questions about what happened in their father's residence and her antagonism toward their father as well as her excusing their behavior toward their father, his wife, and Mikayla delivered the message. Presently, both boys are significantly alienated and are in a moderate state of alienation approaching the level of a serious state of alienation." Dr. Black expressed, with some sense of urgency, significant concern if the boys continue to maintain residence with the Plaintiff. Dr. Black testified that if the state of alienation did not "turn around within one year," it would quite likely be impossible to reverse. Dr. Black further testified that the boys' psychological development will be negatively impacted "across the board" with their continued exposure to the current situation.
Dr. Black recommends a transfer of physical custody from the Plaintiff to the Defendant and adds, "This is a more extreme measure in circumstances where the children are alienated from a biological parent, but all more moderate efforts have been made and have not worked." Further, as to the Plaintiff's future contact with the boys, Dr. Black recommends that the contact, "should be geared to her willingness to take an active role with Michael and Paul in turning around the state of alienation."
The Plaintiff testified lovingly about the boys and their accomplishments. This court has no doubt that she loves her children. She would appear to provide a suitable home for them and they have become very involved and rooted in the Wethersfield community. The boys apparently excel athletically, and participate in many athletic teams in the Wethersfield area.
The Plaintiff complains that the current situation between the Defendant and the boys is the result of the Defendant not cooperating and failing to reach out to the boys. The Plaintiff testified that the boys have been available to be picked up, but the Defendant never came to the house. She further testified that the Defendant doesn't call and that therapy, whether for the boys or for themselves, was sabotaged either by the Defendant's threats of litigation or his non-cooperation. It is the Plaintiff's position that the "alienation" is just the Defendant's "perception" because "he let it get that way." The Court finds the Plaintiff's position lacks insight and is disingenuous.
The Plaintiff hired Norman Klein, Ph.D. to "critique" Dr. Black's evaluation. Dr. Klein never met with any of the parties, children or doctors, but did review Dr. Crouch's evaluations, all of Dr. Black's reports, and some of Dr. Black's letters and various police reports. Dr. Klein testified that he "saw some flaws and weaknesses in Dr. Black's report." A premise of Dr. Klein's critique rests upon a significant misunderstanding. Dr. Klein reports that the "thrust" of Dr Black's recommendation rests upon "parental alienation syndrome," a syndrome yet to be officially recognized by the profession. To the contrary, it was quite clear that Dr. Black's recommendation is not premised on such a syndrome at all. Dr. Black's testimony and his reports are clear that it is his opinion that a "state of alienation" exists as between the boys and the Defendant.
Dr. Black testified that there are five (5) guidelines, or indicators, to measure whether a "state of alienation" exists. They are as follows: 1) The child exhibits antagonism toward the alienated parent; 2) Specific and few events are present that could be used as a basis for the antagonism, all of which cannot reasonably justify the antagonism; 3) When a child is asked why he/she feels negatively toward the alienated parent, the response is generalized, i.e., "He's mean"; 4) The child is very aligned with the alienating parent; and 5) The child doesn't want to be with the alienated parent. All indicators are present in this case.
Dr. Klein goes on to select various pieces of Dr. Black's assessment and recommendation to which he takes professional issue. Although the Court finds Dr. Klein's credentials impressive and his comments interesting, the Court is not persuaded by his testimony, and finds Dr. Black's findings, conclusions and response to Dr. Klein's critique far more trustworthy.
What are inescapable truths are; 1) the boys have great disdain for their father, with little or no justification for such negative feelings; 2) the Plaintiff hates the Defendant and would rather see him dead; 3) the children have had uninterrupted and exclusive exposure to the Plaintiff for more than the past year and a half and a majority of the exposure in the years prior; and 4) the Plaintiff is the source of the boys' greatest influence, as she so testified at trial. The Plaintiff has lobbied the boys with conscious and unconscious negative feelings toward their father over an extended period of time. The boys have absorbed all of it, and project it onto their Dad, thus creating a large void between the boys and their father. The Court finds that there is a substantial change in circumstances since the March 2002 Order in that the boys now stand severely alienated from their father. Further, the Court finds it in the boys' best interest that they reside with the Defendant.
Having considered all the testimony and evidence offered, the Court enters the following Orders:
A. AS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT dated July 14, 2006, relative to expenses, the same is Denied in that there is no proof of willful noncompliance;
B. AS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT dated July 14, 2006, relative to the Parenting Plan, the same is Denied in that there is no proof of willful noncompliance;
C. AS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER dated July 14, 2006, the same is Denied;
D. AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF CUSTODY dated July 28, 2006, the same is Granted, in part, as follows:
1) The Court awards sole legal custody of the two minor children to the Defendant;
2) The Court awards primary physical custody to the Defendant so long as he maintains a residence in the town of Wethersfield;
3) The children shall continue to maintain their current activities and school routine within the town of Wethersfield;
4) The Plaintiff shall have the following access schedule:
a) Every other Wednesday after school until the following Monday morning, when the children shall be returned to school. If there is no school on Monday, then the children shall be returned to the Defendant by 5:00 p.m. on Monday.
b) During the summer months, when the children are not in school, the access schedule shall begin at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday and end at 5:00 p.m. Monday.
5) The Court understands that this Order calls for significant changes, not only for the boys, but the parties as well. Additionally, it requires the Defendant to relocate, which may take some time, although this Court hopes it occurs as expeditiously as possible. It is the Court's Order that the boys be told of these changes on a single occasion and only when the boys are in the presence of the Plaintiff, the Defendant and Dr. Black. To this end, the parties are strictly prohibited from discussing this custodial change with the boys until the parties have first met with Dr. Black to discuss how the Plaintiff and the Defendant are going to jointly relay this information to the boys. This meeting should take place without delay. Although it is the Court's hope that the custodial transfer take place without delay, if it is Dr. Black's professional opinion that this information not be shared with the boys until the Defendant has his residence in Wethersfield and is ready to assume custody (i.e., Dr. Black determines that there should be no lapse of time between disclosure of the custodial change and the actual custodial change), then that is a recommendation to be abided by. To reiterate and to be clear:
a) There shall be no discussion of the Court's decision with the boys;
b) The Plaintiff and Defendant are to meet with Dr. Black, without delay, to formulate an approach to the parents' joint disclosure of the Court's decision to the boys;
c) At a meeting thereafter, and only then, with the Plaintiff, the Defendant and Dr. Black present, the parties shall disclose to the boys the Court's decision;
d) Until such time as the residential transfer occurs, the March 5, 2002 access schedule shall remain in full force and effect;
e) The GAL shall continue to provide the Court with compliance reports for a six (6) month period.E. HOLIDAYS, SCHOOL VACATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS OTHER DATES
1) The following holidays shall be alternated between the parties:
a) New Year's Eve from 12/31 at 5 p.m. to 1/1 at 5 p.m.
b) Easter Sunday from 9 a.m.-6 p.m.
c) Memorial Day from 9 a.m.-6 p.m.
d) July 4 from 9 a.m.-8 p.m.
e) Thanksgiving from Thursday at 10 a.m. to Friday at 5 p.m.
f) Christmas from December 24 at 5 p.m. to December 25 at 5 p.m.
In odd-numbered years, the Plaintiff shall have Easter, July 4 and Christmas, and the Defendant shall have New Year's Eve, Memorial Day and Thanksgiving. In even-numbered years, the Plaintiff shall have New Year's Eve, Memorial Day and Thanksgiving and the Defendant shall have Easter, July 4 and Christmas.
2) The parties shall share the following school vacations evenly:
a) The time between Christmas and New Year;
b) Winter and Spring breaks, if any;
c) Any other recess from school of four (4) days or more and that has not otherwise been specifically addressed in these Orders.
3) Each party shall be entitled to two non-consecutive weeks of vacation time during the months of July and August. Each party shall notify the other of their selected weeks no later than May 1 of each year. In the event of dispute, the Plaintiff's selection shall prevail in even-numbered years and the Defendant's selection shall prevail in odd-numbered years;
4) The Plaintiff shall have the children on Mothers' Day and the Defendant shall have the children on Fathers' Day.
5) Each parent shall be entitled to celebrate each child's birthday with the children within a day of the child's birthday. By way of example, if the defendant has the children on May 24 in any given year, the Plaintiff shall be provided the opportunity to celebrate Michael's birthday with her on May 23, May 24 or May 25.
6) The holiday and vacation schedules supersede regularly scheduled access.
7) Each parent shall provide the other with all itinerary information in the event of vacation and/or holiday travel, to include flight/transportation information and location of lodging, with telephone numbers. F. MISCELLANEOUS PARENTING ORDERS
1) Neither parent shall speak badly of the other parent, nor allow anyone else to speak badly of that parent while Michael and Paul are in earshot, or likely to hear what is said.
2) Neither parent shall do anything which would injure Michael and/or Paul's opinion of the other parent or which would impair their natural development of love and respect for each of the parents.
3) Neither parent shall discuss court-related issues with Michael or Paul.
4) The parents shall exert their best efforts to work cooperatively to develop plans for Michael and Paul, consistent with the best interests of Michael and Paul, and to amicably resolve such disputes as may arise from time to time.
5) The parents shall work together to maintain free, open and unhampered contact between Michael and Paul and the other parent.
6) Each of the parents shall allow Michael and Paul to maintain free access with the other parent when they are in residence with them and foster a feeling of affection between the children and the other parent.
7) If either parent is away from his/her residence with Michael and Paul overnight, then he/she shall provide the other with an address and telephone number where Michael and Paul can be reached.
8) Both parents can attend Michael and Paul's extracurricular, school and camp events.
9) Neither parent shall permanently remove Michael and/or Paul from the State of Connecticut without a written agreement of the other parent or further Order of the Court.
10) Each parent shall be entitled to complete, detailed information from any pediatrician, physician, dentist, therapist, consultant or specialist attending Michael and/or Paul for any reason whatsoever.
11) Each parent shall be entitled to complete, detailed information from any teacher or school giving instruction to Michael and/or Paul.
12) If either parent is unavailable for an extended period during his/her parenting time, the first option of caring for Michael and Paul shall be given to the other parent.
13) Michael and Paul shall be permitted to have unlimited telephone access to their parents.
14) Each parent shall be permitted to call Michael and Paul once each day when Michael and Paul are with the other parent. These phone calls shall occur at a reasonable hour.
15) The parent whose time it is for access shall pick up Michael and Paul from the residence of the other parent, when the pick up or drop off does not otherwise occur at school.
16) The parents shall continue with confrontational parent counseling with Dr. Michael Pines, to deal with parenting and discipline issues related to Michael and Paul, until such time as Dr. Pines believes that further counseling is no longer necessary.
17) The Guardian Ad Litem and the Attorney for the Minor Children shall remain involved for the next six (6) months, after which time there shall be a review of the parenting situation.
18) Each party shall submit a current sworn financial affidavit to the Court within 14 days of the date of this Decision. Counsel shall schedule with the Court a hearing on child support and payment of the fees of the Guardian Ad Litem and the Attorney for the Minor Child. The current order of support shall remain in effect until the custodial transfer, at which time the order of child support shall be suspended until hearing before the Court.