Opinion
FA134032425S
12-31-2015
Jesse Paulette v. Ryan Paulette
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER
John L. Carbonneau, J.
The court, Morgan, J. issued a comprehensive Memorandum of Decision (MOD) on October 28, 2015 divorcing these parties. In relevant part the decision gave defendant father final decision-making authority regarding the mental health of the parties' two children after " reasonable and meaningful" discussion with plaintiff mother.
Defendant filed an ex parte Motion for Order (#286) essentially seeking court validation of his final decision-making authority. The court granted no ex parte relief. He also filed two Contempt motions against plaintiff (#290 & #291), first because of her alleged interference with his mental health choice for their son, Chase, and second for plaintiff's alleged failure to follow, the court-ordered child access schedule.
Plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion for Modification (#292 & #293) seeking to end defendant's mental health authority over the children. The court granted no ex parte relief. The court began taking testimony for all the motions on December 21 and 29, 2015 because the parties agreed that the evidence would overlap. After testimony from the parties and several witnesses, plaintiff, through counsel, withdrew her modification from consideration. In light of the withdrawal, defendant suspended presenting his contempt motions, hoping that a court decision on them might now be unnecessary.
This decision, then, addresses only defendant's Motion for Order (#286).
The court assessed credibility, attitude and demeanor of the witnesses; studied the exhibits and considered the arguments and proposed orders of counsel. The court applied all applicable law, particularly 46b-56 regarding aspects of child custody. The court finds all facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
Findings of Fact
One of the parties' two children, Chase, is currently nine years old.
Judge Morgan's well-reasoned decision of October 28, 2015 noted that " [t]his bitterly contested divorce action has been pending for two-and-a-half years." The trial court's findings included confrontational, threatening and churlish behavior and egregious conduct of the plaintiff and third parties associated with her toward defendant. The trial court described the parties'" seemingly endless disputes." The court stated that it entered " numerous" orders in an attempt to resolve the parties' parenting disputes " all to no avail." MOD, p. 7.
The trial court further found " that plaintiff has previously ignored or rejected defendant's entreaties to obtain counseling for their minor children"; also, that Chase's school recommended counseling for him, but " plaintiff vehemently rejected the educators' suggestion." The trial court then concluded " that the defendant is better suited than the plaintiff to make decisions regarding the children's mental health and counseling needs." MOD, p. 16.
The trial court further found " that it is in the best interests of the minor children for the defendant to have final decision-making authority with respect to any mental health treatment or counseling for the minor children." MOD, p. 17.
The trial court ordered in Section 2c. of its decision that " [i]n the event of an inability to agree after reasonable and meaningful discussions, the defendant shall have the final decision-making authority with respect to any mental health treatment or counseling for the minor children."
This court noted in proceedings before it that the level of animosity between these parties has not abated in the least.
Defendant sent plaintiff an email on October 31, 2015 stating that he would initiate counseling for Chase at Wheeler Clinic. See, Defendant's Exhibit A. Plaintiff did not respond to his email because she did not want to get into an argument with defendant. Instead, she and her attorney wrote a total of 15 pages of correspondence to Wheeler Clinic warning of legal consequences if that facility provided counseling services to Chase. Plaintiff sent copies of some of her letters to a local first selectman and members of the Connecticut General Assembly.
Wheeler conducted an initial assessment of Chase in November, several days after the October 31 email. They did so again in early December and concluded both times that Chase was not a risk to himself or others, but that he might benefit from counseling. Wheeler declined to provide actual counseling to Chase after receiving plaintiff's warnings. This, in turn, caused defendant to file his Motion for Order now being considered.
Discussion and Further Findings
Judge Morgan did not enter her orders in a vacuum. The context of all her orders, including the call for " reasonable and meaningful" discussions before father may exercise his final decision-making authority, is the toxic, dysfunctional relationship of the parties. They have engaged in legal warfare for the better part of three years. Their pleadings fill four court files with no end in sight. The meaning of " reasonable and meaningful" in this nearly impossible context is very different than if the parties could effectively communicate.
Defendant notified plaintiff of his intentions regarding counseling for Chase by email. She chose not respond to him directly. That choice is a powerful acknowledgment of the near futility of dialogue between these parties. Days passed between Defendant's email and Wheeler's first assessment of Chase. The email gave plaintiff an adequate opportunity to take any action she then chose: initiate a dialogue with defendant, consult with counsel, file court motions, write letters to the mental health providers or any combination of these actions. The trial court's order for " reasonable and meaningful discussions" in the context of this case was intended to provide plaintiff with such an opportunity.
The court concludes that in this instance, defendant fulfilled his obligation under the court's orders by notifying plaintiff of his intentions to provide counseling for their son prior to actually doing so.
These findings, however, do not require an order of this court. Judge Morgan's orders remain unchanged and in full force and effect. A court order must be obeyed until it has been modified or successfully challenged. Culver v. Culver, 127 Conn.App. 236, 242, 17 A.3d 1048 (2011), Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 530, 710 A.2d 757 (1998), Behrns v. Behrns, 80 Conn.App. 286, 289, 835 A.2d 68 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 914, 840 A.2d 1173 (2004).
ORDER
Defendant's Motion for Order (#286) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.