Opinion
AANFA154023018S
01-24-2018
Darric Myers v. Heather Stevens
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Emons, Jane B., J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The Court Emons, J.
The motions before the court are as follows.[*]
1. #119 Motion for Modification filed February 2, 2017 by plaintiff, Darric Myers, requesting " parenting time and custody to father" with allegations that since the date of the order, circumstances have changed in that " father Darric Myers is working at Big Y and is prepared to provide for his son’s needs." He also requested that visitation be modified as follows:
Parenting time with father + son.
2. #136 Motion for Contempt filed on August 17, 2017 by the intervenor, Eleanor McClain, alleging that Darric Meyers is in contempt of court orders in that he " is and has allowed Noel Rodriguez to be around and interact with child."
3. #137 Motion for Modification filed on August 17, 2017 by the intervenor, Eleanor McClain, alleging that because Mr. Myers was not following the court’s order, she requested that Mr. Myers " go back to visits at Happy Family or as seemed [sic] fit by Judge."
4. #140 Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody filed by Darric Myers on August 28, 2017 requesting temporary custody to Darric Myers for the reason that Eleanor McClain falsely accused him of violating a court order and that the child would be harmed by losing parenting time with the father. This motion for ex parte relief was denied by the court on August 28, 2017. The substantive motion for temporary custody remains on the court’s list of motions awaiting final determination following a custody hearing.
5. #142 Motion for Contempt filed on August 28, 2017 by Darric Myers alleging that the intervenor, Eleanor McClain, willfully refused to obey the court’s order of July 18, 2017.
Prior to the court engaging in a discussion of the facts and/or legal analysis, it is imperative to identify the parties to this action as well as numerous relatives and people who testified in this troubling and protracted case. Additionally, it is equally important to provide historical context to these present motions.
PARTIES AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS
1. Darric Myers is the biological father of Jordan Myers. Darric is seeking sole custody of his son whose date of birth is March 17, 2013.
2. Heather Stevens is the biological mother of Jordan Myers and has rarely been present for any of the numerous court appearances related to the hearings on the instant motions. During the pendency of the entire related case and since August 2015, she has been largely absent from all hearings and generally uncooperative when present.
3. Eleanor McClain is the intervenor, paternal aunt of Darric Myers and the paternal great aunt of Jordan Myers. With the exception of his earliest months spent in DCF custody, Jordan Myers has been most consistently in the care and custody of Eleanor. Eleanor was given temporary custody of Jordan by this court after a full hearing on August 21, 2015 and following certain events described below, Eleanor has had court-ordered permanent custody of Jordan since October 27, 2015.
According to testimony and based upon affidavits provided by Darric Myers to the court, Eleanor McClain actually helped to raise Darric and his twin sister Janelle while their mother, Madeline Griffin, was either incarcerated or unable to care for them.
4. Jordan Myers is the child who is the subject of this custody dispute.
5. Noel Rodriguez is the older half-brother of Darric Myers who has inserted himself in the most negative ways into many of Darric’s affairs, not the least of which are the custody issues regarding Jordan.
6. Madeline Griffin is the biological mother of Darric Myers and Noel Rodriguez. She is the biological grandmother of Jordan Myers and she is the sister of Eleanor McClain. Her criminal history consists of numerous felony and misdemeanor convictions for crimes including but not limited to Forgery 2nd Degree, Larceny 1st Degree and Falsely Reporting an Incident 2nd Degree. Most significantly, she was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Arson 1st Degree and two counts of Insurance Fraud and, since November 2015, has been serving an effective sentence of 20 years execution suspended after 12 years, 5 years probation.
It is clear to the court from the testimony of numerous witnesses that the arrest, investigation, trial and sentencing of Madeline Griffin has provided the " backdrop" for the lengthy and continuing family dispute that divides this otherwise blended but fractured family.
7. Luz Davila-Nieves is the biological mother of Madeline Griffin and Eleanor McClain, the biological grandmother of Darric Myers and Noel Rodriguez, and the biological great-grandmother of Jordan Myers.
Ms. Davila-Nieves was involved in the same arson and larceny as Madeline Griffin and is presently on probation for Larceny 1st Degree, the sentence for which is 8 years execution suspended 5 years probation.
8. Janelle Myers is the biological twin sister of Darric Myers. She has resided with and continues to reside with Eleanor McClain, her biological aunt. She has little if any present relationship with her brothers, Darric Myers and Noel Rodriguez.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF CASE
The case NNC FA15 4066397 came to court for a hearing on August 21, 2015 as a result of an Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody filed by the plaintiff father, Darrie Myers. On an ex parte basis, that application for temporary custody was granted by Judge Goodrow subject to a hearing.
On August 21, 2015, after a lengthy and contentious hearing with parties and witnesses who were self-represented, the court denied the ex parte relief and ordered the child, Jordan Myers, to be returned to the intervening paternal great aunt, Eleanor McClain. Ms. McClain and DCF were the only custodians/guardians that the child knew absent a short period of time whereby the Probate Court allowed Heather Stevens to have co-guardianship. After Ms. Stevens was incarcerated in South Carolina, Jordan was left with Ms. McClain by Heather Stevens. Most importantly, until the date of the August 21, 2015 hearing, Darric Myers had no court-ordered guardianship or visitation rights for his son, Jordan. Equally important, Heather Stevens was a non-appearing party at the August 21, 2015 hearing and Darrie Myers testified that he was unaware of her whereabouts.
At the conclusion of the hearing Darric Myers was awarded daytime, unsupervised visitation with Jordan, but was not allowed overnight visits.
On the very same night as the hearing (August 21, 2015), and in total defiance of the court’s orders, Heather Stevens (Jordan’s mother) and Noel Rodriguez (Darric Myers’ brother who was present in court for much of the August 21 proceeding), acting in concert with Darric Myers, went to the Bridgeport home of Eleanor McClain with the Bridgeport Police who required Ms. McClain to return the child as she did not have a copy of a " court order." On Monday, August 24, 2015, the paternal aunt, Eleanor McClain, filled out applications for " orders of protection" against Heather Stevens, Noel Rodriguez and Darric Myers, all of which the court granted. Additionally. by way of an Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody, the trial court again granted temporary custody to Eleanor McClain but terminated all visitation for Darric Myers.
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Heather Stevens, Darric Myers and Noel Rodriguez came to the Clerk’s Office demanding to speak to the court. After receiving a restraining order application from Heather Stevens (denied by the court), the court held a short but blunt hearing with Myers, Stevens and. Rodriguez. In deference to their attorney, Corey Heiks’ lack of knowledge of his file, the court continued the matter until September 15, 2015 so that all parties could proceed with better preparation.
On September 15, 2015, Attorney Josephine Smalls Miller appeared for all defendants stating " because of [James Hardy’s] unavailability, he’s asked me to stand in for him today." James Hardy was another attorney of record for Darric Myers. The ex parte temporary custody hearing concluded on this date along with all remaining ex parte and restraining order applications. The restraining orders were continued by the court for one year. The ex parte custody application was again granted post-hearing.
Motions for Reconsideration and Articulation of the court’s orders were filed by Attorney Smalls Miller. Those motions were ultimately denied by the court for failure of Attorney Smalls Miller to prosecute them on the November 17, 2015 date set aside for hearing.
The court granted permanent custody of Jordan Myers to Eleanor McClain on October 27, 2015.
An appeal was taken by Mr. Myers from the court’s rulings. In the case of Jordan M. v. Darric M., 168 Conn.App. 314 (2016), the Appellate Court reversed the granting of the restraining orders but declined to express an opinion as to any order regarding custody or visitation regarding Jordan. Id. at 321 and fn.9.
The court will not discuss at this time the procedural irregularities caused by the attorneys involved in the appeal and resulting in needless and time-consuming efforts from both this court and the Appellate Court.
A review of the docket sheet in this case reveals that there was no activity in this case between October 27, 2015 and February 2, 2017, when Darric Myers filed his Motion for Modification #119 that is one of the subjects of this Memorandum of Decision. Present counsel for Mr. Myers filed his appearance on February 1, 2017.
On May 15, 2017, this court ordered that, in accordance with the verbal agreement of both Mr. Myers and Ms. McClain, Mr. Myers may have supervised visitation with Jordan. Following a short period of supervised visits at Happy Family in New Haven and following a referral to Family Relations for case management, the parties once again came to an agreement on July 18, 2017 which the court approved and so ordered. It was clear that there was positive communication between Mr. Myers and Ms. McClain and, following a thorough canvass of the parties, the court approved unsupervised visits between Mr. Myers and Jordan with every other weekend overnight and two visits per week. It was unequivocally agreed that the child was not to be in the presence of Noel Rodriguez. (Docket entry #131.) Additionally, the court issued a separate order on July 18, 2017 that the minor child was not to be in the presence of Noel Rodriguez during Mr. Myers’ parenting time. (Docket entry #133.)
On August 17, 2017, Ms. McClain filed her Motion for Contempt #136 and her Motion for Modification #137 which are also subjects of this Memorandum. The allegations were as stated above that Mr. Myers had " allowed Noel Rodriguez to be around and interact with the child."
On August 18, 2017, this court, pursuant to the Connecticut Practice Book, ordered the file transferred to the Ansonia/Milford Judicial District where this court was newly assigned as of September 2017.
In response to Ms. McClain’s motions, Mr. Myers, through counsel, filed the Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody #140 and a Motion for Contempt #142.
The hearing that is the subject of this Memorandum of Decision has been addressed in court on no fewer than nine (9) occasions between July 18, 2017 and the close of evidence on January 5, 2018.
During that time, this court, on September 26, 2017 referred the matter to Family Relations for a full custody evaluation. Additionally, during that same time period, the plaintiff, Darric Myers, filed two appeals with the Appellate Court. One remains pending and one has been dismissed. Lastly, between September 1, 2017 and January 2, 2018, the plaintiff has filed sixteen (16) new motions. The intervenor has filed one.
FACTS
Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence, the stipulations of the parties, and a review of the file and record, and having afforded appropriate weight and credibility to the testimony of the witnesses and to the evidence, the court finds the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
It should be noted at the outset that most if not all aspects affecting the outcome of this decision are fact-based. This court has had the benefit of literally hours of in-court testimony that generated hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of transcript. All of the transcripts have been entered as exhibits in this case for the purpose of providing a complete, factual and historical picture of this unfortunate litigation. Similarly and by agreement, all DCF records have been made exhibits under seal, to protect confidential and privileged information about Jordan. The lengthy and detailed DCF records shed vast light upon the dysfunction of Jordan’s parents and their families.
In short, a thorough reading of all transcripts and the facts that the court has and will find are based upon a wholesale lack of credibility of Darric Myers and those who have testified on his behalf.
It should be noted from the outset that it has been the court’s stated opinion that, as the biological father of Jordan, the court has favored some sort of parenting time between Darric and Jordan. The court has stated this on the record numerous times between August 2015 and the date of this decision. The court awarded Darric Myers unsupervised visits with his son on two occasions: the first on August 21, 2015 and the second on July 18, 2017. On both occasions, Darric flagrantly violated court orders and was redirected to either supervised visits or no visits pending further hearings. Darric has often refused to do supervised visitation, even when offered by the Court.
Unfortunately, the poor choices that Darric Myers has made regarding his access to his son have been the ongoing and primary impediments to unsupervised access with Jordan. In addition, he is persistently less than honest in his many different explanations for his behavior. His lack of credibility taints his desire to serve as a credible father figure for Jordan.
Historical and ongoing examples of this behavior are:
Both DCF records and testimony from Janelle Myers reveal that after Jordan was born, Darric refused to take a paternity test. Janelle, his twin sister, gave her DNA which established his paternity. Once paternity was established, Darric’s mother, Madeline Griffin, without Heather Stevens’ knowledge, went to Probate Court to change the child’s name to Jordan Myers from his original birth name given to him by his mother, Isaiah Stevens.
The DCF records reveal that when Heather Stevens told Darric Myers that she wanted him to be a part of Jordan’s life, his response to Heather was that he would be a part of the child’s life if Heather bought Darric a pair of sneakers.
In December 2013 when Heather Stevens and Jordan were living in Darric’s mother’s home in Brookfield, DCF attempted with police to take Jordan into custody. As a result of the lack of cooperation of Ms. Griffin and Noel Rodriguez, they and others were arrested and the Juvenile Court issued an order whereby Jordan was not to be in the family’s presence.
Since this court has been involved in this case, it is apparent that Darric Myers has little regard for court orders. Two glaring examples are the violation of the August 21, 2015 custody orders, and the violation of the July 2017 agreement that Jordan would not be in the presence of Noel Rodriguez. Darric persists in placing blame on others- notably Ms. McClain- and deflects his failure to or inability to follow basic rules.
Darric has a history of domestic violence. The DCF records reveal violence against Heather Stevens and two more recent arrests, one of which resulted in a conviction of Breach of Peace, relate to recurring domestic violence allegations from his present girlfriend.
Darric remains unaware of simple, basic facts regarding how he is supported. While Darric indicates that he lives at 19 Manilla Avenue, Woodbridge, he has little, if any, familiarity with rent, leases, or even basic provisions such as food, clothing, et cetera. He is named on the lease. He is totally reliant upon his brother Noel for nearly all financial aspects of this protracted litigation. He has been, since 2015 and as of 2017, unaware of what his Woodbridge lease was, whether, in fact, there even was one or anything about it. He also has no understanding of how he is supported except to say that his brother Noel supports him, including but not limited to paying his rent and his legal bills and making most important decisions. While Darric repeatedly claims that Noel pays for things, the court is baffled as to how Noel takes on these responsibilities when he does not work. During ongoing DCF involvement in this case, Darric has been largely uncooperative with DCF and the authorities and relies on the advice of Noel Rodriguez before signing documents or committing to important tasks. When Jordan was stranded in South Carolina when Heather Stevens was incarcerated, Eleanor McClain sought to have Darric go to South Carolina and retrieve his child. Darric, in a text to his sister, suggested that DCF pick up the child and contact him as to where Jordan was in the system. Ms. McClain went to South Carolina to bring Jordan back to Connecticut. Ms. McClain similarly put Jordan on HUSKY and arranged for medical and dental visits.
Perhaps the greatest concern that the court has is defendant’s wholesale reliance on his brother, Noel Rodriguez, whose behavior, lack of credibility and oppositional attitude the court finds most troubling.
Noel Rodriguez was unquestionably present and coordinated the taking of Jordan from Eleanor McClain on August 21, 2015, the very night that Eleanor McClain was given custody by this court. In the court hearings that followed, he was disruptive of the court, oppositional, obstructive, rude and defiant. He has remained the same way throughout the proceedings and as recently as October 2017. Similarly, the DCF records and court testimony reveal Noel’s continued lack of cooperation with DCF and, notably, his insistence to DCF and the court that he not only speaks on behalf of Darric but often determines Darric’s availability to DCF.
Noel is a convicted felon, having been convicted of serious charges. There is little if any evidence of a work history. He refuses to provide information as to his address(es), where his wife lives, where he stays when he was not to be in Jordan’s presence and any employment-related information.
Simply put, his testimony, including his alibis proffered to the court that he was not in Jordan’s presence after July 18, 2017 are wholeheartedly not credible. Ample evidence from others’ credible testimony proves otherwise.
Noel, through testimony of others, makes repeated threats to have Eleanor McClain arrested. His testimony is largely not credible and his persistent lack of transparency serves to hinder any notion that Darric may have of independently establishing an unsupervised relationship with Jordan.
With reference to Noel’s testimony, even Darric’s counsel stated, " And sometimes you call a witness, Your Honor, and maybe you wish that you hadn’t." (Transcript, 9/14/16, pg. 160.)
In furtherance of Noel’s manipulative and troubling involvement in this case, his grandmother, Luz Davila-Nieves, testified as to the following phone encounter she had with Darric and Noel between October 2015 and September 2016: Her testimony was both riveting and credible.
The most shocking testimony from Luz Davila-Nieves was presented to the court on October 4, 2017. Luz was a witness called by Darric Myers, presumably to testify that Noel Rodriguez and Jordan Myers were not together in her presence in July of 2017. Upon cross examination by her daughter, Eleanor McClain, she testified credibly that:
MS. MCCLAIN: She was answering about the telephone call, the supposed telephone call.
THE COURT: Oh, please tell me what happened on the telephone call? Can you tell me was it before you were sentenced or you were already on probation?
THE WITNESS: Before I was sentenced.
THE COURT: Before you were sentenced. So it was before May of 2016?
THE WITNESS: It was before- no, it had to be-
THE COURT: After?
THE WITNESS:- 2015.
THE COURT: 2015, so even way back?
THE WITNESS: Maybe about November or December.
THE COURT: Of what?
THE WITNESS: Of 2015.
THE COURT: Okay. And what happened?
THE WITNESS: Nothing. They just told me that for me to talk to her, to talk to Eleanor, and ask her if she gives the child back, that they would give her $10,000. And so I went to her house and I told her that you know this has to stop; that’s what I told her. I said you know $10,000 you know that will- I thought that was good enough for her that you know to pay her bills-
MS. MCCLAIN: This is the family I deal with.
THE COURT: So you thought that was a pretty good deal, right?
THE WITNESS: I thought so. You know just to stop the nonsense. That is all I wanted.
THE COURT: What kind of nonsense were you thinking about? What are you talking about?
THE WITNESS: That they are arguing over a child, which I feel Eleanor had done a great job. The father didn’t want the child at that time.
THE COURT: Right.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know about now, but at the time he wanted the child in DCF care. He wanted that- I think that what happened was that by Darric stating DCF he felt maybe he could get help. By having the child in DCF care they would help him you know through a lot of programs. He didn’t want the child with Eleanor, but Eleanor got out the help.
THE COURT: Why was that? Why was that?
THE WITNESS: Because they are young. They didn’t want to work.
THE COURT: No. No. Why didn’t he want Eleanor to have the child?
THE WITNESS: No, I wanted- Eleanor does. She has the child.
THE COURT: Right. I know. But why did the boys not want Eleanor to have the child?
THE WITNESS: Because they think that it is all about money.
THE COURT: Okay. So what happened?
THE WITNESS: So I mentioned it to her and she said well, you know- I told her she had to talk to her attorney. I told her you can’t make a decision yes or no about the $10,000 because you know I don’t know if there’s a catch to it. That’s what I told her. But then we didn’t hear nothing else after that.(Transcript, October 4, 2017, pp. 109-11.)
The denials regarding this testimony by Noel and Darric are simply not credible.
Throughout the testimony of Darric and Noel, and with the help of their counsel, they have proffered that Eleanor " collects children" such as Jordan for the state and/or federal assistance that she receives. Those assertions are nowhere supported by the record.
Eleanor McClain throughout these proceedings has been self-represented. She has been thoroughly cooperative with the court, logical and organized in thought and presentation of documents and facts. While she is not always correct in her chronological memory of events and dates, she remains credible and prepared to document her proffers and/or responses.
Most significantly, she has always been willing to cooperate with Darric so long as Noel was not involved or controlling Darric’s decisions. She has a history of cooperating with the court’s orders except in response to Darric’s or Noel’s noncompliance with court orders.
The salient question for this court is, given all of the history, facts, evidence and testimony in this case, did Darric Myers willfully violate the court’s July 18, 2017 court order that Jordan Myers not be in the presence of Noel Rodriguez during Darric’s unsupervised parenting time?
The court answers that question in the affirmative. The court credits the testimony of Eleanor McClain, Jazzy Figueroa, Janelle Myers and Officer Gidden and finds the following facts:
On July 25, 2017, when Darric Meyers drove to Bridgeport to return Jordan to Eleanor McClain, he first stopped at a gas station and had Noel Rodriguez and Darric’s girlfriend, Marissa, exit the car at the gas station near Eleanor’s home to avoid being observed. Shortly after dropping Jordan off, Darric returned and picked up Noel and Marissa and drove off. This was witnessed firsthand by Jazzy Figueroa and Janelle Myers. These facts were confirmed that evening when Eleanor McClain, in the presence of Police Officer Gidden, saw the video provided by the gas station wherein she identified Noel and Marissa. The denials of Noel and Darric are not credible. Parenthetically, there was also an active restraining order between Darric and Marissa on that date.
The court also credits Eleanor McClain’s testimony that Jordan and his seven-year-old cousin, Jayleen, told her that Noel said denigrating things about Eleanor in the presence of the children. For example, Noel told Jordan that Eleanor was not nice and that he (Noel) was going to put her in jail. Additionally, Noel told the seven-year-old girl that her father (Eleanor’s son) was in jail- a fact that Eleanor has kept from the children.
In short, there is substantial evidence and sufficient corroboration to find that Darric Myers willfully violated his own agreement that became a court order that Jordan not be in Noel’s presence during Darric’s unsupervised parenting time.
In response to the above-referenced violation, Eleanor, in her Motion to Modify, requested that the court reinstate supervised visitation.
DISCUSSION AND ORDERS CONTEMPT
" The court’s authority to impose civil contempt penalties arises not from statutory provisions but from the common law ... The penalties which may be imposed, therefore, arise from the inherent power of the court to coerce compliance with its orders. In Connecticut, the court has the authority in civil contempt to impose on the contemnor either incarceration or a fine or both." (Citations and internal quotations omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 310-11, 892 A.2d 318 (2006), citing Papa v. New Haven Federation of Teachers, 186 Conn. 725, 737-38, 444 A.2d 196 (1982). In order for the court to conclude that a party is in contempt, the court must find that there existed a sufficiently clear and unambiguous order for which the party had notice, that the party did not comply with the order, and that the non-compliance was willful. Mettler v. Mettler, 165 Conn.App. 829 (2016); Brody v. Brody, 145 Conn.App. 654, 77 A.3d 156 (2013); Pace v. Pace, 134 Conn.App. 212, 215-16, 39 A.3d 756 (2012); Celini v. Celini, 115 Conn.App. 371, 380-81, 973 A.2d 664 (2009); citing In re Leah, 284 Conn. 685, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007). The moving party bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300 (2015).
" To constitute contempt, a party’s conduct must he willful ... Noncompliance alone will not support a judgment of contempt ... Scott v. Scott, 90 Conn.App. 883, 889, 879 A.2d 540 (2005). The inability of a party to obey an order of the court, without fault on his part, is a good defense to the charge of contempt ... The contemnor must establish that he cannot comply, or was unable to do so." (Internal quotations omitted; citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Brody v. Brody, 145 Conn.App. at 662, citing Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 532, 710 A.2d 757 (1998). " It is undisputed that a judgment of civil contempt is improper if the contemnor, through no fault of his own, was unable to obey the court’s order ... it is, however, equally undisputed that, if a finding of willful misconduct is based on a court’s determination of the credibility of relevant testimony at trial, we will overturn it only if the record demonstrates a manifest abuse of discretion. [The trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony and, therefore, is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pace v. Pace, supra at 216, citing LaBossiere v. Jones, 117 Conn.App. 211, 224, 979 A.2d 522 (2009). " [I]t is within the sound discretion of the court to deny a claim for contempt when there is an adequate basis to explain the failure to honor the court’s order." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Giordano v. Giordano, 127 Conn.App. 498, 506, 14 A.3d 1058 (2011), citing Sablosky v. Sablosky, 72 Conn.App. 408, 423-24, 805 A.2d 745 (2002).
The Motion for Contempt #136 filed by Eleanor McClain alleging willful violation of a court order by Darric Myers is hereby GRANTED. The intervenor, McClain proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Myers violated the clear and unambiguous July 18, 2017 court order prohibiting Jordan from being in the presence of Noel Rodriguez during Mr. Myers’ parenting time. The court further finds Mr. Myers’ violation to be willful and in total disregard of his own agreement that was approved and ordered by the court.
The Motion for Contempt #142 filed by Darric Myers alleging that the intervenor McClain willfully violated the court’s July 18, 2017 order is hereby DENIED. While there was a violation of the visitation portion of that order, the court finds that, in light of the factual history of this case with regard to Jordan’s best interests, in light of the intent of the agreement and in order to protect the integrity of the agreement/court order, the court finds that the withholding of parenting time pending a further court order was both prudent and not willful.
MODIFICATION
Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-56 provides that in making or modifying any order regarding the custody, care, education, visitation and support of a minor child, the court shall consider the rights and responsibilities of both parents and enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests.
The court shall consider the best interests of the minor child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors: (1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child; (4) the wishes of the child’s parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child’s siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child; (6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders; (7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents’ dispute; (8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (9) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments; (10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child’s family home pendent lite in order to alleviate stress in the household; (11) the stability of the child’s existing or proposed residences, or both; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parents or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child; (13) the child’s cultural background; (14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child; (15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined specifically in 46b-120; and (16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to 46b-69b. The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers, but shall articulate the basis for its decision.
In its orders regarding the custody, care, education, visitation and support of the minor child, the court has considered the rights and responsibilities of both parents and the best interests of the minor child, all of the evidence presented by the parties, Connecticut General Statutes sections 46b-56, 46b-56a, 46b-84 and 46b-86.
The Motion for Modification #119 is referred for final decision to the full custody hearing trial scheduled for a future date. That hearing is in furtherance of a Family Relations Custody Evaluation that is in the process of being completed.
The Motion for Modification #137 filed by Ms. McClain requesting that Mr. Myers’ visitation with Jordan revert to supervised visits is hereby GRANTED until further order of the court.
The Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody #140 filed by Mr. Myers remains denied, as to ex parte relief. All remaining issues regarding custody are continued to a future date.
All prior orders and stipulations between the parties shall remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified herein.
[*] This case was originally filed under docket number NNH FA15 4066397S.