Anderson-Harris v. Harris

221 Conn.App. 222

301 A.3d 1090

Marlena ANDERSON-HARRIS v. Dana HARRIS

AC 45100

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 3, 2023

Officially Released August 22, 2023

Marlena Anderson-Harris, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

Nicole S. Shepter, for the appellee (defendant).

Moll, Seeley and Pellegrino, Js.

SEELEY, J.

The self-represented plaintiff, Marlena Anderson-Harris, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Dana Harris. In this appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly rendered judgment in the dissolution action before court-ordered evaluations were completed, (2) the court abused its discretion in issuing certain financial orders, including those related to child support and alimony, and (3) a new trial is necessary because she was unable to provide an adequate record for appellate review as a result of the retirement of the trial judge. We affirm the judgment of the court.

The record and the court's memorandum of decision set forth the following facts and procedural history. The parties were married on December 14, 2007, and are the parents of twin girls (children) born in December, 2013. Prior to the birth of the children, the marriage had been strained due to multiple miscarriages suffered by the plaintiff. After the children were born, the parties struggled financially. The plaintiff stayed home to care for the children, while the defendant worked outside of the home for a telecommunications company in its sales department. The defendant, therefore, was the sole wage earner for the family, which made finances precarious and caused marital strain. In 2015, for instance, the parties were facing eviction, utility shutoffs for nonpayment, and food insecurity.

Between 2014 and 2015, the defendant grew increasingly concerned with the plaintiff's mental health. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff eventually sought medical care for her mental illness in 2015. She entered inpatient treatment and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. During this time period, the defendant changed jobs and took a pay cut to be at home more, and the plaintiff, an accomplished seamstress, began working from home making upholstery covers for chiropractor tables. The plaintiff did not, however, contribute her earnings to the household with any regularity.

In 2020, the parties’ relationship and marriage deteriorated significantly. The plaintiff continued to struggle with her mental health and voluntarily committed herself into a psychiatric hospital. The hospital confirmed her diagnosis of bipolar disorder and recommended outpatient treatment upon her release, which "was not followed ...." After her release from the hospital, the plaintiff began to accuse the defendant of having sexually abused the children repeatedly starting in 2014, when they were six months old, although the record is unclear as to whom these allegations were made. The plaintiff also began to take the children to a casino so that she could gamble multiple times a week. The plaintiff frequently would put the children in a childcare facility, lose her money gambling at the casino, and then call the defendant to bring money so that they could pay the childcare costs. During June or July of that same year, the plaintiff ceased her upholstery business when she began to receive money on a weekly basis from a federal program due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In July, 2020, the plaintiff surprised the defendant by filing the present dissolution action. ¹ At the same time, the plaintiff also filed her first of many applications for an emergency ex parte order of custody. In her application, she alleged that the defendant was "potentially dangerous" and requested that the children receive counseling regarding "possible sexual abuse ...." The court denied her application. On September 14, 2020, after a hearing, the court, Ficeto, J. , ordered, inter alia, that the parties share joint legal custody of the children and referred the case to the Family Relations Office (family relations) of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch. ² During the September 14, 2020 hearing, the defendant testified that his mother would come to the house during his custodial time to assist him. He further testified that, on occasion, the plaintiff would come over during his custodial time to "clean the insides" of the children's private areas. ³

In the fall of 2020, the plaintiff began removing the children from school, creating significant issues with their academic progress. Specifically, schoolwork was not submitted during October and November, 2020, resulting in a notice in January, 2021, that the children might not advance to the next grade. Nevertheless, the plaintiff and the children travelled out of state in January, 2021, and "disappear[ed]" from February 5 until March 18, 2021, during which time the defendant lacked any knowledge of their location. It subsequently was revealed that the plaintiff and the children had lived in various homeless shelters during this time period.

During the time period between July, 2020, when the plaintiff first filed the dissolution action, and April, 2021, when the plaintiff returned from having "disappear[ed]," the plaintiff filed seven additional applications for emergency ex parte orders of custody. The majority of her applications alleged that, while the children were in the custody of their paternal grandmother, they had been sexually abused by either the defendant or the children's cousin, who was nine years old at the time. The court conducted multiple hearings in response to these allegations but ultimately denied each application. ⁴ Also during this time period, on December 29, 2020, the defendant filed a motion for the appointment of a psychologist to conduct a psychological evaluation of the plaintiff. On January 6, 2021, the court, Ficeto, J ., denied the motion without prejudice and, instead, referred the parties to family relations for a comprehensive evaluation, ⁵ which ultimately was not completed. ⁶

In what the court called "an attempt to impose order and curtail the repetitive applications for emergency ex parte applications," it scheduled hearings in March, 2021, for all the various outstanding motions. During those hearings, testimony was elicited from, among others, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the guardian ad litem, Attorney Jill E. Alward, who had been appointed by the court, Ficeto, J ., on February 17, 2021. ⁷ At the outset of the hearing, the court observed that no one from family relations would be testifying, and that the issue to be determined was whether imminent harm existed as to the children.

The plaintiff testified that her concerns first began when she discovered child pornography on the computer that she shared with the defendant in 2008. She testified that, on various occasions after the children were left with the defendant, particularly after they were left with him when she voluntarily committed herself into the hospital, she noticed physical and behavioral indicators that concerned her. She testified in detail about specific incidents that made her concerned that the children were being sexually abused, and she introduced photographic exhibits that she claimed documented those incidents. The plaintiff also testified about the medical care she sought for the children due to her concern about the alleged abuse. On cross-examination, the plaintiff confirmed that the Department of Children and Families (department) had twice investigated this issue and was unable to substantiate her claims of abuse.

The defendant testified that he had never touched or looked at the children inappropriately. He stated that, in response to the plaintiff's complaints to the police, the police department investigated and determined that it had insufficient evidence to proceed further. The defendant was asked about the incidents raised by the plaintiff, and he rejected her characterization of the incidents and testified that he did not behave inappropriately at any point. He stated that, during his parenting time following the September, 2020 shared custody order, on multiple occasions the plaintiff would come over to clean the children's vaginas and that "she had been doing it since they were two years old ...." He also stated that the plaintiff had forced the children to breastfeed within the past year despite the children being seven years old.

The guardian ad litem testified that she interviewed the defendant, the plaintiff, an individual with the department, and the children. She explained that she was concerned about all the changes that the children were experiencing by being moved around, having to switch therapists, changing schools, not seeing their father or grandmother, and being removed from the care of their lifelong pediatrician, who was aware of the children's skin sensitivities and history of vaginal infections. She stated that, "first and foremost," her recommendation was that "each of the parties, as well as both children, undergo a psychological evaluation, court-ordered psychological evaluation." She further recommended that the children be returned to their lifelong pediatrician and original school and continue to see their current therapists; that the plaintiff and the defendant attend therapy themselves; and that the paternal grandmother have temporary custody of the children, and the plaintiff and the defendant have supervised visitation until the completion of the court-ordered evaluations.

The guardian ad litem explained that she was concerned that the plaintiff continued to attempt to breastfeed her seven year old children, and that the plaintiff admitted that she was recording the children and asking them questions about their vaginas, even though the police conducted an investigation and certain health care providers at Connecticut Children's Medical Center performed an evaluation...