Guess v. Guess

Devin Guess v. Kevin Guess

No. NNHFA175037767

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, New Haven

January 24, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Goodrow, Karen, J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Goodrow, J.

I. Procedural History

This dissolution of marriage action comes before the court after a contested trial and motions hearing held on October 2, 2017 October 13, 2017 and November 7, 2017. The plaintiff was represented by counsel; the defendant was self-represented. Both parties testified at trial, and both parties submitted evidence.

Motions for Contempt #114, 116, 122 and 132 are denied; in each instance, the moving party has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent willfully violated a clear court order. Motion for Sanction #127 is denied as the court finds that the imposition of sanctions is not fair or equitable. Motion re Discovery #120 is denied as moot; defendant represented to the Court that he was not pursuing any further discovery.

II. Facts

Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence, the stipulations of the parties, and a review of the file and record, 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. The Court has jurisdiction over the matter, and all statutory stays have expired. The parties were married on December 27, 2008. They have one minor child issue of the marriage, an 8-year-old daughter. The plaintiff has a 16-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. The two girls share a good relationship. The defendant has no other children, and the plaintiff is not presently pregnant. Neither the parties nor the minor child have been the recipient of public assistance. The minor child is insured through the defendant’s employer. The defendant agrees to continue insuring the minor child through his employment.

The marriage has broken down irretrievably with no hope of reconciliation. The plaintiff felt that she has been primarily responsible for raising the parties’ minor child, that the defendant has not been consistently helpful, and that the defendant became emotionally and physically disconnected from the marital relationship. The defendant’s perspective is that he worked hard to take care of the family, including the plaintiff’s older daughter, and that he has helped with household chores when he was not working. He believes that there is hope for the marriage. The Court finds that both parties are responsible for the cause of the breakdown of the marriage.

The parties agree to share joint legal custody of the minor child. Plaintiff/mother is requesting primary physical custody, and although she originally requested final decision-making authority, she withdrew that request at trial. Defendant/father requests shared physical custody, and objects to final decision-making authority. Both parties agree that they communicate well together for the sake of the minor child. Both parties enjoy a particularly close and loving relationship with the minor child. It is in the best interest of the minor child for the parties to share physical custody of the minor child, with neither parent having final decision-making authority.

Plaintiff has customarily been the parent to be available to the minor child before and after school, and is the parent generally responsible for preparation of meals and attending to the child’s homework and extracurricular activities. The defendant occasionally picks the child up from school, and attends to her meals and homework. During the course of the marriage, the parties agreed that the defendant would primarily support the family financially, while the plaintiff’s main role was to take care of the minor child, along with the plaintiff’s other daughter. The defendant has been the primary financial support for the family.

The parties’ daughter attends third grade at a public school which is located directly across the street from the marital home. The school day starts at 8:45 a.m. and ends at 3:20 p.m. She is a good student who has had some difficulty reading, however, her grades have improved with the help of a tutor. The minor child is a happy, healthy, well-adjusted child. Both parents are able to meet the basic needs of the minor child, however, due to father’s work schedule and mother’s anticipated work schedule. (Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), the parties’ parenting time with the minor child will necessarily change. It is in the best interest of the minor child that during the school week, she primarily reside with mother due to father’s work schedule, which requires him to leave for work at 4:00 a.m. Conversely, father’s work schedule allows him to be available to the minor child on school days after school, when mother would not be available once she secures full-time employment.

The parties and the minor child reside together in the marital home, along with the plaintiff’s older daughter. The plaintiff utilizes the girls’ bedroom, and the defendant utilizes the master bedroom. The plaintiff seeks exclusive use and possession of the marital home; the defendant seeks to have the marital home sold. The marital home is located at 20 Rice Street in Meriden. The fair market value of the property is $160, 000, with a mortgage balance of $164, 000. The parties purchased the home in 2014 at a price of $176, 000. They paid a down-payment of $4, 000 and mortgaged the balance of the purchase price. The monthly mortgage payment is $1, 583.31. The property is held in the names of both parties, as is the mortgage. The plaintiff pays the household bills from a joint account into which both parties make deposits.

Plaintiff has a college degree, and works part-time at Yale New Haven Hospital as an Emergency Department Technical Associate. She has worked at Yale for approximately ten years. She is paid $21 per hour, but does not get paid if she does not work. Her net bi-weekly income varies, but averages approximately $950-1, 000, plus weekly child support of $121 received from the father of plaintiff’s eldest daughter. The plaintiff customarily worked only weekends and evenings, however, in the month prior to the trial, she was working weekdays from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She is presently in search of full-time employment working 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with the hope that she would generally be available to the minor child after school. The plaintiff is occasionally employed as a driver for Uber, although she works only one or two hours per week and must pay for her own expenses. The plaintiff has an ability to work 40 hours per week at a rate of $21 per hour; her weekly gross earning capacity is $840. The plaintiff has a college degree in theology, and attended school to become a medical assistant. The plaintiff has no pension or retirement plan. She is in good health.

The parties are each engaged in a business entity called Financial Education Services, or FES. The parties were introduced to FES through an acquaintance at their church. The plaintiff has not, however, realized any substantial income from the business. Her income from FES is contingent upon, and constitutes a percentage of, the defendant’s income. In the six months prior to trial, the plaintiff received a total income of $30 from FES.

Defendant has a high school diploma and attended a university, but did not complete his degree in engineering electronics. He is in good health. He has been employed full-time for the City of New Haven Department of Public Works in excess of fourteen years.^[1] The defendant’s work day begins at 5:00 a.m., and usually ends by 1:00 p.m. He leaves for work at about 4:00 a.m., and generally returns home at some point after 1:00 p.m. His rate of pay is approximately $25 per hour. He is able to work over-time at enhanced pay. His regular gross weekly income is $1, 025.20; his net weekly income is $617.45.^[2] He also receives a yearly longevity payment equal to 1% of his gross income. He is also employed through FES. The defendant has remained active in the business, but receives limited and inconsistent income from the business. The defendant earned on average $175 per week from FES during the period from January through July 2017. The defendant’s income at the City of New Haven and at FES fluctuates. His average gross weekly income from both jobs is $1, 340, which amount reflects his earning capacity. The defendant has a defined benefit pension though the City of New Haven. The contributions to the pension as of the date of trial total $51, 902.

The plaintiff seeks an alimony award in the amount of $200 per week for a period of five years in order to provide her with an opportunity to obtain full-time employment, and for an opportunity to rehabilitate herself financially. The defendant objects to an alimony award to the plaintiff, and is not requesting alimony. The Court finds, based upon the evidence and statutory factors, that an award of alimony in the amount of $150 per week from the defendant to the plaintiff for a period of three (3) years is fair and equitable. The purpose of the alimony award is to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity at financial rehabilitation through securing full-time employment.

The Court shall set forth additional facts as is relevant to its decision.

III. Discussion

A. Minor Child

Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-56 provides that in making 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...