Opinion
No. MMX FA09 401 1244 S
February 17, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The defendant father's motion to vacate the current restraining order having been heard by this court on February 16, 2010, it is hereby DENIED because the father did not prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to the relief that he stated he was seeking. See, e. g., Mizesko v. Carlson, 2008 Ct.Sup. 2025, 2027, No. FA 07-4014391M, Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury, (Pellegrino, J.T.R., February 1, 2008).
However, this court's decision not to vacate or modify the restraining order currently in effect should not be interpreted to condone or excuse the mother's behavior as described by the defendant and his father, as admitted by the mother, and as demonstrated by the mother in court during the hearing. The mother's attempted justification of her questionable behavior toward the paternal grandfather during pick up and drop off relating to visitation because of the defendant's alleged failure to pay child support has no basis in Connecticut law. See, e. g., Raymond v. Raymond, 165 Conn. 735, 742 (1974) (footnote omitted):
. . . It has never been our law that support payments were conditioned on the ability to exercise rights of visitation or vice versa. The duty to support is wholly independent of the right of visitation . . .
See also Kioukis v. Kioukis, 185 Conn. 249, 259, 440 A.2d 894 (1981).
In appropriate circumstances a parent's continuing interference with visitation has been found to be a basis for a finding that such parent is in contempt of the orders of the court. See e. g., Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 312 n. 4, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In extreme circumstances a parent's efforts at prohibiting and/or interfering with court-ordered visitation can result in that parent losing custody of the minor child and the commissioner of the department of children and families ("DCF") being appointed as custodian. Bhatia v. Debek, CT Page 5242 2005 Ct.Sup. 7854, 7895, No. NNH FA 00-04005681S, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven (Munro, J., May 2, 2005). In this case, to act in the best interest of the minor child and to effectuate her responsibility as custodian, inter alia, to facilitate court-ordered visitation, the court expects that in the future the mother shall cooperate with the paternal grandfather and each such other person designated by the court to perform such pick up and drop off activities to achieve an appropriately smooth and non-confrontational pick up of, drop off of and visitation with such minor child. The court also expects that the paternal grandfather and each such other person designated by the court to perform such pick up and drop off activities likewise shall cooperate with the mother to achieve an appropriately smooth and non-confrontational pick up, drop off of and visitation with such minor child.